Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes_2008_10_14 203 Brookings City Council October 14, 2008 The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, October 14, 2008 at 5:00 p.m., at City Hall with the following members present: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Members Julie Whaley, Mike Bartley, Ryan Brunnex,Tim Reed,Mike McClemans, and Tom Bezdichek. Acting City Manager Jackie Lanning, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and Deputy City Clerk Bonnie Foster were also present. 5:40 P.M. WORK SESSION SD Long-Term Care Partnershi� Program. The SD Long-Term Care Partnership Program will be making one stop in Brookings on October 23`d. There will be free public education sessions on: how long- term care works,what Medicare and Medicaid pay fox,how to plan ahead,and what to look fox in long-term care insurance. Debartment of Transuortation Land Discussion. Weldon stated to date, discussions have centered on what we need to do to exercise out options by the end of the year; to purchase the property or not. The city entered into an extension agreement with the SDDOT for the pxoperty. The option agreement is for$4 million for the approxirnate 26 acxes on the NE cornex of Highway 14 and Intexstate 29. A draft Request for Proposals (RFPs)was in the council packet. RFPs are used in assessing the interest of various parties (developers,realtors,builders,property owners, etc.) who may be interested in a subsequent end use pxoject. This was developed by Mayor Munsterman and Council Members Bardey and McClemans,who asked City Manager Weldon to put something togethet for council discussion that may serve as a guide in this decision. Weldon estimates a 30-day turnaxound time,if chosen to do so. McClemans felt the$4 million price tag for the propexty is quite strong. The RFP is an opportunity to visit with people with intexest in hotels,restaurants, convenience stores,or other types of retail development. The TIF on this property helps make it more attractive to a private developex. If the original price tag is $4 million,and the infxastructure is covered in a TIF,it is moxe of a$2.5 million purchase for a private individual/developer. However,if the city buys the pxoperty for$4 million, then the TIF is given up and the cost escalates to $5.5 million. The city should be involved, but not as the putchaser,as thexe axe othex places to spend$4 million and he feels the private sector can do a much better job of developing. If there is no public/private interest,it says two things: 1) the economy is not healthy,2) developing a parcel like this is risky and now isn't the right time. A few years ago this pxoperty was handed off to a developer and it didn't develop. The public deserves an opportunity. Bardey xemembered past discussion centering on the idea of having a pre-auction of the land. The auction is the appraisal...price of the land. The city has an option to buy for$4 million,but if the auction only produced$2 million o�$2.5 million, then there would be some serious consideration whether or not to exercise the option to buy for$4 million or reject a bid of$2.5 million and walk away fxom the project. This also is an opportunity to take the highest bidder from an auction, or an RFP. We could then take that paxticulat pxice to the Governor/SDDOT and possibly try to renegotiate that purchase pxice downwatd. It does prove to us what the market value is today if we have some RFI''s come in or ask for bids. Bartley is uncertain if it is legal to do a pre-auction with the ability to reject all bids if they don't meet the$4 million. This would pxesent an idea of what is out there and what isn't out theYe. Baxtley asked Britzman if it was possible to do something of that nature. Britzman stated it would be possible from a legal standpoint. The city clearly has a contractual right to acquite the pxoperty. With that contractual right, the city could pla.n an auction,which is pertnitted under state law, or some other process,because of the legal right to acquire the land. A proceduxal point to note is in the way the contract is written,the city would have to give written notice to the state,not of the desite to exercise the option, this has akeady been done,but the city has to give the SDDOT notice prior to December 315`to terminate the interest in the property. The notice needs to be sent to the state prior to December 315L if chosen not to pursue the land. Baxtley clarified that is why he asked if it was alright to do an auction. An auction is subject to refusal of all bids. It will give us an idea if there is an intexest or not. The RFPs are going to come in at various dollar figures to develop this,this and this,but the information is not legally binding. There is nothing to fall back on. If there's a way we can do an auction legally and reject or accept zo � the bids, and determine if the nature of the offer is economic development that is beneficial to the community and it moves the property quicker and helps the developer, rather than going in the private hands where it could potentially sit. He would much rather see that option,hopefully not costing the City of Brookings taxpayers very much money, to have the property developed and not sitting vacan� If the city doesn't exercise the option to buy the property and notifies the state as such,Bardey sees two options for the state: 1) hang on to the land until such time the state feels it would be more valuable,which would pnssibly be a long-term thing where it would just sit there, and that would be an eyesore for the City of Brookings and it wouldn't be economically beneficial,and 2) conduct an auction. If it did go to an auction opportunity, the state would end up with the same situation we've got, except for the fact that there's no control over who putchases it at that point in time. It could then again sit if somebody of ineans bought it and decided to sit on it for 15 years before they develop it and let the properry value go up to recoup the purchase price. 'That situation scares him a litde bit. The city does have some control over the property with the Planned Development District overlay,which was requested by the SDDOT several yeaxs back. The PDD was approved by the Planning Commission to protect the property from having sometivng developed that wouldn't be good for the city in that location. We need to establish a value quickly before we throw $4 million to this and then we sit on it for 5-10 yeaxs before we recoup our funds back by selling it. The question becomes are we in economic development or are we in real estate? You have to have one to get the other...he just doesn't know which one comes first. Bardey would like to see a Yealistic valuation of this pxoperty and doesn't know if an appraiser would get that as fast as an auction would. If an auction is held, the city would be in the surplus properry statutes according to Britzman. The high bidder takes the property if the city does not xeject the bid. The buyex's use of the property is at their discxetion,because it was disposed of as surplus property. It is just a matter of who pays the most for it regaxdless of what their use of the propexty is. Zoning would be the onlp stipulation. Brunner asked if the State did an appraisal, and asked if the city had done its own appraisal at toda�s value. McClemans commented the state won't admit to having an appraisal done. He does not want to be in a position where tax payer money is spent to get something going. He doesn't like the auction situation,unless possibly the city is one of the bidders. He wants the property developed, but doesn't want someone to buy just speculating. As part of the RFP,we want something to happen. We want somebody to say they are bringing`this'to the package and are going to pay this fox the property and the city is going to be involved from a TIF standpoint. This is at least a good opportunity to see where the market is, and what people's ideas are. The city is not in the development business. This is 26 acres ... larger than the atea on the south side of 6`�Street that has Applebee's and four hotels. This needs to be developed, and developed right. Several pears ago he didn't agree in making it a PDD. PDDs control the zoning,but also cause the property to be worth less. PDDs restrict what you can do with it, and consequently it restricts what people are willing to pay for it. McClemans recommends to pull the PDD. The city would still have conttol of what happens to the property,but it shows flexibility. There is a need and a time for PDDs,but doesn't know if this is the right time. Brunner sees a need to measure the interest in the propertq. If the ciry putchases this property fox $4 million, then lets it sit undeveloped,it's not doing any good. If somebody other than the city purchases it and speculates on it/holds it, at least it is on the tax roles and contributing to property taxes. He doesn't want the ciry to buy the property and then have trouble having someone come in and develop it. McClemans stressed this needs to be a joint effort that makes sense for both the city and economic development in the city. The Request for Proposals gives a chance to look at some things and not do them if they don't make sense or are not a good proposal. He posed the thought of not purchasing the property at all because of the cost. Weldon questioned how likely are these parties to submit this information fot feat of tipping their hand in future negotiations. The information is not legally binding,rather trying to see what is out there,but he is wondering how it will be received by these parties. We are trying to get their attention. It gets to the liability of doing that. Weldon is not sure if what he has written captures that intent and wants to be sure it is a good process. Bartley stated the TIF adds some short-term value even though it is active now and on a time frame. The only options axe to cancel it before anything happens,which could be done and start over again 20 � with a different developeY or not depending on the needs. If someone were to buy it, the TIF stays there,irregatdless. If the purchaser wants to take advantage of the TIF, they will have to act quickly, as it is on a 5-year time period. If the property coula be developed in under 5 years, the TIF ina.y give an extra leverage issue. Brunner didn't realize the clock was running on the TIF. Weldon clarified it is a 5-year knock down rule,which gives one 5 years to complete the improvements that are eligible fox TIF reimbuxsement once the District is ceztified. The District was certified in 2007, leaving 3 years left in order to complete construction. McClemans agreed with Bartley, that the TIF is a good draw. $1.5 is a pretty good number that makes the buy-down more accessible with access to the TIF. In moving forward,infxastructure needs to be in and hopefully it will then deveZop a bit faster. He asked Britzman if these Request for Proposals come in, and with Weldon's concerns,who has to look at them? Do they have to be made public, or can they be reviewed privately? The public records rule states if the records are required to be maintained, then it is a public recoxd. That is the fundamental rule. There would have to be some public discussion on these to be of any benefit,which would make the document public. Britzman doesn't know how the city could move forward without these being public documents. The most sensitive item in the document would be the price. Thexe is uncertainry if the price is essential as the first step in the process, or maybe it is the timing. Maybe allow pricing to be an issue discussed at a later time and try to determine how soon they would be able to move forward in terms of the development of the project as a substitute to the last line. The last dollar amount does create the open real-difficult area in terms of confidentialiry. These documents would have to be an open xecord in order for them to be of any real value. Anything submitted to the City where there will be public discussion is considered a public record. One needs to look at the context in the way it is going to be used, and the reason why these documents a,re being requested to be submitted. Britzman can't imagine referring to a document in discussions,that he as City Attorney reviewed, of which somebody submitted to the city requesting that it be confidential. If there are discussions about it,he has questions as to whethex the confidentiality of the record can be maintained or should be maintained. Weldon stated his concerns would possibly be alleviated by Britzman's suggestion if we were to not talk about the dollar amount. If we were to just take this project at a 10-thousand foot level,look at development concepts, set the money issue aside for a minute and look at some posit�ve redevelopment efforts. Look at the what-ifs before getting bogged down in exactly what the cost is going to be and how much TIF might be generated or available. This might be more receptive on the part of the person wishing to submit something. Brunner asked about working with BEDC on the RFPs. If BEDC looked at the RFP's, that would prevent anyone from tipping their hat, and asked if that was a possibility. A1 Heuton, BEDC Director, stated that that is a possibility if the council wanted to work through BEDC in oxder to maintain some confidentiality. BEDC is willing to serve in that capacity. Weldon stated it might help generate more interest. It is an excellent idea if the council determines it would help the process out. Bezdichek directed his comments to opposing this entite conversation. His initial concern when looking at purchasing this was as if there are already some speculators, some developers in line. He strongly suggests the city write a letter to SDDOT by Dec. 31 and withdraw the request for puxchase. He stated government is to do what the gavernment is to do, and that is setting up a TIF District, changing zoning, and working with the Planning Commission. For any developer that is looking at Brookings right now, they have to understand Brookings is bursting at the seams with development. He doesn't believe that anyone would buy it to speculate and sit on it. It isn't necessarily right to spend taxpayer's dollars on this property. There are current projects now such as the drainage plan, decisions regarding the airport, the possible hospital/nursing home expansion that could use that money. For the council to deliberate and take a certain amount of time on how to determine how it should be developed,whethex it should be auctioned,whether to take sealed bids...it seems as though it is more as to what a private developer should do. We are seeing right now a large developer out of Sioux Falls, Craig Lloyd Co., coming to Brookings working with Dennis Bielfeldt. Those developers are out there and they axe watching what is going on in Brookings. He has no interest in doing anything with this pxoperty. Bezdichek doesn't believe that when you talk about the $4 million it is at all in the best interest of Brookings' taxpayers. His sole 20 � suggestion is to,by December 31$`,write the SDDOT,rescind the offer to purchase, and let them do all this stuff we are talking about. Brunner stated the only problem would be if the state decided to hold that land, or transfer it to another government entity, then it wouldn't be developed at all. He would like to see BEDC or someone explore what is out there, then help facilitate that development. If there's nothing out there at a reasonable price or within our means,it is something where he doesn't think we should spend$4 million £or that properry either. Bezdichek clarified that the state is Brookings. He can't believe there isn't any dialogue we can have with the state. The state is going to say,well,we're going to speculate, so for the next 15 years we are going to hold that with the idea that the value is going up. The state is us, the state is Brookings. He would like to think that the state would have the best interest of Brookings. He would like to believe the state has our best interest in mind. McClemans reminded the council this conversation started over concerns that the city doesn't buy this property. He has no desire to spend$4 million and try to develop it. By doing it this way,there is an opportunity to point it in a direction,and still have time to do just what you're saqing. He is willing to give someone a shot if they want to do a proposal that keeps the City neutral. Bartley asked Al Heuton if he had anq comments about the entire concept of what should be done about that entire piece of property. A1 Heuton stated the idea to plot out the pxoposals to potential developers is a good idea. If you have somebody that comes back with a proposal with or without a price,at least you have something to consider. BEDC has been involved in retail recnutment within the community, and has been working on some big boxes as potential anchors or tenants on that pxoperty. With the retail market the way it is right now, this is a smart move to see what kind of interest might be out there. Bezdichek asked Heuton what is the difference between the SDDOT or the City of Brookings conta.cting you? If the SDDOT has a developer interested in Brookings,wouldn't they contact you? Heuton commented it would be interesting to see an appraisal on the property and see if it is worth the requested$4 million. If this property goes back to the SDDOT,we don't know what they are going to do with it;use it for some other purpose, sell it, sit on it. If they decide to sell it,what occurs with that is only as good as your ability to negotiate. Pianned Development Districts (PDDs) have some drawbacks,but would recommend not opening it up to the SDDOT or any othex party without the development controls the PDD has,but rather writing a different type of zoning district for that land as the business zoning districts the City of Brookings has are a bit too broad for this property. Bezdicheck restated his point that if someone is interested in coming to Brookings,he has to believe they are going to contact BEDC first. They have to contact BEDC if they want to know what is happening. Why is the ciry doing the legwoxk when the SDDOT could be? Heuton stated it is his hope that one would contact BEDC if they are interested in Brookings. However,if neither the city nor BEDC has control of the pxoperty,he is not sure how to negotiate the land deal with SDDOT other than to send interested parries to Piexre to deal with SDDOT. ACTION: Motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Brunner,to direct the City Manager and BEDC Executive Director,A1 Heuton,with City Attorney Britzman's legal advice, to put the proposal process in place and to bring proposals back to the council by the first meeting in December. Council Di.rcu.rsion: Brittirnan commented thi,r i.r a novel pmcedur�, so we u�ould rvant to tell them�vhat it i.r and�vhat it i.r not. It i.r not a binding propo.ral, but rather information gathering to acces.r the level of intere.rt in the community, but i.r not a binding commitment r�rpon either par y. Thi.r i.r more or le.cr information to utilitie a.r a tool for the czty, and a.rked the council if that wa.c a characteri1ation the councid u�ould ag�e rvith. Ye.r. Bartley.rtated that rvould be proper characteritiation. McCleman.r would like to pn.r.ribdy add an amendment to the motion to change the Zoning from a PDD to B3 or whatever. A PDD for a developer rvork.r again.rt svhat hi.r abilitie.r are. You can get a lot of tho.re answer.r, but he think.r a PDD...obviou.rly the.rtate doe.rn't have to follou�our tionin� but he think.r it make.r thepmperly more attractive. He will wait and make a.re�iamte motion after di.rcu.rrion. 207 Bartley clarified, a.r a point of order, that i.r a�oning reque.rt and need.r to go through the proper channel.r with the Planning Commi.r�ion. If that were to happen, the council can't make that change here thi.r evening McCleman.r .rtatedyou can't wait until November or December, whenever they meet next. Bartley argued that the council can't change it. McCleman.r.rtated he would like to then make the recommendation to the Planning Commi.r�ion. Weldon.ceconded Bartley'.r concern. There i.r a proce.r.c for re1oning and hearing.r would have to be held. Bartley i.r right, that timeline i.c not conducive to svhat ive are trying to do here. You can't.rhort-circuit that proce.cr legally. We can alway.r do that at a later time. Whaley a,rked about putting in the BFP a que.rtion/comment regarding po.r.rible tioning change.r to meet the developer'r need.r. Give them the option if they want to leave the�oning a.r i.r, or change it to u�hatever rvould best fit their propo.ral. McClemans doe.rn't know if an amendment i,r needed if itgoe.r thmugh all the channel.r, but would add an amendment that conclude.r tbat there i.r.rome openne.rr to the tioning. The PDD doe.rn't make it a.r attractive. The availability to change the tioning or recon.cider tioning make.r.rense. Bartley di.ragreed that sve avould make thi.c amendment becauseyou can'tprecondition the.re thing.r�vith action that i.r not nece.r.rarily reque.rted nor acted upon through the proper channels. W>hatyou're telling the Planning Commi.rrion i.r, by the way, ive told everybody that we are open to retioning thi.r. Everybody understand.r that�vhen they buy property, there'r a proce.r.r to go through if they svant to re�one the property to make it another u.re. The document obviourly ha.r to tell them tvhat the tioning currently i.r and what a Planned Development Di.rtrict i.r and doe,rn't need to go any further than that. He think.r 2ve are getting dolvn to the admini.rtrative thing.r that are in the document and he think.r that the City Attorney and the City Manager can handle that. McCleman.r commented if itgoe.r to the Planning Commisrion in it.r tim�ame and whether they appmve or di.rapprove, it.rtfll come.r to the council to approve or not approve the�oning change. He want.r thi.r viewed a.r a recommendation. A PDD detract.r from the value. Change the�oning to the mo.rt attractive tioning. Dan Hanson, Planning er Zoning Admini.rtrator, clarified that PDD.r are very common an larger citie.r. A PDD allozv.r develoj�err flexibility in designing pmject.r. Mr.McCleman.r referred to an apprai.rer, but a�rai.ter.c are not planner.r. All they look at i.r the highe.rt and be.rt u.re af the proper y, svhich i.r not a planning principle...that i.c a .redling princij�le. The PDD wa.c done becau.re zt matche.r the Comprehen.rive Plan forgateway.r. Thi.r property i.r a very importantgateway to Brooking.c We u�ould like it to be very ae.rthetic, .ro�ve put a PDD on it, which the.ctate ble.rsed. The SDDOT didn't have an is.rue�rith that. PDD.r are very practical and functional. In many large citie.r, very large area.r are u.red for PDD,r. It i.r a very good planning tool to u.re. There are no re.rtriction.r, no underlined tioning e.rtabli.rhed. Currently, anybody can do anything zvith that PDD;they can reque.rt r��idential, retail, or indu.rtrial. A PDD i.r.rimply an overlay that allolv.r for a mi.�ctur�nf u.re.r. There i.c no.raid tioning on thi.r df.ctrict. That i.r why we did it urith a PDD. McCleman.r clarified that that i.r hi.c point, if it i.r tioned B3 or svhateveryou r�commend, then they avill have an idea of the tioning. Hi.r problem tvith PDDs i.r that one doe.rn't knou�what they've been�oned. He under.rtand.c the flexibility, but a developer doesn't know u�hat they an getting into. Han.ren stated they have the abidity to a,rk. McCleman.r argued that devedoper,r are to put forth a propo.ral and.ree svhatyou tell them they can do. He.cee.r that a.r handicapj�ing the perron�vith an idea, a.r they�vild not knou�if they coudd do u�hat they�vant to do for a develapment. W/e�vant the be.ct u.re of the pmperty. The PDD handicap.r whoever. Keed.rtated it i.r lvide open a.r to�vhat they can do. Thi.r i.r an i.r.rue we can revi�it af we feel we need to change it. They can.rtill fill out the.re I�FP.r The que,rtion i.r when it come.r time for them to execute anything, that we u�ostld Jvant to make.rure that we can e.xpedite what they svould like to do. McClemans.rtated that i.r hi.r point, rvith the PDD,you have to come to the Planning Commi.r�ion to get an approvad to get the plan.rtarted. Yosr a�really asking people to bring ur their be.rt thing and they don't know if they can do their be.rt thing. We can take it o�'a PDD and ave can put it back to a PDD, but in doing thi,r kind ofpmpo.ral, you're really not he pingyourrelf. Kaed.rtated the tioning doe.rn't have to be changed at the beginning of thi.r pmpo.ral prnce.cr, becau.ce that is notgoing to change what they may bring to u.r. He a.rked McCleman.r if that made.rense. McClemans.rtated no. Han.ren.ray.c it i.r avide open. A.ryou bringyour be.rtproposalforward,you don't know whatyaur tioning i.r;that handica�i.ryou. You won't get this propo.ra!by the fir.rt of December ifyou're.rtill harrdcu�'cng people tvith u�hat the Zoning i.r. You'r� r�ally not doingyourrelf anygood. Bartley clarifzed for Counczl MemberMcClemans that thi.r properly i.r notgoing to have ju.rt one tiane. It i,rgoing to be divided up into d�er�ntparcel�svith d�erent�oning. Under a PDD there it the ability to da all that. Under McCleman.r prnpo.rad, it rvould all be B4 or whatever, and then they have to come in and a.ck for it to be re�oned anyivay. The value of the land i.r not a.r important to the government a.r i.r the control of the development. 20 � I�eed interrupted atating we knoav rve want to get ihe propo.ral proce.r.r going fonvard. He believe.r that i.r the mo.rt importantpart here and there may be more di.rcu.r�ion to.ree how we.rhouldgo fonvard ivith the�oning of that prnperty. He feel.r that i.r a fair di.rcu.r�ion and a.rked McCleman.r if there wa.r any amendment he wanted to add. AMENDMENT: Motion was made by McClemans, seconded by Whaley, to recommend to the Planning Commission to change the zoning from a PDD. Bartley made a point of order that state law doesn't allow us to make recommendations to the Planning Commission. Council Di.rcu.r�ion on Amendment.• Brunner i.r concerned svith the way the amendment would be Zvorded, it would have to go to the Planning Commis�ion and by the time itgot to the Planning Commi.r.rion and back to the counczl, it svould already be pa.rt the December deadline for AFP.r. Before the Planning Commi.r.rinn u�ould take action on it, it would come back up to the council. W/e�vould already be pa.rt the point where people would be turning in their KFP.r. If it i.r done now, or in a month or tivo, it i.r nothing that i.rgoing to aff'ect the R.FP prrr�ce.r.r. He a.rked if he was under.rtanding that timeline correctly. Somebody can't wait around to put in their RFP until they.ree what happen.r urith the tioning. They ar�going to have to be developing it already. McCleman.r agr�ed with Brunner. The flexibility to loak at what i.r available make.r it u�ork better and svill getyou a better result. The PDD leave.ryou�vaiting to see if it would be a B2,B3 or svhatever. It doe.r have fleaac�ibility, and a lot ofgood thingr, butyou are a.rking for the be.rt propo.ralyou can get. Whaley r�.rponded with the people bringing in the propotal with the amendment on it, that�vay if they are looking at a certain pmject, they coudd contact Dan Hansen and vi�zt�vith him.ro that he avould have the knou�ledge of u�hat Zoning would be needed. That wa.r ju.rt an opening.rtep to get more people intere.rted in thi.r pmper[y.ro rve can get it taken care of by the end of the year. BeZdichek want.r all to under.rtand that he will be voting again.rt the amendment and avill be voting again.rt the motion becau.re of thi.r SO minute convercation on a piece of p�nper y that we don't orvn. He cannot underrtand rvhy rve take .co much time�vhen the SDDOT could be doing it. On the amendment, Bezdicheck and Bartley voted no; Reed, Brunner, McClemans, and Whaley voted yes; amendment passes. On the main motion as amended,to direct the City Manager and BEDC Executive Director, A1 Heuton,with City Attorney Britzman's legal advice,to put the proposal process in place and to bring proposals back to the council by the first meeting in December, and recommend to the Planning Commission to change the zoning from a PDD, Bezdicheck voted no;Bartley,McClemans,Whaley, Brunner and Reed voted yes; motion passes. Preliminary discussion to schedule 2009 Goal Setting Retreat Reed asked the council to let staff know what days of the week will defuutely not work for them. Want to have this process done by the end of February. Bartley would like to include the public sector to that format eithex in a morning or afternoon. All agreed the facilitator fxom last yeax worked well. Weldon will see if he is available. 6:00�.m. Meeting Review. The City Manager Lesponded to questions pertaining to the action items on the agenda. C�Clerk Re��ort• Bonnie Foster,�eputy City Clerk,provided a briefing on upcoming invitations and obligations. Ci�„y Council member introduction of to�ics for future discussion Bartley and Whaley both requested discussion regarding a policy on tax increment financing districts. Weldon stated the draft TIF policy is almost completed and will be added as a regular agenda item foz the October 28`h meeting. 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Consent Agenda: Agenda item#16A,report on the Long-Term Care Task Force meeting was added to the agenda. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by McClemans to approve the agenda as amended,which included: A Action to approve the agenda, as amended. B. Action to approve the August 12, September 9 and September 23 City Council minutes. C. Action on Resolution No. 85-08,revising fees for various city services. RESOLUTION NO.85-08 209 A RESOLUTION REVISING FEES OF THE CITY OF BROOKINGS,SOUTH DAKOTA. WHEREAS the fines,fees,and procedures pertaiiung to services of the City of Brookings shall be revised and adopted annually, AND WHEREAS the City of Brookings requires weed xemoval,the Parks service fees shall be adopted, AND WHEREAS street and sidewalk snow xemoval is requixed under Section 74-212,r�xticle 5 of Chapter 74,the Street Department service fees shall be adopted undei Section 74-213, AND WHEREAS the Engineer Department building permit fees xequired undex service fees shall be adopted,under Section 22-35,Article II of Chapter 22 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings shall be revised, AND WHEREAS planning and zoning application fees required under Section 66-3 of Chaptex 66 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Brookings shall be revised, AND WHEREAS the Code Enfoicement Ordinance 33-08 was adopted,the Code Enforcement fees shall be adopted, AND WHEREAS the�irport Board is xecommending fees for land leases and fuel flowage the fees shall be adopted, AND WHEREAS the Code of Ordinances of the Ciry of Bxookings under Section 344,rirticle 1 of Chapter 34,fees fox senrices by the Fire Department shall be adopted, BE IT RESOLVED that the fees be adopted as follows: Parks,Recreation, &Fores Weed Control lus contractor cost $25.00 Mowin 1S�hour $60.00 each additional hour or fraction $35.00 each additional hour lar e axea $50.00 Brookin s Street De arrmenr Sidewalk Snow Removal $100.00/Hr(1 Hr Minimum) --Fixst Offense Plus Sales Tax Sidewalk Snow Removal $150.00/Hi(1 Hr Minimum) --Re eat Offense Plus Sales Tax Sign Repairs Replacement Cost,Plus Labor,Sales Tax,and --Traffic�lccidents Excise Tax --Vandalism Street Re airs Re lacement Cost for Materials Brookings City Engineei's Department Residential Building Permit Fees: The base valuation to determine pernut fees fox xesidential buildings and additions are based on a dollai pex squaie foot schedule per the following. The bid price must be quoted fox renovations or remodels. Dwellings: Single-family dwellings,duplexes,townhouses: Finished habitable s ace er s uaze foot $65.00 Finished basements ex s uaxe foot $24.00 Unfuushed s ace asement and u er levels er s uare foot $18.00 ttached ara es er s uate foot �20.00 Detached ara es er s uare foot $18.00 Building Permit Fee Schedule Grou R-3 and U Occu ancies Onl : Total Valuation Fees $1.00-1,200.00 $20.00 $1,200.01-2,000.00 $10.00 for the first$500 plus$1.50 for each additional$100 or fraction thereof,to and includin $2,000,for valuations in excess of�1,100. �2,000.01 -25,000.00 $32.50 for the first$2,000 plus$6.00 fos each additional$1,000 or fraction theieof, to and includin $25,000. �25,000.01-50,000.00 $170.50 foz the first$25,000 plus$4.50 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof,to and includin $50,000. $50,000.01 - 100,000.00 �283.00 for the first$50,000 plus$3.00 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof,to and includin $100,000. $100,000.01 and up �433.00 for the first$100,000 plus j2.50 fox each addirional�1,000 or fraction theceof. �ommeccial Building Permit Fees: Commercial Building Permit Fee Schedule Groups A,B,E,F,H,I,M,S,Group R Division 1's and Division 2's (including Group U's accessory to the R-1 and R-2 occu ancies : Total Valuation Fees $1 -700.00 $20.00 �700.01 to 2,000.00 For values in excess of$700.00,$15.00 for the first$500.00,plus;2.00 for each additional$100.00 or fraction thereof,to and includin $2,000.00 $2,000.01 to 25,000.00 $45.00 for the first$2,000 plus$9.00 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof,to and includin $25,000. $25,000.01 to 50,000.00 $252.00 fox the first$25,000 lus$6.50 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof, 21 � to and includin $50,000. $50,000.01 to 100,000.00 �414.50 for the fust$50,000 plus�4.50 fox each additional$1,000 or fxaction thereof, to and includin $100,000. �100,000.01 to 500,000.00 �639.50 for the first$100,000 plus$3.50 for each addirional$1,000 or fxacrion thereof,to and includin $500,000.00 $500,000.01 to 1,000,000.00 �2�039.50 foi the first$500,000 plus$3.00 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof,to and includin $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 and up �3,539.50 for the fust$1,000,000 plus$2.00 for each additional$1,000 or fraction thereof. Other Inspecrions and Fees: Ins ections outside normal business hours er hour m;,,;mum chax e of one hour $45.00 Ins ection for which no fee is s ecificall indicated er hour minimum char e of 1/2 houx $45.00 Re-ins ection fees assessed undex rovisions of Section R108 IRC and 108 IBC er hour $45.00 Drivewa ,demolition,window re lacement and other minor construction er ermit $25.00 Ins ection fees assessed for movin of house $50.00 Planning and Zoning Chan e of Zone �230.00 Planned Develo ment District $230.00 Final Develo ment Plan $100.00 a'or 1�mendment $230.00 Minor Amendment $75.00 oard of!1d'ustment $100.0 ielimina Plats $150.00 Final Plats $100.0 acation $150.00 I-1R Site Plan $100.00 Conditional Use �175.0 Zonin &Use Re �stration Permit ;50.00 ental License -- er structure �15.00 --for each dwellin unit for buildin with 7 or fewer units �2.00 --for each dwellin unit for buildin with 8 or more units $1.00 Lease Buildin /in art oi whole $15.00 Leased dwellin /7 units or less char e er unit within a buildin $2.00 Leased dwellin /8 units oi mose char e er unit within a buildin $1.00 Code Enforcement Code Enfozcement Investi�ation per hour(1 hour minimwn) $45.00 Tndtstrial L.ands Crop Land Lease Based on Bid current lease: $105/acie cro ,$40/acie ha land Land I.ease ez s uare foot $.11 Fuel Flowage per gallon FBO: �0.0G er on Others: $0.06 Crop land I.ease Based on Bid current lease: $72/acre cro ,$40/acre ha land Fire Protection S stems Fees Fite S rinklex S stems ;75.00 lus�.45 er s rinklex head Retsofitted Fire S rinkler S stems $75.00 lus s.45 er s rinkler head Kitchen Hood Extin 'shin S stems �90.00 Kitchen Hood Extin 'shin S stem Modification �45.00 Clean�gent oz other Total Flooding System pez square foot of covered area �.20 Fire rllarm S stems $75.00+�.45 each initiation&si alin device Fire�latm S stem Modifications $37.50+$.45 each initiation&si alin device $0.00 First Call False Fire�llarm Calls when tnxcks xoll $50.00 Second Call $100.00 Third Call Flammable&Combustible Li uids Flammable&Combustible Li uids $90.00 Flammable&Combustible Li uids Modifications $45.00 Site Plan Review 211 Site Plan Review er hour one hour minimum $45.00 . Inspections outside of normal business hours per hour(two hour muumum �45.00 Re-ins ection er hour one houx minimum �45.00 D. Action on Resolution No. 86-08, a Resolution setting forth a schedule of proposed Fines, Fees and Procedures pertaining to the keeping and control of animals in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Resolution No. 86-08 A Resolution setting forth a schedule of Proposed Fines, Fees and Procedures pertaining to the Keeping and Control of Animals in the City of Brookings, South Dakota. BE IT RESOLVED by the Ciry Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota,that the following Schedule of Proposed Fines,Fees and Procedures shall be effective as of the date of this Resolution for all violations of Ordinances set forth herein. SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED FINES,FEES AND PROCEDURES Section ffense Fine/Fee/Procedure 14-2 Unwanted animals. $10.00 per head accepta.nce fee 14-3 Disturbance of peace. $25.00 14-4 Animals on school grounds properry or recreation $25.00 areas. 14-6 Number of pets limited. $20.00 14-7 Unattended animals in standing or parked vehicles. $50.00 14-8 Stray,abandoned or unkept animals. $25.00 14-9 Public nuisance. $25.00 14-41 Cruelty to animals generally. $100.00 14-42 Teasing, baiting or haxassing. $25.00 14-43 Humane care of animals. $25.00 14-44 Poisoning of animals. $100.00 14-45 Instigating or allowing fights between animals. $200.00 14-47 Restraint of animal in a vehicle. $25.00 14-83 Swine. $25.00 per head 14-85 Keeping of bees. $50.00 14-87 Livestock running at large. $25.00 per head 14-88 Fowl at large. $25.00 per head 14-89 Picketing. $25.00 14-121 Dogs running at large. 15`License$10.00 15`Unlicensed$25.00 Znd$3�J.O� . 3`�and subsequent offenses $50.00 14-122 Impoundment of dogs. $20.00 per impoundment 14-123 Disturbance of the peace. $25.00 14-125 Defecation disposal. $25.00 14-126 Vicious or biting dogs. 15L offense$100.00 2°a offense $200.00 3`�offense$200.00 and Animal fo�feited 14-127 Guard dogs. $50.00 failure to post warning 14-153 Rabies vaccination required. $50.00 14-154 Fee. $5.00 Altered&Have Proof $10.00 Unaltered 14-157 Dog or cat to weax tag. $10.00 14-182 Impoundment fees. $20.00 per head �10.00 per daq feed/care 14-187 Pickup and transportation fee. $25.00 per anitnal 14-221 Registration requited. $50.00 failute to register 14-223 Running at laxge. 15`Offense$100.00 2°a Offense$200.00 3`d Offense$200 and Animal forfeited 14-224 Prohibited generally. ' $100.00&Seizure of animal 14-227 Owner to report escape of dangexous animals or $100.00 212 animals not indigenous to State. 14-230 Animals declared as a biting, dangerous or vicious $100.00 animal prohibited. E. Action on Resolution No. 87-08,setting the Unit Financial Charge for 2009 Storm Drainage Fees. Resolution No. 87-08 Setting the Unit Financial Charge for 2009 Storm Drainage Fees WHEREAS,Chapter 72,Section 72-1 (b), of Code of Ordinances for the City of Bxookings, provides for setting the unit financial charge of Storm Drainage,by Resolution. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the unit financial charge shall be .00036 for Storm Drainage purposes. F. Action on Resolution No. 88-08, authorizing the City Manager to sign a Wine Operating Agreement renewal for Old Sanctuary. Resolution No. 88-08 Old Sanctuary Wine Operating Agteement BE IT RESOLVED by the city of Brookings,South Dakota, that the City Council hereby approves a Lease Agreement for a Wine Operating Management Agreement between the City of Brookings and the Old Sanctuary,Dennis Bielfeldt,owner, fox the purpose of a manager to operate the on-sale establishment or business for and on behalf of the City of Brookings at the Old Sanctuary. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City,which shall be for a period of ten years with a renewal in five (5)years. G. Action on bids for snow removal equipment for Street Department. Bids were opened on September 23 for the annual snow removal equipment bid awazds. Three 3)Blades with win�: Bowes Construction was awarded bids on their motor graders with hourly rates of$145.00 (with chains) and$135.00 (no chains). One (1) 3-to 6-Yard Loader: Bowes Construction was awazded the bid on their 5-cubic yard loader with an hourly rate of$140.00. One (1) Loader with Reversible Blade: Prunty Construction was awarded the bid on their JD624H reversible plow with an hourly rate of$175.00. Twelve (12)End-Dump Trucks: Prussman Contracting was awarded the bid for 4 vehicles, #20 for$95/hr, #21 for$95/hr,#22 for$95/hr,#23 for$95/hr; GCC Ready Mix was awarded for 2 vehicles, #5050 for$110.00/hr and $5060 for$110.00/hr.; Bowes Construction was awarded the bid for 3 vehicles,#T7 for$90/hr,#T23 for$90/hr and #T24 for$90/hr; and Prunty Construction was awarded bid for 3 vehicles, #28 for$90/hr, #29 for$90/hr, and#24 $90/hr. No other bids were received. Air,_,port Snow Removal: No bids were received for Airport snow removal. On the motion, all present voted yes;motion carried. Presentation of Bike Route Pro on sal by SDSU Student Senate. Chris Daugaard,President of the SDSU Student Association and SA Vice-President Eric Hansen gave the following presentation to the City Council. They would for the City Council to look at the ideas of bike lanes in the city. They have come up with a proposal for the Council to consider. Phase I would include: • 7�'Ave. to Medary Ave. along 11�'St. (Berg&Bailey Halls to Medary Ave.) • North Campus Drive to 8`''St. along Medary Ave. (campus thoroughfare) • Western Ave. to 20�'Ave. along 8�'St (run the lengrh of 8`h St. connecting many neighborhoods with the intersections of 8`�St. /Medary Ave. and 8�'St. / 16`�Ave.) • 8�`St. to 3�St. along 20�'Ave. (connecting the neighborhoods furthex south to 8�'St.) 213 • 9�' St. to 11�' St. along 22°d Ave. (connecting the Blue apartments to 11`�St.) • 16`h Ave. to 22°`'Ave. along 11Lh St. (brining the 22°d Ave. traffic to the NE corner of campus) • 3`d St. to 9``' St. along 12`''Ave. (providing for an alternative North/South route keeping bikes off of Medary Ave.) • 15L Ave. to Medary Ave. along Harvey Dunn St. Daugaard explained they axe trying to link with major transportation avenues to hit strategic points on campus. The routes have been designed to hit the major University residential areas for students and others that flow in to the university community, and also to help provide funnels from other areas of the community. The University Plan. This plan was developed working with the SDSU Physical Plant. Birycle routes will be utilizing existing wider sidewalks, and will be widening some sidewalks to accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic. Currently, campus has around 1,200 spots for bicycles in bike racks and on any given day those racks are 75% full. Thirty locations for additional bike racks have been identified,which is an additiona1804 spots of capacity. By this time next year, there will be bike racks to accommodate 2,000 bikes on campus. Proposed Complete Plan for the City of Brookings. This plan was drawn up by a former Student's Association Senator and member of the Transportation Committee,Andrew Nat2e1. This is a pxoposed conceptual idea how to move bike traffic through the City of Brookings,hitting all major locations. 1"his is a long-term goal Brookings could strive fox, one that connects both the North/South and East/West parts of the city together in an integrated bicycle transportation system. Phase One Cost. They used the Safe Routes to School Grant esti.mates of$4/square foot for the painting and striping of lines,along with the cost for accessories such as stencils and bike racks, and put together those numbers for a cost estimate for this project. Dean Kattleman, SDSU Physical Plant Director,if given pernussion,is willing to do the striping of sevexal of the adjacent city streets by campus out of his own budget and with his own striping crew. Those streets would be Medary Ave. from 8`�'St. to North Campus Drive, 11`�St. from Medary Ave. to 7`"Ave., 8�'St. from Medary Ave. to 16�'Ave., and 11�' St. and 22°d Ave. over to 11`�'St. and 16�' Ave. The cost of striping would be$38,016. With the funding the University is doing for thear own streets and sidewalks, additional bike xacks,it totals to $110,572.00 worth of contributions SDSU is willing to make to this project,which leaves approximately$68,000 for the rest of Phase I to be covered by the city or other individuals or entities. Total Phase I cost is $178,656.00 using the estimates of the Safe Routes to School. This is a list of the main routes in the long-term plan,not including the alternative routes: • 3`a St. and Main Ave. to 3� St. and 22"d Ave. • 8`�' St. So. and 22°d Ave. to 8''' St. Sol.And Main Ave. • 12`�St. So. and Main Ave. to 12�' St. So. and 22"a Ave. • 6`''St. and Main Ave. to 8'� St. and Main Ave. • 11`�St. and 7�'Ave. to 3`�St. and 7�'Ave. � 2nd St. So. and 7`''Ave. to 12�'St. So. and 7�'Ave. � 8�' St. So. and Medary Ave. to 15`�St. So. and Medary Ave. • 3`�St. and 12`�Ave. to Orchard Dr. and 12`h Ave. • 3`d St. and 17`�Ave. to 12�'St. So. and 17�'Ave. • Orchard Dr. and Medary Ave. to Orchard Dr. and 22°d Ave. • 2"a St. and 6�'Ave. to 2°d St. and 7�'Ave. • 3`a St. and 6`�'Ave. to 2°d St. So. and 6`y'Ave. The total cost of these routes is approximately$208,616. The total cost of the entire project is $287,272. In completing just Phase I, the entite project would be over half-way complete. Daugaard shared some drawings how the bike lakes would be incorporated onto the streets. Streets that a,re wide enough to have the standard 4-foot wide designated birycle lanes,but some streets are not wide enough,and therefore would be shared bicycle/vehicle lanes. 21 � Daugaard stated they have been working with Robb Rasmussen, Sioux River Cyclery and Bxookings Transpoxtation Committee member representing the bicycle community on this plan. In November, thexe will be a seminar on campus relating to bicycle planning and planning for bicycle ttansportation and commuting. Participants will include those who worked on the Sioux Falls bike lanes and also those who worked on Rapid City's bike applications. This type of development is very beneficial for the areas of economic development because it provides the city with an image of forward-thinking,and provides these types of amenities for citizens. When you think of places such as Madison,WI, the type of public relations that cities get from this type of a project is really phenomenal. It has a very positive impact on yout communiry. There axe many organizations whose primary goal is to advance or benefit the health of communities. The bike trails are a paxk/recreation type thing. These bike lanes are specifically for transportation. They ase a viable transportation option designed as an alternative to get fxom Point A to Point B. In looking at SDSU,it applies very well. It is very attractive for incoming students to be able to facilitate bicycle traffic the way this would look to do. Parking is a very common problem at many college campuses. In fact,there are some campuses that will give students a new Trek bicycle if they leave their cars at home. Curtently, there are people riding across intersections,riding on sidewalks, and darting through streets. How can you tell someone who is riding on the sidewalk ox erratically on the street that they should be following the rules of the road when they don't have an area designated for them ox designated as a birycle route. Having the bike lanes would help designate the flow of traffic. The bicyclists would know on what streets best facilitate their transit thxoughout the city, and everyone else would be awaxe that is where they will be. Bike Lanes axe the safest place for bicyclists to ride when considering the side of the street and sidewalks. Daugaaxd has found there is much financial support in the private sector for a project such as this. Reed commented on a gteat proposal and it being the right thing to do in today's world. Bezdichek sta,ted he couldn't be more excited about this. He asked Daugaard and Hansen if they have anything planned in regards to a bike exchange/bike rental program. Daugaard responded there is a Student's Association Committee currently discussing a pilot program,and whether or not it will be specifically a University Pilot Program. There are a lot of schools that do that, one such locally is Siou�c Fall's Augustana College where they initiated a green bike program this fall. In visiting with Dean Kattleman, they found out he had been tossing the bike exchange idea around for a while,and if it got off the ground on campus, they would be very interested in working with the city as well. Weldon commended Daugaard and Hanson on an outstanding job on this report and the comprehensiveness of it. He asked if on the cost estimates,if the per linear miles were for paint? Yes. Stencils and xacks are listed sepaxately,however signage is not reflected. Daugaard mentioned talking to Allyn Frerichs and Jackie Lanning and the need for signage and the density of signs. Some stated one sign/mile,but they see the need for more frequent signage, such as one sign every few blocks. This is a variable that can be determined as the project ensues. Weldon questioned how the routes were chosen. Daugaaxd stated it was a combination of things. One of the theories of birycle trends are they shouldn't necessarily be pushing bikes off on secondary streets,because they will be underutilized. Bike ttansportation is similar to vehicle transportation,where you try to funnel use on major roadways. They tried to pick a number of major roadways,pax�riculaxly around campus. One thought was to keep people off of Medary Ave. due to the frequent nature of turning off and on Medary Ave...same with 6`''Street. They also tried to minimi7e the parking issues. Weldon asked if they looked at connections with the city's Bike Trail System. Yes, there are at least fout locations where the bicycle routes meet up with the city's Bike Trail. They also incorporated the proposed lanes in the Safe Routes to School Grant application. Jackie Lanning clarified on costs, the$4/square foot was for 3M pavement marking tape. If SDSU is doing actual pavement painting, the cost would be less. Daugaard added the City of Sioux Falls spent 39 cents pex square foot for painting bike lanes. Council Di.rcu.r�ion: I.Yleldon stated Daugaard and Hanson are working rvith the Tran,rportation Board and are intricately involved in the proce.r.r at that level. He echoe.r.rta�'.rupport and enthu�ia.rm for the pmject and view.r this a.r 21 � a huge quality of life i.rsue for the community. In term.r of health, wellne.r.r, and exerci.re, it,r an out.rtanding project and we're going to do everything ive can to get thi.r project done a.r diligently a.r po.c.rible�a�ithin theirguideline.r and parameters. He.rugge.rted continuing to work with the Student'.r A.r.rociation and fine-tune the i.r.rue.r, the route.r, and budget.r, and continue to ivork over the zvinter month.r.ro we are ready to get into a con.rtruction pha.re/ identification pha.re as.roon a.r po.r.rible next,rpring. There svill be.rome major i.r.rues and impact relevant to parking in neighborhoods There�vill have to be a parking p�nce.r.r where, once route.r are determined, there will need to be.rome neighborhood meeting.r,public hearing.r held. The City's Safety Committee and the Tra�ic Safety Committee tvill revieav thi.r over the ivinter month.r. I.Y>eldon.rees no concern at all�vith the due diligence to u�ork together to come up with an ab,rolutely out.rtandingpo.ritive plan that i.rgood for the neighborhoods and try to make everybody happy to the extent that u�e po.r,ribly can svith thi.r project, that sve wouldn't be able to hit the ground running in the.rpring. He think.r that i.r very doable. ACTION: A Motion was made by Brunner, seconded by McClemans, to have city staff and committees review the plan over the winter and present an executable plan at the first meeting in March with a goal to have a plan to complete by July 18t. All present voted yes; motion carried. Council Di.rcu.csion continued.• Brunner stated thatgive.r time for the proj�er hearing.r to be held and to have everything put together.ro that when the.rnow melt.r in the.�ring sve can get.rome,rtriping done, .rome of the bike lane.r in.rtalled before tbe end of the.rchoolyear for a chance to.ree.rome u.rage and make any needed adju.rtment.r during the fummer. Brunner feel.r thi.r i.r a good way to get.rtarted ivith Pha.re I of the project. Thi.r al.co give.r.rome time, depending on how .rale.r tax i.r thmugh the end of theyear, if there i.r.rome.rurplu.r a.r a funding.rource. Thi.r i.r a.r.romething ea�ily .rupported and e.xpanded in the future. Bartley que.rtioned the.rtreet.r around campu.r, the re,ridential area,r that have a lot of.ride,rt�etparking. Thi.r v�ould involve po.r,ribly moving or di.rplacing that parking and pu.rhing it.romeu�here else. Lr that the plan� We can't have bike route.r urith all that parking. The.rtreet.r are not u�ide enough. Jackie L.anning.rtated.rome.rtreet.r really ar�not wide enough for that. She ha.rn't looked into if�ve can the.rha�d lane, the car/bike lane urith parkin� but tho.re are.rome of the feature.r sve ivill have to flu,rh out. Medary Ave. might be one of the eaner road.r to have a route becau.re parking i.r already eliminated, but mo.rt of the other.rtr�et.r do have parking on one.ride. Bartley.rtated hi.r concern is obviou.rly parking. Parking i.r at a p�mium around the Univer.nty now and it'r al�vay.r been an i.r.rue for the neighborhoods up to there to push parking even harder. Hosv canyouget any more concentrated than it already i.r, and zve are going to po.rribly remove.rome parking in that area for bicycler. Hopefully there won't be many carr if there are more bikes, but realistically,you can bringyour bike to campu.r ea.rier thanyour car. W/e ar� going to have to pu.rh thatparking.romesvhere, and how are we going to handle that. Lr itgoing to be a joint�ort on the Univer.rity'.r part to pr»vide.rome more on-campu.r parking for the.re carr, or are we going to have to do something on the city,ride to provide more parking if�ve are going to take it away� The people on the mute.r would love to have the carrgone and the bike route.r in place, but what abaut the people jurt o�'of the route on the.ride.rtreet.r a.r we have pu.rhed the par,�ing on them. Obuiou.rly thi.r need.r to be.rtudied, sve don't want to give up one problem and create another. Lanning.rtated it would be a philo.ro�ihicad deci.rion on hosv to treat parking by campu.r. Tho.re.rtreet.c an a high priority for zr.re.r due to the den,rity and tho.re heading to campu.r. She doe.rn't knoiv if SDSU'rgmrvth ha.r propo.red future parking lot,r zvithin the boundarie.r, but can certainly exj�lore that. On the city.ride, the�i.rn't a propo.ral for an additional parking lot. Ifyou remove parking finm one rtreet, it 1vi1!be.rhoved to d�erent city.rt�zet.r. Bartley anticipate.r some lively di,rcu.crion over the.re i.crue,c If it can be.rolved up front, it zvill he p. Reed.rtated SDSU.rtand.r firm that ther�ha.r al�vay.r been plenty of parking on campu.r, it'r ju.rt that it'r not nece.r.rarily located wher�peo�ile avant it. Hop�lly, .romeone avould thmsv their bike in the tr�rnk or whatever, and park on the outlot.r, and then ride their bike amund campus. You svill find living in the neighborhood, during the day the parking inc�zare.r fmm the student.r that don't nece.crarily avant to pay for on-campu.c parking or the commuter.r, and at night it derrea.re.c. The bike route.r could he p svith tho.re.rtudent.r that in.rtead of bringing their car clo.re to campuf they would bring their bike.r. Bartley.rtated.romething that should al.ro be looked at in depth, i.r the timeframe bicycle.r lvould mo.ct likedy be u.red in volume. There are.rome who uJill bikeyear mund, ifyou pmvide the lane.r and keep the.cnou�o�them.ro they can.ree them. But we are talking about a certain amount of time on campu.r that bicycle.r are pmbably notgoing to be a huge tra�c i.r.rue, the parking irgone permanently. To coexi.ct urith that, onceyou take thatparking out and make it a bike mute, it i.r thereyear-mund. You can't.+pecifzcally.ray the parking increa.res Se}itember 9S thmugh the fir.rt .rno�vfall and bike.r aren't riding and svellyou coudd park on the.rtr�et again unti!the.rnou�i.rgone in March. Tho.ce are i.rsue.r u�here onceyou make that deci.rion or remove thatparkin� it i,r ayear-round decz�ion a.r u�ell as it.rhould be. 216 You have to balance tho.re concern.r ivith adequate parking. Bartley svould love to.ree the Univer.rity addre.rs that parking i.r.rue on campu.r if they could or if there'r a way that they could. It may take a little pre.r.rur�finm the Student'.r A.r,rociation to do that, but technically it i.r nat a czty pmblem, sve already provide the parkin� sve'd be happy to prnuide the.rafe route.r in.rtead of the parkin� but 2ve are going to pu.rh the.re people.romezvhere and we ar� going to have a certain time frame of theyear where they avon't be unng the bike route.r, and tho.re people are wanting to park back on tho.re,rtreet.r and are notgoing to be to do.ro. When looking at the.rtriping, idVhaley.rtre.r.red the need to look at lvhat.rection of town i.r being chip.realed, .ro the bike lane.r arepainted and 2 week.r later the Street Def�t. i.rgrinding it all r�. There i.r al.ro the need to look into the budget to be.rure what it co.rt.r. If the.rtreet i.r on a S or 7year rotation, it i.r actually going to add co.rt to that budget becau.re the bike lane,r will have to be rr�ainted/recreated. Keed.rtated he ha.r been rvorking:vith Daugaard and Han,ron on funding. There ar�very�o�itive remark.r back that �ieoj�le want to he p out tvith thi.r. He i.rgue.rrzng we rvould get into.rome.rort of matching fund�ituation. Resolution No. 89-08—Street Vacation. A public hearing was held on Resolution No. 89-08, vacating 4th Street between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue. No public comment A motion was made by Baxdey, seconded by Brunner to approve Resolution No. 89-08. All pxesent voted yes;motion carried. Resolution No. 89-08 STREET VACATION WHEREAS,a petition to vacate has been filed with the City Clexk of the City of Brookings, and WHEREAS,the petition was filed in pxoper form and signed by one hundred percent (100%) of the adjacent property owners. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the Ciry of Brookings: That the portion of 4`�Street abutting Lot 101,Block 1, First Addition and the noxth 100 feet of Lots 1 and 2, and all of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6,and 7,Block 2, Fixst Addition located between 5�'Avenue and 6�`Avenue is vacated subject to a right-of-way easement over the north half of the street to be vacated. LET IT BE FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective on June 1, 2009. Resolution No. 90-08—lease real�ro�ert� A public hearing was held on Resolution No. 90-08, a xesolution of intent to lease real property to a private entity. No public comment.A motion was made by McClemans, seconded by Whaley to approve Resolution No. 90-08. All present voted yes; motion carried. Resolution No. 90-08 Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property to Private Entity BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South Dakota that the City of Brookings intends to enter into a Lease with Mike and Sarah Wilson, for a period of one year and pertaining to the following described property: Lot One (1) and the East Ten Feet (E 10') of Lot Two (2) in Block Thi.tteen (13) of East Acxes Second Addition to the City of Brookings, County of Bxookings,State of South Dakota; Also described as follows: Lot One (1) and the Easterly Ten Feet (Etrly 10� of Lot Two (2) adjacent to Lot One (1) in Block Thirteen (13) of East Acres Second Addition to the City of Brookings, County of Brookings,State of South Dakota. BE IT FURTHER NOTED, that a Public Hearing on this Resolution was held on this 14th day of October, 2008 at 6:00 o'clock P.M. at the City Council Chambers and that all pexsons were given an opportunity to be heard on the intent to lease real property. Lease Agreement—2150 Derdall Drive. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Brunner,to authorize the City Manager to enter into a lease agreement with Mike and Sarah Wilson for the rental of property at 2150 Derdall Drive. All present voted yes;motion carried. 2"a Reading- Ordinance No. 38-08—Alcoholic Beverages. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Whaley, to appxove Ordinance No. 38-08, an Ordinance amending Section 6-4 of the 217 Revised Ordinances of the City of Brookings and pertaining to the sale of Alcoholic Beverages on Sunday in the City of Brookings. All present voted yes;motion cazried. 2°d Reading- Ordinance No. 39-08 —conditional use. A motion was made by McClemans, seconded by Bardey, to approve Ordinance No. 39-08, an Ordinance establishing a conditional use to establish an aparttnent on the W'/z of the W 1/a of Lots 1-4, excluding Lot H-1,Block 11, Skinnexs Second Addition (1016 6th Street). All present voted no;motion failed. 2°a Reading- Ordinance No. 40-08—rezoning_ A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to approve Ordinance No. 40-08,An Ordinance rezoning Lot 3,Nelson Eighth Addition from an Agricultural A District to a Residence R-1B District (15th Street South and Medary Avenue area). All present voted yes;motion carried. Resolution No. 91-08—Wine O�erating Ag.reement. A public hea.ring was held on Resolution No. 91-08, appxoving an On-Off Sale Wine License for the Brookings Hy-Vee store and authorizing the Ciry Manager to enter into an operating agxeement. A motion was made by McClemans, seconded by Brunner, to approve Resolution No. 91-08. ' Resolution No. 91-08 Wine Operating A.greement BE IT RESOLVED by the city of Brookings, South Dakota,that the City Council hereby appxoves a Lease Agreement fox a Wine Opezating Management Agreement between the City of Brookings and the Brookings Hy-Vee Food Store, 700 22°d Avenue, Doug Dell,Manager, for the purpose of a manager to operate the on-sale establishment or business for and on behalf of the City of Brookings at the Hy-Vee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager be authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City,which shall be for a period of ten years with a renewal in five (5) years. Di.rcu.rsion: Dick Sto�'er, repre.renting Hy-Vee, .rtated they are de.ri�nu.r of obtaining a neu�off-.rale wine dicenae. He .rtated Hy-Tlee svould not ojierate the on-.rale operation,ju.rt the off.rale/package urine. The urine rection�vi1l be adjacent to and a�iproximately the.rame.ritie a.r the beer.rection. They want to.rell a variety of�vine.r including South Dakota/local avine.r. Council Di.rcu.r�ion: Bartley clarified thi.r bill sva.r pa.r.red in legi.rlature thi.r pa.rtyear. It allosv.r the on.rade, u�hether or not it i.r u.red. It i.r a right, if lve i.crue thi.r licen.re,for them to have on-sale. Ifyou look at our City Ordinance.r, we certainly don't svant on-.rale.r in grocery,rtore.r or convenience.rtore.r. He.rtre.rsed thi.r i.rn't the right vehicle for this type of a licen.re. If a grocery.rtore or other entity want.r an a,�.rale wine licen.re, then we.rhould r�ally go to the degislature and have that type of a licen.re created.ro that it can be i.rsued. Thi.r i.r an in.rtance where we are taking a licen.re and trying to make u.re ofpart of it, the o�sale j�art, but sve ar�.raying we ivon't u.re the on-.rale portion of it. However, whenyougrant thi.r licen.re, under.rtand that the on-.rale can be u.ced at any time and we rvoudd have no recourse to pr�vent that. He doe.rn't think that Ordinance.r allow u.r to i.r.rue a licen.re that aldow.r on-.rale of wine in a.rto�. You could take agrocery.rtore that has a banquet room and.ray we'�notgoing to allosv on-.rale, but theyget a reque.rt for a reception or a party, and.ruddenly there'.r use for an on-.rale urine licen.re. Tho.re right.r can't be taken away later. Bartley lvild not.rupport thi.r licen,re is.ruance. It allo�v.r on-.rale and on-.rale i.rn't something zve u�ant to have at our grocery,rtore.r or convenience,rtore.r or anywhere el.re in town for that matter. I�ithout the proper licen.re, he i.r not trying to pick on thi.r particular applicant, but think.r the�ort need.r to be made to go back to the legi.rlatur�or a.rk for them to grant o�.rale only type af licen.re.c I,YIe need to give careful con.rideration that the on-.rale could be u.red. We �vill have other applicant.r if�ve.rtart thi.r and think.r it i.r a.rl ppery,rlope. Betidichek stated Hy-Vee'.r Attorney ju.rt made comment.r that this i.r not the svay they are going to u.re the licen.re and he re,r�5ect.r the opinion of their attorney, and believe.r what he ha.r.raid. Ifyou go back in hi.rtory, remember the Perkin.r liquor licen.re in order to aldou�.rmoking in their re.rtaurants. They never intended to.rerYe wine or beer, avhich the majority do not, all they ivanted wa.r to allosv.rmoking. Thi.r i,rn't the fir.rt incident in which a licen.re ha.r been i.r.rued for a particular u.re. He re.rpect.r the opinion of the attorney, and if the attorney for Hy-Vee.ray,r thi.r i.r�vhat they are going to do, he 100% believe.r that untid pmven d�e�ntly. He,rtron�.rupport.r tbi.r. Wleldon,rtated,SDCL 35-Z-1.2 o�err tivo rea.ron.r that allorvyou to turn down a license. One of thofe ir on location and recommended the council think about that before they vote. He tvould be r�mise in hi.r re.rpon.ribilitie.r if he didn't rai.re a concern about the impact that thi.r could have competitively on the Brooking.r Municipal Liquor.rtore. Bartley.rtated he i.r not concerned with comj�etition for the Liquar starp, he i.r ald for competition, and the cdty widlget the override any�ay. However, not trying to be di.rre.+�ectful for Hy-Vee, he.can't dook at the applicant and.ray that'r 21 � the only criteria used. You have to be very cognitiant of the fact they can.ray what they are doing and believe them. He doesn't di.rbelieve them at all, however, it is not binding and it can change. Decz�ion.r are made ba.red on what the la�v allow.r, not�vhat.romeone promises. You have to be very careful thatyou don't do thing.r ba.red on ivhat.romeone ju.rt tellsyou,you have to ba.re it on fact.r and la�u Thi.r particular ca.re doe.rn't quite fzt. In regards to the Perkin.r ca,re Councilman Betidichek refernd to, it wa.r a beer/wine on-.rale licen.re.rpecifzcally for the non-.rmoking/smoking i.r.rue. Hotvever, tho.re licen,re.r that are in tho.re establi.rhment.r, ,rome of them are.rerUing beer and wine becau.re they are allo�ved to do,ro and rve didn't have an i,crue urith that. Thi.r i.rn't apple.r to orange.r. The City Ordinance.r say on-.rale agreement.r may not be i.rsued to convenience.rtore.r,grocery.rto�s,ga.r.rtation.r or other.rtore.r where g�ncerie.r orga.roline i.r.rold. W>e have.rome pretty good grnund.r not to grant thi.r. It i.r not a competitive nature that he i.r concerned, it i.r ju.rt that thi.r doe.rn't fit. Get the right vehicle thru the legi.rlative prnce.r.r. I�e've certainly done that already lvith certain other liquar license.r. You can't pick and choo.re a powerful lasv and u,re horveveryou can. All present voted yes, except Bardey and Whaley voted no;motion carried. Resolution No. 92-08— Change Order. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by McClemans, to approve Resolution No. 92-08, a Resolution authorizing Change Order (CCO #6) for 2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project. All pxesent voted yes;motion caxried. Resolution No. 92-08 A Resolution Authorizing Change Order#6 (CCO#6) For 2008-03STI Downtown Streetscape Project Winter Brothers Underground, Inc., Sioux Falls, South Dakota BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008- 03SSI, Downtown Streetscape Project: Construction Change Order Number 6: By mutual agreement of the Contractor and the Owner, construction for the 2008 season will not proceed beyond station 12+90. The owner agxees to suspend contract time starting at the completion of the work currendy underway. Contract time will start again on May 1, 2009 (tentatively). Both parties agree that liquidated damages will be suspended once contract time is suspended however liquidated damages will be assessed fox all days beyond Octobex 30,2008 for the 2008 construction season,up to the date work is suspended for 2008. Liquidated dama.ges will begin again once contract time is started in 2009. The Owner agrees that Liquidated Damages will not be assessed fox days after Octobex 30,2008 where extreme weathex conditions prevent the Contractor from woxking. Determination for these weather days will be at the sole discretion of the City Engineer. Discussion: Weldon gave an explanation of the proposed change order. This change order is geared prunarily toward scheduling issues. The deadline for completion of the pxoject is the end of this month. The contract says that liquidated damages will be in effect for any day that construction goes beyond that date. The amount of demolition work that needs to be undertaken yet involves the intersection of Main Ave. and 3`�St. proceeding on Main south towards appro�cimately half a block towards GP Auto,and the entrance to the Ciry Park&Rec Building. The work there is not nearly as extensive as what we've experienced in the last thtee blocks. We collectively wanted to recommend to you that it is in the best interest of the downtown not to do anymore excavation or tear up anything else we can't fmish before the deadline. What we decided to do is ask you instead that we have the contractor finish up the amount of work that has been opened, the amount of work that is undex demolition right now,which basically is up and to appxo�xnately in front of Cook's I{itchen/Skinners. Button up the pxoject up for winter months and resume the contract schedule when weather and ground conditions are much more favorable on or around May 1,2009. What that means to the contract,is that for any work that is done after Oct 30�', to fuush up/to button up what is currendy open,liquidated damages will be in effect. We do expect there may be some concrete flatwork, some sidewalk sections that will need to be poured after this deadline, which means liquidated damages will be in effect. The good news is that weather conditions are such that we can do concrete work. You can't do as much asphalt work when the weather turns colder and the asphalt plant will be closing down soon. We are still planning on finishing up all of the asphalt work on everything by end of this contract period,by October 30�'. The contractor will come back in the spring, on or around May 1$`•scheduling axound SDSU Gxaduati.on. They are estimating another 4-6 weeks of work at that time to fuiish up that half block. For every one of those days work is in progress,liquidated damages will also be in effect. The good news is that we will have the project buttoned up, there will be driving surfaces, sidewalks, curbs and gutters in place. There will still be some complications with regards to some lights and things like that,but nothing that is going to be a hindrance to downtown. The contract costs of the project will be 219 reduced due to liquidated damages which will be taken out of the contractox's final payment before we setde up. Reed asked Weldon for clarification of the items that are the city's responsibiliry. Weldon stated there are stteet furniture,bike racks and tree pla.ntings to go in next spring. Trees axe in the first block, but obviously the rest of them will have to wait. The contractor still has to put in the concrete plantexs at the intersections and the contractor will be responsible for the street lights and the signal lighted intersections. Lanning clarified it would be one signalized intersection at 3`�St. & Main Ave. to be completed in the spring of next year,with the other intersections with stop signs at this point. Frerichs stated some of the street furnituxe will be in place before winter,but there may be some paver brick that won't be. The prefabricated planter walls axe scheduled to be delivered in October. They can be installed,but there will not be time to put all the soil in and do the shrub and landscape plantings on the bumpouts. This will have to wait until spring. They will be planting the trees in the sidewalk tree gate locations. Britzman suggested a point of clarification that might be added to the change order;the numbez of days for which liquidated damages will be assessed for 2008 shall be deternnined within 30 days of the last date of the 2008 construction season. If there axe going to be potentially liquidated damages, both the contractor and the owner would want to determine what those would be sooner than later. Britzman stated since there will be a suspension over the winter,rather than have that potential issue linger without any efforts to resolve it,why not attempt to make that determination for the 200$ year. Of course there would have to a similar determination in 2009, but it would seem to move the project along if that could be addressed. It is not mandatory, and he doesn't think that it would affect the rest of the language here. It doesn't indicate what happens in that event beings that that issue should be addressed and this might be a reasonable place to put that suggestion. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by McClemans, to approve the Change Order as presented to the council tonight. Councdl Di.rcus.rion: W>hadey a.rked if thi.r will have to go back to W/intexr for da.rcussian. W/eldon.rtated it�vould in order for him to agree to it. In order to bring back to council after di.rcu.r�ion avith i,Vinter.c...that avould be another two u�eek.r a�vay and ave'll be dane rvith construction for theyear. Brit�nan clarified the change order doe.r addre.r.r liquidated damages in several place.r, but it doe.rn't impo.re any outcome or remedie.r. Beyond u�hat i.r in the contract, itgive.r a time becau.re the�z i.r a.ru.rpen.non aa to rvhether u�e wait until the very end of the contract like u�e ivould typically do, but with the.ru.rpen.rion, it doe.r pmvide an opportunity to at lea.rt minami�e that i.r.rue to keep it from lingerin� becau.re then you are looking back 4-6 month.r to r�.rolve that particular i.r.rue which may be more d�cult. Weldon.rtated u�e u�ill have calendar documenting the day.r in which it lvill be in effect. We knorv�vhat that i.r nmv from the very beginning of the project. He agrees it i.r not a material change,ju.rt add.r clarification, but whether the contractor and his attorney wild agree he doe.rn't kno�v. BrztZman re.rponded that thi.r i.r ju.rt a.ruggestion in ca.re it wa.r viesved a.r being he pful to the proce.r,c On the other hand, if it i.rgoing to be more problematic, it i.r not mandatory, becau.re ave have contract document.r that will allow u.r to compute thi.r all at one time at the end of the contract. Public Discussion: Robb Rasmussen, Siow�River Cyclery,is confused about whethex the street lights will be installed,whether the planters are going to be in and if the sidewalks will be buttoned up. There are several potential places for people to fall, slip and trip. If things aren't buttoned up,it could be a real difficult issue fox snow removal and he is looking for some clarification as to what is really going to be done. Weldon sta.ted the sidewalk work,the flatwork, the concrete woxk is supposed ta be done. Even if goes after October 30`�, they will continue to work in the colder weather if they have to and they can do that with certain construction methods and it will be subjected to liquidated damages. Lanning specified on the street lights, that the light poles themselves will be installed on the blocks that are open,which will likely occur in November. 'I'he planters will be placed in November as well. Even if the weather turns very cold, they can place those as they are bracketed. The paver bricks should also be able to be installed. 22 � Rasmussen asked when the bike racks would be put back. Frerichs thought they could be installed prior to next spring, as they are surface mount. Weldon stated they will do what we can with, the birycle racks. Form has to follow function here in terms of the process and sequence and weather will determine that. He asked Lanning if the poles, included the fixtures. Yes,pole,light, fi�cture, turned on,in entirety. `. Dennis Willert,Willert Chiropractic,wanted to know when the 500 block between Wells Fargo and Sioux River Cyclery will be accepted by the city as city-owned. Weldon stated the plan is that once Main St. gets the final lift of asphalt, and as soon as it can be inspected, the city will take it over and it will be the city's responsibility. He expects that to happen by the end of October. Weldon commented he appreciated Steve's suggestion to clarify this. It is a great suggestion he would like to do,but he has concerns and doesn't want to bog this down and give the contractor another reason to not sign this. T'he contractor has agteed to the language provided here. Weldon asked the council to not accept Steve's suggestion as he feels we are adequately covered. The City Engineer has been calculating all the days that would be subject to liquidated damages and he feels confident the city is going to be protected. � e Brunner withdrew his motion to accept Steve's suggestion. McClemans was oka.y with withdrawing the motion. All present voted yes;motion carried. TID #4—Develo ment Agreement. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by McClemans, to approve the Development Agreement for a Tax Increment Plan foz Tax Increment District Number Four (TID #4). All present voted yes;motion carried. Weldon gave a brief overview of this project. One issue with the project, developers are asking for some latitude as to house size. They want to incorporate into the project a model that is 861 finished square feet,whexeas previously talked about a model with 1,200-1,400 squase feet. The 861 square foot model is a split-level,which does not include foyer/entryway or finished lower lenel. Weldon feels this is a house that is a bit small for the maxket. But again,on a pay-as-you go tax increment project, taxes will still be due and it is still going to generate increment as well,which alleviates that concern. If the developers think that they can market homes of that size,then they should probably be able to do that. This is something different from the previous ta.x increment projects considered for housing and thought it merited the council's attention. Wayne Wagner, Oakwood Equity Group,developer wants to make sure there was understanding of the makeup of the development that they are doing. The financial analysis and payback of the TIF is based on an average / appraised price of$150,000. Theit upper limit is $160,000. T'hroughout the pla.nning process, they anticipated having some homes on the lower end of the scale, and some on the upper end of that scale. They looked quite closely at the Housing study done which was done last fall with the City. With the earning power of individuals within the community,what they can afford in a moxtgage,and what is available,the largest gap is in the$120-140,000 range. Based on needing to pay back financing for the T'IF, they needed a mi�c a litde higher than that level. The plan is not to fill the entire 331ots with homes of this size,but maybe 8-12%. They are cuxrendy building eight of these homes in the Lass Addition south of Brookings. Affordable housing doesn't need to mean`cheap'. The amenities, trim, quality,laminate, fucturing will be identical to these homes, they will just be smallex. This is a price range that is very much needed in Brookings. To meet the intent of the TIF,they would be remise to not address that price point if they could. They are also researching diffexent building methods. The cost of a home is not only what one pays, but also the upkeep. They are working with the University on multiple building methods where they are going to see what is the most cost effective way to build these homes, as well as what homes are going to be the most energy efficient. They are on track right now to have each of these methods cextified as enezgy-star rated. What the city is investing in is not only affordable housing,but housing that sets a standard and xaises the bar as far as what to expect in the community. There are two things they are looking to invest with the ta�c incxement finance district funds: 1) being able to reduce the overall price for the home, 2) investing additional featuxes into the home which will create energy efficiency,which will xeally allow a family to fit it within their means going forward. Affordable does not need to mean`cheap'. They want to put a strong quality built home with solid 221 features,just a litde smaller in size. The�e wi11 be xanges of homes,which will be axound that 861 square feet on the opening price point range, and there will be some in the 1,200-1,400 square feet. Pricing will be determined based on the cost of construction. They plan to build multiple homes at the same time,which will allow them to get better pricing,based on having a contractor come up once and do 3 houses at the same time. They wiIl be focusing on efficiency,not only in construction,but the energy-efficiencies of the home. Bezdichek asked in regaxds to energy efficiency, do the builders make the determuiation whether or not the home has gas appliances,gas heat or electric. His question is based on the selfishness at utilities in Brookings is electricity. In the Lass Addition, they have propane out back,but they will all be electric. Within the city,part of the study they axe doing will tell them the right things to do. They haven't really figured that one out as of yet. Bezdichek asked of the 33 homes to be built,there could be a gas line in the street and it would be up to homeowner to determine which. Because the city is involved in the TIF district,bringing electricity there would be an advantage to us. He sees the need to provide that option if the homeowner wants to hook up. Wagner stated theix intentions are to bring all utilities into the home. They will bring gas and electric up to the homes. From an energy usage standpoint, to be energy-star rated, there is a HERS rating to test efficiency of the home. Most of that is on the envelope, as far as how much air is leaking out and these homes will be 40-60%more efficient than what a baseline home is. That is going to be an outstanding feature for this development. He is hoping that will develop a new standard in building homes. Brunner asked on the pay-as-you-go TIF,if they take the risk for the property ta.x. He likes the variety that some of the smaller homes will offer for someone who may be a recent graduate, or entering the work force. That diversity makes this addition that much sttonger. ADDITION- Long-Term Care Task Force Reed paxticipated in the first meeting of the Long- Term Care Task Force. This task force has come togethex for multiple reasons, one being the hospital taking a look at what they want to do with their long-term care facility, and also that the state has quite a bit going on right now with long-te�n care. We want to make suxe that we are in the driver's seat with what we would like to do with long-term care. The task force is requesting that a study be carried out as soon as possible to figure out what the most economical way to deliver long-term health caxe in Brookings is. A1 Heuton,BEDC. This task force was created with two (2) representatives each from the City of Brookings City Council,Uxuted Retirement Center Board Members, the Brookings Hospital, and the Brookings Economic Development Corporation. A couple reasons the group came together was to take a look at what the state is doing with theit ta.sk force;looking at long-term caxe and a future distribution of nursing homes across the state. We have an interest in that in terms of the development of a retirement community in the future. We want to monitor that study and any legislation that would be passed at the state level with regaxd to future nursing homes. A second function of that task-force would be a way to bring all parties together to look at the hospital's proposal for demolition of the existing nursing home and construction of a new nursing home. There has been some funding approved to help pay for a consultant to look at what options might be in place for separate nursing homes within the community and management options whethex it would be separate or joint and what might be the most feasible way to address that. Those are the 2 primary functions of the task force at this point in time. Reed stated the task force wanted to acknowledge that the study should be directed bp someone other than United Re�ement Center or the Brookings Health System to level the playing field about what is going on and would like the city to do that. ACTION: A Motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Whaley, that the City of Brookings delegates to the BEDC under the auspices of the long-term health care task force to carry out a study to examine the most economical way to deliver long-term health care in Brookings with support of the United Retirement Center and the Brookings Health System. All present voted yes; motion carried. 22 � Reed clarified what they are trying to accomplish here is to give them some authority, other than those two organizations, to go ahead and report. The City would own the report. Whaley asked what is going to be the dollar amount on this report. Heuton stated it is unknown. There would be a Request for Proposal in the conversations held with consultants and they do not know what the final cost would be. Adi_,ourn. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Brunner, to adjourn. All present voted yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 8:01 p.m. CITY OF ROOI{INGS � � C�TY ott D. M sterman Mayor ���,•••�N�,,O�FB �7+ ) �_ ✓�q� °.47 1. o� �9 �" S��TH.... y�l��/' Shari Thornes,City Clerk