Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes_2008_12_09 243 Brookings City Council December 9, 2008 The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, December 9, 2008 at 5:00 p.m.,at City Hall with the following membexs pxesent: Mayor Scott Munsterman, Council Mernbers Julie Whaley, Mike Bartley,Ryan Brunner (axrived at 5:53 p.m.),Tim Reed,Mike McClemans, and Tom Bezdichek. City Manager Jeff Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and Depury City Clerk Bonnie Foster were also present. 5:00 P.M. WORK SESSION Tax Increment Financing District Policy Discussion Weldon stated the purpose of this policy is to give some direction as to the use of this economic development tool for future projects,with every project coming to the Council for approval. It is not something that can be approved adzrunistratively,as there are a number of steps that involve the Planning Commission and the City Council. Each project would have to stand on its own. One item Weldon drew their attention to was Item#22, `Projects will only be considered if they are projected to generate a minimum positive increment of$1 million within the fitst five years.' Weldon feels this requirement could be put on individual projects that come before the council,but to have it as part of the policy might be a bit onerous and projects would have a tough time meeting that threshold and could prematurely disqualify some otherwise good projects. The intent was to have a minimum amount by which all the paperwork and all the legal aspects are really worth doing; the $1 million was a number suggested by our financial advisor. If you look at that against the first two TIFs,which are non-housing districts, neithex one would meet this requirement of generating $1 nvllion of increment in the fi.rst five yeaxs of operation. Weldon recommended deleting Item #22. McClema.ns sees a place for TIfs,but is not sure it should be for housing,unless there is a real de:Eiriite need. McClemans visited with people at the National League of Cities Con£erence in Floxida and found some communities have never done TIFs for housing,but rather only industrial and commercial. He would like to know if we are looking to expand infrastructure or create more housing opportunities. He is concerned about doing more housing TIFs, as the first two TIFs the city has done are for housing,but it is yet to be seen if they are really what we should be doing. Weldon stated McClemans has an excellent point. The whole idea is to have a policy discussion on whether or not to use this tool,and if so,what are the terms and conditions of its use. There is a process in the draft policy by which a housing district would come before the council in the form of an application and the council will have opportunities to say yes or no,we're going to do a housing TIF, or we're not. The council can reject any TIF application for any reason. All this policy does is, if we are going to use TIFs in the future,is to have a policy in place that is going to guide some of the decisions on what that application is going to look like and what the council's expectations of the project would be. The council could put a provision in the policy that says `TIF projects will be used for commercial/industrial projects only and we shall not considex housing districts.' The council could do that or they could leave it a litde more open ended and reject applications as they come before the council. McClemans stated as people bring forth projects, each project will stand or fail on its own merit. He is not sure how many projects will be brought forth, and is not sure of the need. He favors TIFs as fax as expanding infrastructure into areas that are not served by infrastructure. There are about 70 lots in the TIF, and would certainly like to see how it works. He asked how you turn one person down when they bring forth a project that is pretty good;Yather,how do you pass on one and fail another. He doesn't think he wants them all to pass. Weldon responded that you can turn one down on the basis that the pxevious ones have met the supply for the community...that is a legitimate basis for turning one down. We have enough...we are going to let the market catch up. You can simply say we don't want to consider any moxe TIFs for a while. Munsterman thinks the way the policy is written gives that flexibility, and hinges on what do we need as a community. This sends a very clear message to developers that this is a tool,but it isn't going to be on the back of the City. , Bezdichek believes he has learned a bit from the very first TIF discussion.,Howevex,in regatd to xesidential TIFs,he is a bit more xeserved. He tepeated John Mills concern that the council makes sure it is a fair playing field. Brookings has had what is considered to be affordable housing. With the housing TIFs he sees affordable as questionable fox the house size,lot size and location within 24 � Bxookings. He stated an example of a house valued at$168,000. If a developer builds a$168,000 house on a $30,000 lot, that house has a value of$138,000,whereas a $168,000 house built in a TIF district on a$15,000 lot has a value of$153,000. Both properties are valued at$168,000,but the house itself in the TIF district would be viewed as more expensive. Bezdichek views this as unfair. Bezdichek stated under the general guidelines, Section 2, Item#4: pay-as-you-go,the council has to make certain, due to the city's involvement, all of these TIF's,particularly housing, are all done the same. Bezdichek also spoke of concerns with Section 5: site preparation and grading of the land, construction of capital improvements;in regards to whether developers have had to fitst put in curb, gutter,sidewalk and those sorts of things. Bezdichek does not want TIFs where those things would be put in later. It is his understanding there may be a TIF district done currendy that they've not necessarily maybe played by the rules to whexe curb,gutter, sidewalks,were installed first. If the city is involved,he feels the city should have some say in regard to how this is done, and the maximum amount a house located in a TIF District costs. Bezdichek believes that$115,000-125,000 houses seem to be what is in demand. He feels all developers ought to be doing things the same, and doesn't believe at this particular time that that is being done. He stated those as his reasons for his reservations on�esidential TIFs. Weldon responded the current issue Bezdichek is referring to is in Valley View Addition. The developer asked Weldon about the curb issue, and granted a variance to that requirement because he was trying to be Yeasonable in that requirement for that one developer, and had nothing to do with the fact that it might have been in a TIF district. That developer was the first and only person that asked,which opened the flood gate to requests after that. Weldon stated had he had the opportunity to do ovex again,he would have made that decision a bit differently. Be as it may, they asked and provided him with an alternative way of preserving the City's Ordinances by having the curb professionally engineered, designed, and staked, so they knew what the elevations were in the absence of that one curb. It had nothing to do with the fact that it was or wasn't in a TIF district;it was a development issue. Whaley stated there have been sevexal issues on the TIF districts,which is why there is now a policy in hand. TIFs were started in order for contractors to get a jump start,because all the council heasd about was the housing problem,this pxoblem and the other problem. She realizes some contractors can use it, some can't,and some can afford it, and some can't. With the policy in place, she sees there is now direction on which way to go...more to the retail and commercial end. Reed agreed with Whaley and stated this should move forward. Munsterman xeminded the council Weldon suggested removing Item#22 and stated this will be on a future action agenda. Weldon stated A1 Heuton had a good technical point on`Section 2, Item#5: the applicant shall waive their right to use the discretionary farmula.' When the discxetionary formula is applied to pxojects,it lessens the amount of increment that becomes available and puts a severe crimp in the ability to raise adequate funds to meet the obligations. It has been standard practice for most South Dakota communities on ta.x increments that they have that provision where they waive that right and its immediately at the full-tax value upon development. A1 Heuton,BEDC Executive Director, stated the technical question he had related to if one was to do a TIF district,whether residential or commercial,ox if a developer uses a TIF to install infrastructure in a largex development, they themselves may not be building any buildings in that development. He stated the research park for example,as a TTF district when a private developer goes in to build a building, that discretionary formula applies to that building and not necessari�y to the resea�ch patk. He doesn't know if you could require someone,whom had nothing to do with the ta�r increment project, to waive the discretitonary fomiula. Weldon stated he will ask Toby Morris or Todd Meierhenry fox a response to Heuton's concern. Weldon believes you can,as one pledges the tax revenue stteam off that property to go toward increment and the amount of what the taxes axe going to be will be significant to the cash flow of paying the debt. Heuton stated once a piece of property is sold,it is no longex attached to the developer;it then becomes a new property owner. He doesn't know if that would stick in every situation. Weldon explained the tax increment goes out£or sevexal yeaxs beyond the initial owner, and those taxes are pledged to the pxoject, so he believes that would transfer to whoever owns the property for the dutation of the TIF. Weldon will follow up with counsel on that. Brunner arrived at 5:53 p.m. 245 Bardey too sees it as worth a follow-up. Tax relief is automatic; they don't have to apply for it. If they want to waive that right, they have to write a letter and actually waive that right right now. We can't just take it away; they have to request it to be removed. Discussion Regarding Provisions of Restaurant Lic�uor O$erating Agreements Weldon stated he believed this to be the last technical revision before making operating agreements under SB126,restaurant liquor licenses, available. There has been some discussion off-line with Council Members Bardey and McClemans and Mayor Munsterrrian about some of the technical provisians and what they would be; a point-of-sale system requirement for establishments as a way of helping with an audit, the scope and extent of an audit/audit requirements, and if thexe would be a minimum size requirement for the establishment either in terms of seating capacity or square footage. McClemans stated the point-of-sale system would aid in monitoring the 60/40 requitement. Most restaurants use a point-of-sale where things are run up,whether alcohol or food, and allows them better control of their inventory and the type of business they are doing. Undex SB126,the 60/40 is required to be monitored,and believe it would be a good thing to require people to have. Franchises such as Applebee's, Subway, etc. already have that type of cash register system. He felt it would help alleviate pxedicaments of a business struggling to meet the 60/40. Bardey stated the council should not be in the business of monitoring businesses or telling them what type of operating system they should have for their record keeping system. SB126 requires reportin,g sales of food and alcohol sepatately. Under SB126, business owners are to sign a report and swear an oath annually that what they are reporting is true. Bartley stated we can audit whatever bookkeeping system they may have. Every business owner follows the same state system... it is a one-sheet form;on one line you put down yous sales total and on another line you put your exempt sales, and the third line is subtraction of the two which gives you your taxes. You then sign the report and send in payment. You axe not required to send in your computer report,point-of-sale report, or youx napkins that you wxote your sales on. This is a pretty important ta.x document to the state of South Dakota...much more important obviously than 60/40 restaurant liquor license bill. If a business is audited, then you have to get out the computer at the point,print your reports and show your data to back that report up. That is the proper way to do an audit;not the city requiring a point-of-sale system or any accounting system for a restautant or licensee ox an operating agreement under this system. He sees that as micromanagement. If someone is going to be deceitful on their numbers, they are going to figure out a way to do it no matter what system they use. They would still have to sign the report and be subject to an audit. Monitoring with a particular system is not required and certainly if the state can believe business owners on sales tax,which is an important source of revenue for all of us, they can certainly believe our reports for food and liquor sales. Reed questioned who will receive the report the business owners sign;the city or the state? Britzman responded it would be the city,as the city will be the one monitoring these licenses. The initial reporting requirement is contained in one statute and indicates the on-sale licensee shall provide sufficient documenta.tion to the municipality and there is no forwarding of that information. With respect to the renewal, the municipality shall condition the license xenewal upon receiving documentation that not moxe than 40% of the gross sales in the preceding 12 months be derived from the sale of alcohol or alcoholic beverages. This is going to be monitored just as is done with an opexating agreement. Munsterman asked how to carry it out,how to get the information, and how often do we want it? It is required the council receives this information annually,but questioned if this is something to be monitored more fxequently than that. Baxdey stated we don't have an auditing system for the on-sale liquor operating agteement holders. If we are going to audit the restaurant liquor license holdexs,then don't we have to audit all operating agreements holders? The rationale for not auditing them is we trust them,and if we find out that there is a violation,we would take action. Those provisions are there. If we change this,we have to change that. He sees this too as micromanagement. McClemans stated these licenses require auditing. It is in the city's best interest to make sure these people do well,that they meet 60/40 requirements in order to sta.y in business. T'here is no grace period and no way to monitor it when someone fails, and their license appaxendp comes to an end. He feels it is the city's responsibility to make sure these people are successful and that they meet the requirements. The state law says the municipality is responsible for monitoring the 60/40 and has 24 � nothing to do with current liquor operating agreements that purchase their liquor from the ciry. This law and this license requires auditing. Bartley asked McClemans if he is suggesting the city is responsible for the success of these businesses. McClemans stated,yes, they are our Operating Agreements. Bardey disagreed and questioned why the ciry would be responsible fox the success of a business. McClemans sta.ted in order for them to opexate under one of our operating agreements, they need to meet the state law 60/40 requirement. All we are doing is monitoring them. Bartley does not want to open that can of worms. Munsterman stated this is something that needs to be resolved. There is a balance, and we don't have a feel how delicate the balance may be between food and alcoholic beverages in an establishment. The question may come up of how often to check with a business to make sure that their 60/40 balance is maintained. At the end of the day,end of the year sort-to-speak,if that balance is out of whack and they have 41% or 45% alcohol instead of 40%, they would lose their operating agreement. Munsterman doesn't want to see that happen. It needs to be carried out properly and in a way to fostex a good relationship, a coopetative type relationship,and still be able to monitor the whole system to do oux job with the state. Reed commented this discussion dovetails into the audit requirements and would like to have that discussion and come back to the point-of-sale system. Reed would like to know the depth and scope of the audit. Britzman stated at the outset the accounting system needs to be developed to separate out those two items (food and alcohol) fxom all other types of revenue. There is a need for an accounting system that addresses this requirement of monitoring the two revenue streams: food and alcohoiic beverages. The kep words in the statute axe documentation adequate to make the detertnuiation that the business meets the 60/40 xequitement. In terms of verifying the accutacy of an accounting system...audits are typically done sporadically/randomly. We would have the authority to verify the accuracy of the documentation;auditing. A non-traditional style of audit the IRS does is send out letters looking for specific information;a not-so-intrusive way of gathering the necessary information. There may have to be an educational step as to what an audit is,what verified under oath signifies, and the consequettces if the information is not accurate. Audits are not called for in our current operating agreements,unless it is determined that provisions of oizr current operating agreements are not being complied with. A couple ways of checking things without auditing would be to: verify all purchases are from the municipal off-sale establishment,verify the municipal off- sale liquor store has been properly paid, or check with vendors to verify accuracy. The primary issue,with respect to supervising the compliance obligations under SB126,would be to use s reasonable steps to verify that the 40/60 split,at least annually,is achieved. Statute doesn't give any guidance as to intermediate steps other than the annual xeport in which they would need to comply or they would not be eligible for renewal. Munsterman sees three points that need to be addressed: 1) a report form developed by either staff or auditors,2) in regards to city staff responsibility,who will conduct the audits, and would trauung be needed, and 3)would the audits be done only annually in addition to the annual report. Weldon stated the ciry has the right to conduct audits more frequendy than once a year. State Law doesn't give any direction or specifics as to what the form, the content, or the scope of that auditing procedure is. He feels with help fxom the auditors and finance staff, developing some common- place practices for conducting an audit could easily be developed. Bartley stated SB126 calls for an annual report,which would be subject to an audit. We can eithex make the operating agreement state the audit will be conducted annually or say they are subject to an audit, and do it on request, or on demand. He stated fxom a complaint basis,if an audit is done on Hobo Day,the alcoholic beverage sales may be higher than food sales,and their report will not look good. However,maybe the quarter before looked better, and it is found they are not at the 60/40 currendy,but very well could be at the end of the year when the Annual Repoxt is due. What value did it give the city to look at that? It might give the business owners some value to look at that,but he wouid hope that most business owners are going to look at that on their own to make sure that they are meeting the requirements without having to submit a repoxt saying they are or are not complying every 30 or 60 days. State law is pretty specific that once a year they must meet the 60/40 requirement. There i.s no gray area or grace period. It is up to the business owner to be certain they are meeting those requitements,and 247 understand of the consequences their license will not be zenewed if they ase not in compliance. Bardey doesn't want to get in to the business of the government babysitting these people on how to run their businesses. He sees it as unnecessary,intrusive and the data doesn't prove anythulg other than on an annual basis. Kip Pharis, owner of BraVo's, commented the 60/40 split is big. BraVo's runs around 18% for alcoholic beverage sales. In talking to some other business owners,he has found franchises all require point-of-sale systems. A point-of-sale system is a good thing to have for ease of auditing, especially with not being in and understanding the restaurant business. He views these restaurant licenses are for food development....to bring people into the community and build a better Brookings. Munsterman asked Pharis what his thoughts are on the annual report. Pharis stated once a year is plenty. As a business owner,you need a point-of-sale system,and a viable accountant. One benefit of the point-of-sale system,is once the numbers are created,you can't change them or recreate them. It is a good thing. Munsterman asked Pharis what his thoughts are on a minunum size requirement for an establishment,whether it be square footage or seating capacity. Pharis agreed there should be a size requirement, and somewhere axound 3,000 square feet should be adequate for a successful business. Using BraVo's as an example,BraVo's is around 3,500 square feet, and if it was any smaller it would be too small to produce any revenue or benefit for Brookings. He views 1,500 square feet as too small, as the smaller the place, the smaller the kitchen, the fewer requirements, the less policing needed to be done. Baxdey stated SB126 was designed as an economic development tool to help coxnmunities with fine dining,not specifically chains. You can have a Mom&Pop operation on Main Street specializing in an ethnic food, seating 15-20 people, and also wanting to be able to serve liquor. If thep could buy that particular license and serve 60/40,why deny them just because they don't have 3,000 square feet? Why deny them if they had 15,000 square feet and said that's a litde big,you're going to be a bar? Who determines what is small or laxge enough? Those business plans will come to us and give us an ability to look at them to determine if we want to issue those operating agreements based on location, the character of the business ... just like the operating agreements we have now. A business will survive if they have a good business plan. We don't need to overburden them with a requirement of a specific type of accounting system. He agrees with Pharis that the point-of-sale is a preferable system,but questions if the council should require someone to have it. Bartley is aware of some businesses that still operate off of napkins, sheets,guest checks, etc. Are those efficient systems - that is not the council's decision to make if they provide the data needed. All he sees the council needing to do is develop the form for the figures, and determine if an audit is going to be done annually, or be subject to audit. Baxdey prefers subject to audit as a business wouldn't know when or if they would be audited. Bartley attended committee hearings in Pierre where some of these same issues came up,including size. He is concerned about making rules that can't be enforced. When making rules on size or book keeping systems, someone will always be cut out. The council will have the ability to look at each license request to determine if it meets the criteria for economic development and whether it appears to be a good business plan or not. He feels the operating agYeements currendy in place with several business owners work well, and should follow that as close as possible. A motion was made by Munsterman, seconded by Reed, to direct the City Manager and the City Attorney to develop the �ew Operating Agreement under the auspices of SB126 and add the requirement of 3,000 square feet, add the point-of-sale, and the audit requirements as stated in state law. Also,put this on a future action agenda for more discussion on point-of- sale system and square footage. Reed seconded and added a friendly amendment that a certain percentage is audited every year. Council Di,rcu.r�ion: Weldon a.rked for clarification on the.rquare footage;if it wa.r relative to seating capacity and .rervice area, or the total e.rtabli.rhment. Mun.rterman.raid the total e.rtabli.rhment. Brit�nan clarified the Annual Report i.r under oath, and ther�i.r a choice in how frequent the audit.r lvould be. Mun.rterman asked I�eed for clarification on the fiiendly amendment regarding audit.r. Reed.rtated he added it to the motion to be part of the di.rcu.r�zon at a laterpoint in time. 24 � Betidichek.rtated he doe.rn'tget hung up on audit.r. The annual.rtate Liquor and W/ine License.r e.x�ire eachyear on December 31. In accordance with State I�.�rw, licen.re reneival.r mu.rt be acted on by thegoverning body. Betidichek i.r concerned rvith the number of�e.r of licen.re.r the city hold.r;on-.rale liquor, on-.rale malt, on-o�.rale malt, etc. He que.rtioned hou�all of the.re are monitored and by whom. When the cztygranted Old Sanctuary their licen.re, various �riteria wa.r put forth in the operating agreement,from noi.re control to.ridewalks being.rhoveled. He mentioned Perk,in.r and their holding a licen.re to enable them to continue to have a.rmoking section. If they are not u�ing their licen.re.r `the right way; doe.r thatgive the city the right to yank their licen.re� He.ree.r the need for an auditing�y.rtem, but doe.rn't knou�how any one per.ron could keep them all.rtraight and be on top of the variou.r re.rtriction.r in accordance with each type of licen,re. Bartley,rtated bu.rine.r.re.r don't al�vay.r do tvhat they.ray...take for in.rtance Hy-Vee. Bartley read Dick Sto�er'r comment.r frnm a previous council meeting in regard.r to where the svine ivould be located�vithin the.rtore. There are urine bottde.t all over the.rtore, the florver de�it., the meat dept., etc. He kno2ur zve can't have it both rvay.r, but there ar� things that haj�pen that�ve can't and p�nbably.rhouldn't contrnd. You cannot alway.r believe whatyou are told, and cannot�ia.r.r rule,r ba.red on what i.r.raid. Due diligence mu.rt be done. He i.r notgoing to,rpeak against the motion, a.r it requires action later on. On the motion all present voted yes;motion carried. 6:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL MEETING Consent Agenda: A motion was made by Brunner,seconded by McClemans to approve the agenda,which included: A. Action to approve the agenda. B. Action to approve the October 14,2008 City Council Minutes. C. Action on Resolution No. 108-08, declaring a 1996 John Deere 544G Loader as surplus property. Resolution No.108-08 Declaring Surplus Property WHERE�S,the City of Brookings is the owner of the following described heavy equipment foxmerly used at the City of Biookings Sueet Department: One(1) 1996 John Deere 544G Loader serial numbet DW544GD555430 WHERF.,�S,in the best financial intexest,it is the desixe of the City of Brookings to sell same as surplus property; WHERE�S,the City Manager hereby authorized to appoint three qualified appraisers to appraise the value of the property; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the governing body of the City of Brookings,South Dakota, that this property be declared surplus property according to SDCL Chapter 6-13. The 1996 John Deere 544G Loadei will be replaced with a 2009 John Deere 544K Loader. D. Action to approve a contract with the City Attorney. Legal Services Agreement THE CITY OF BROOKINGS AND STEVEN J.BRITZMAN,ATTORNEY AT LAW agree that the City of Brookings has appointed Steven J.Britzman to serve as City Attorney for a two (2) year period, commencing January 1,2009 and ending December 31,2010, and the City of Brookings and Steven J.Britzman desire to set forth the terms of their Agreement concerning the provision of legal services by Steven J. Britzman as City Attorney as follows: 1. Pexformance of Le Services Steven J. Britzman shall perform all legal services as provided in the "Scope of Services for City Attorney for City of Brookings" (the "Scope of Services").A copy of the Scope of Services fo�City Attorney is attached hereto. Steven J. Britz.rnan will perform all legal services which shall include repxesenting the City in Magistrate Court in the enforcement of Ciry Ordinances. 2. I�surance Covera�e Steven J. Britzman shall tnaintain Attorneys Professional Liability coverage in the amount of One (1) million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and One (1) million dollars ($1,000,000) aggregate during the term of this agreement. Steven J. Britzman shall be responsible to pay anp deductible amount under the foregoing coverage. 249 3. Conflicts of Interest The parties to this Agreement understand that actual or pexceived conflicts of interest are defined in great detail in the Rules of Professional Responsibility which govern attorneys and which are a part of the statutes of South Dakota. Accordingly, Steven J. Britzman shall follow the Rules of Pxofessional Responsibility,immediately disclose to the City Council and City Manager any conflict or the appearance of a potential conflict, and resolve the issue to the satisfaction of the City of Brookings and the other client. 4. Com�ensation for Legal Services Steven J. Britzman agrees to provide all of the legal services provided in the Scope of Services, for a monthly sum from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 of Five Thousand Four Hundred Fourteen and 68/100 ($5,414.68) Dollars,payable on the last day of the month. For the year beginning January 1, 2010 through December 31,2010, Steven J. Britzman shall be paid a monthly sum of Five Thousand Six Hundted Thitty-one and 26/100 ($5,631.26) Dollaxs,payable on the last day of the month. The houxly rate for other legal services,including those set forth in Item 15 of the Scope of Services is $125.00 during the term of this Agreement. The legal services provided by Steven J. Britzman shall be performed as an indeperident contractor and Steven J. Britzman shall therefore pay all payroll and business expenses incutred in pxoviding legal services to the City. 5. Ex�ense Reimbursements,Meetings and Conferences In addition to the compensation for legal services during the initial year of this Agreement, the City will provide Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) pex year for membership in the International Municipal Attorneys Association (IMLA) (cuxxendy$600.00 pex yeax) and for Confexence registration, travel and lodging for the Annual Meeting of the International Municipal Lawyers Association which includes at least su�teen houts of continuing education. During the second yeax of this Agreement,the annual sum of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) for IMLA Membership and annual conference shall be increased to Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00). The City Attorney will also be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses when required to travel outside the City of Brookings to other meetings or to perform legal services,pxovided such travel is appxoved by the City Manager in advance of travel. 6. Le�al Services not within the Sco�e of Services Steven J. Britzman shall fixst obtain approval of the City to perfortn any legal services excluded from the Scope of Services,however Steven J. Britzman and the City agree that it is appropriate for the City Attorney to be responsive to residents of the city,the media, other municipal attorneys, municipal league and other public officials where communication ot an appropriate measure of assistance is in the best interest of the City. Dated this 9�'day of December,2008. SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR CITY ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF BROOKINGS THE CITY ATTORNEY SHAI.L PERFORM THE FOLLOWING SERVICES: 1. Legal counsel shall attend all City Council meetings as the legal advisor for the Brookings City Council,unless the absence is due to vacation or illness or the subject matter does not require the assistance of counsel. 2. Provide all necessary legal consultation services,including oxal and written opinions and reseaxch as xequested by the Brookings City Council and the City Manager. 3. Provide legal assistance to the City's Boasds and Commissions except the Utility Board and Hospital Board as requested by the City Manager and City Council. 4. Provide legal reptesentation to the City in litigation initiated against the City and by the City in cixcumstances where the City is not represented by legal counsel assigned by its insurance company. Legal xepresentation and litigation must be authorized in each instance by the City Council. 5. Assist in the preparation and xeview of all contract agreements,xesolutions, ordinances and other legal documents considered,adopted or endorsed by the City. 6. To maintain a working knowledge of Municipal Law on both the State and Federal level. 25 � 7. Provide legal representation for the City before administrative bodies upon special request by the City Council. 8. As requested,review all claims made against the City. 9. Confex with colleagues that specialize in areas of law to establish and verify a basis for legal proceedings; serve as a liaison between outside legal counsel and City Officials on specialized legal issues. 10. Prepare a monthly written report on cuxrent and on-going activities of the City Attorney's Office due at fitst City Council meeting of the month for the preceding month, together with a monthly statement of legal services perfortned which includes a description of the service and the time required to perform the service. 11. Assist the City Clerk and the private sectox firm in Ordinance Codification. 12. The City Attomey will be an advisor to the labor negotiating staff and will review labor contracts as required or requested. 13. Maintain professional awareness of current literature and changes in law and attending continuing legal education to ensure the most efficient, cost-effective,and accurate operation of the City Attorneys Office. 14. Review proposed state legisla.tion affecting the City and prepare or supervise the preparation of state legislation relating to municipal and city government matters as directed by the City Council. Consult with City Council, City Manager and department heads in regard to such legislation and testify before legislative boards as requested. 15. The City Attorney's basic fee would not include the following services: a. Litigation b. Appearance on behalf of the CITI'before Courts or administrative bodies (other than Magistrate Court). c. Special pxojects assigned by the CITY to Attorney. Fees and services in a-c above will be as negotiated and agreed upon by the parties. E. Action on Resolution No. 109-08, setting fine for accessible parking violation. Resolution No.109-08 Resolution Incxeasing Fine for Violation of Accessible Parking Space WHEREAS,The City of Brookings desires that theie be adequate available pazking for persons with disabilities. WHERE�IS,the fine amount for a violation of use of a designated accessible parking space has not been changed since 1988. WHEREr1S,the curxent fine amount is$25.00,ihe State allows�200.00,and most majot cities in South Dakota have a fine of;100.00. WHERE�IS,the Brookings Committee for People Who Have Disabiliries supports this action. NOW,THEREFORE,BE RESOLVED,that the Bxookings Police Dept.requests the fine amount be raised from$25.00 to;100.00. . F. Action on Resolution No. 110-08, establislung a house moving hourly fee for police escort. Resolution No.110-08 Resolution rlmending the Fee Schedule for Moving Structures in the Ciry. WHERE��S,the City of Brookings desires that theze be a safe environment maintained when a structuxe is being moved inside the city limits. WHERE�S,it is in the best interests of public safery that Law Enfoicement be present during such a move. WHEREI�S,the presence of Law Enforcement assists with safe uaffic flow,especially at large controlled intersections and railroad crossings. WHEREAS,sometimes it can take up to thzee(3)Officexs to assist with a safe move of a structure,which can cause shortages of manpower for other duties and tesponsibilities. WHERE�S,the City is not currenfly compensated for this special circumstance of Police presence. NOW,THEREFORE,BE RESOLVED,that the City of Brookings shall impose a fee of�50 per houz for each Officer and patrol car(one unit)and that the contractor or house mover will be responsible for this fee.That the Officer in charge of the shift will identify how many units axe needed to safely accomplish the move.r1nd,that there will be a two(2)hour minimum for each unit assigned. G. Action on Resolution No. 111-08,recommending Great Lakes as the carrier for Essential Air Service. ' � Resolution No. 111-08 251 Essenrial�ir Service WHEREAS,the City is desirous in maintaining Essenrial tlir Service for the community;and WHEREAS,the City has reviewed the bids for Essential rlir Service;and WHEREAS,the City Council endozses Great Lakes as the primary preferred Essential Air Service provider; and NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Bxookings City Council authorizes the Mayor to write a letter of support to the United States Department of Transpoitation in accordance to Council recommendation of the pzefezred Essential�1ir Service provider. On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried. 1"Reading—Ordinance No 43-08 A fixst reading was held on Ordinance No. 43-08: An ordinance establishing a conditional use to establish a two-family dwelling on Lot 1,Block 5,Bluegill Addition (1503 22nd Street South). Public Hearing: January 13`'' 1$`Reading—Ordinance No. 44-08. A first reading was held on Ordinance Na. 44-08: An ordinance rezoning the West 338 feet of the N'/z of the NW'/4 of Section 34-T110N-R50W,except the South 92 feet thereof, from an Agricultural A District to a Residence R-1A District. Public Hearing: January 13�' let R_eadin�—Ordinance No 45-08 A first reading was held on Oxdinance No. 45-08:An Ordinance Entided"An Ordinance Authorizing A Supplemental Appropriation To The 2008 Budget For The Purpose Of Providing For Additional Funds For The Operation Of The City. Secand Reading: December 16`�' Lease of Real Pro�erty Library Coffee Sho� A public hearing was held on a lease of real property to a private entity—Library Coffee Shop Contract. A motion was made by Brunner, seconded by Whaley, to approve a lease of real property to private entity-Iabrary Coffee Shop Contract. No public comment. Council Di.rcu.r�ion: Weldon clarified.rtate law reqsrir�s a public hearing�vhen lea�ing read prnj�er y. Be�dichek a.rked Elvita Landau,Library Director, u�hat the pmce.r.c tvas that they went thmugh in determining rvhich co�'ee.rhop would have a.ratellite.rhoj�in the library. L.andau.rtated the Library Board determined in.rummer 2007 that they�vould like to have a co�'ee.rhop in the Library. Inquirze.r tve�z.rent to.reveral doca!bu.rine.r.re.r about thi.r idea, but they didn't r�ceive any po.ritive re.rpon.re.r. Thi.r pa.rt.rummer,Harrha Mi.rtry apprnached the Isbrary Board lvith intere.rt in doing thi.r and that i.r u�her�negotiation.r began. Betidichek a.rked if the agr�ement would be on an annual or 2year time frame and holv it unll be evaluated. Ilrndau clarified it i.r a 1 year contract rvith an evaluation for.rucce.r.r to be done eachyear. The contract.rtate.r negotiations can.rtart u�ithin the la.rt guarter�vhether or not it i.r a .rucce.r.r or if there.rhould be a change in the rate of rent. i�haley commented mo.rt co�ee.rhop.r.rtart with co�ee and.rnack.c then e.x�and into.rou�i,r and,randuache.r. She svondered if that i.r.romething that i.rgning to be bmught fonvard later, or i.r that in the agr�ement that alr�ady talked about. I�rndau stated Zoning put forth by the Planning Commis,rion allo�ur them to have beverage.r and�iackaged food,c The Library Board would have to a.rk for a tioning change to o�er anything mor�. Whaley que.rtioned the exact location of the 500.rquare feet up.rtairr in the Library. Landau clarifzed the Co�ee Shop u�ill be on the.recond fZoor, Ea.rt of the Cooper Koom.r in an area that i.r not being utili�ed, located in fmnt of the urindow,r that look.r down onto the circulation de,rk. The countertop.r would take up a guarter of that area�vith five or .nx table.r and chaarr and comfortable.reating. It would take up a fair portion of the area with part of the ar�a being library u.re and part of it being cof f'ee.rhop. Whaley a.rked about the janitorial.rervice.r being j�mvided by the library and if a portion of the r�nt paid tvild he�p pay for tho.re.reruice.r. Landau.rtated M.r.Mi.rtry Zvill take ca�of the Co�ee Shop area. The library would do the vacuuming and cleaning of the table.r, rvhich i.r avhat i.r being done currently. Ye.r,part of the nnt couldgo tolvard.r tho.re.rervice.r. I�Y/eldon a.rked for clarification on the motion, if Brztnner's intent was for the agreement. Yes. Keed a.rked af one would be able to take ca�'ee downstairs into the main part of the library, or bring material.r up.rtairr to r�ad. Ye.r to both que.rtion.r. L.andau,rtated the Library Board ha,r removed the `no beverage.r'.rtipulation and u.il! require any beverages within the library to be covered drink.r. The only area beverage.r urill not be allou�ed i,r in the 25 � computer dab. Landau al,ro.rtated there i.r rvirele.r.r acce.rs on the.recond floor of the I�brary and they encourage�ieople to bring and u.re their daptops. On the motion all present voted qes;motion carried. Annual Liauor and Wine Renewals. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley,to approve the annual Iiquor and wine renewals. No public comment. All present voted yes;motion carried. Liquor On-Sale: Applebee's/Porter Apple Co. B Inc., 3001 LeFevre Dr.,BraVo's, 610 Medary Ave., Cubby's Sports Bar&Grill/ GDT Inc., 307 Main Ave., Danny's / David Olson Inc., 703 Main Ave. So.,B P O Elks Lodge 1490, 516 4�'St.,Fireside,2515 E. 6�'St., Jim's Tap, 309 Main Ave., Half Pint Enterprise Inc / Lantern Lounge, 303 3�St., 9 Bar Nightclub, 303 Main Ave.,Pavilion, 2500 6`�St.,Pheasant Cafe&Lounge,726 Main Ave. So.,Prairie Lanes/Busick-Nelson Inc.,Ram& O'Hare's Ent LLC/The Ram, 327 Main Ave.,Ray's Corner / Fergen Ent. Inc., 401 Main Ave., Safari Lounge Ltd, 421 Main Ave.,Skinner's Pub,300 Main Ave.,VFW Post 2118, 520 Main Ave. Liquor Off-Sale: Municipal Liquor Store,780 22"�Ave. So. Wine On-Off Sale: BraVo's, 610 Medary Ave., Geoxge's Pizza, 311 Main Ave., Guadalajara, 1715 6`� St.,Suite F, Hagman's Bakery, 307 3`�St., Halstead's Natural Bakery&Restaurant, 417 Main Ave., Hy-Vee Food Store, 700 22°d Ave.,Main Street Pub,408 Main Ave., Old Sanctuary, 928 4�`St., Perkins Family Restaurant,2205 6�'St., Skinner's Pub, 300 Main Ave., Shamrock, dba, 1104 22"a Ave. So. TABLED ITEM: Memorandum of Understanding- SDSU Wellttess Center. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley to remove the item from the table. All present voted yes, except Brunner abstained;motion carried. Excerpt and motion.r from the July 22, 2008 City CoKncil Meeting: A motion rva.c made by Whaley, .reconded by Reed, to appmve a Memorandum of Underctanding betweerr the City of Bmoking.r and South Dakota State University for the Wellne.r.r Center. July 22,2008 Council Di.rcus�ion: Dr.Michael Beger, Vice Pr�rident ofAdmini.rtration for South Dakota State University,p�.rented the propo.ced Memorandum of Understanding betrveen the City of Bmoking.r and SDSU. Thi.r MO U i.r purruant to City Re.colution No. 115-96 that declar�d the city'.r intent to sale.c tax fund.r for the IYlellne.r.r Center. Dr. Keger requested this item be tabled until ht can pre.rent it to the Board of Regent.r. A motion u�a.r made by l�eed, seconded by McCleman.r, to table. Ald present votedye.c, Brunner ab.rtained,motion to TABLE pa.r.red. Dr. Regex, SDSU Vice-President, clatified the thxee changes within the MOU since the last discussion: 1) Section 4 stated student costs and access to the Wellness Center. This was removed as the students have the right to access by virhze of commitment of funds to the project. 2) Section 5, faculty and staff costs and access to the Wellness Center. Faculty and staff inembers can stitl join as they see fit,but they felt it wasn't appropria.te fox this particular agxeement. 3) On the last page, there was an addition of legal language the board attorney wanted. The way it was originally written, it would have to be sent to the Regents,sent back here, then back and forth about three more times, and he wanted to make it a more simple process. Should the council approve this MOU, once the Council signs and Dr. Chicoine signs,it will then go to the Board of Regents and the process is finished. The rest of the agreement is as originally presented. No public comment. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by McClemans,to amend the original motion with the strikes and additions as presented by Vice-President Reger. All pzesent voted yes, except Brunner abstained;motion carned. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley to approve the main motion with cha.nges as identified within the Memora.ndum of Understanding between the City of Brookings and SDSU for the SDSU Wellness Center. All pxesent voted yes, except Brunner abstained;motion carried. SDSU Wellness Center MEMOR.ANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 253 WHEREAS,the 20041egislative session of the Legislature of the State of South Dakota by Chapter 120, and as amended by the 20061egislative session at Chapter 99, all at SDCL 13-51-1, authorized the Boatd of Regents to contract for the construction of and the equipping and fiunishing of a Wellness Center at South Dakota State University,Brookings,at an estimated cost of $12.1 million to be paid from other funds under the control of the Board of Regents, from gifts and grants to South Dakota State University specifically for this purpose,including bond proceeds provided by the City of Brookings,and from financing provided pursuant to chapter 13-51A, all of which were appropriated to the Board of Regents fox the purposes of the act; and, WHEREAS,Section 2 of the act empowered the Board of Regents to expend funds obtained for the purposes of the act and appropriated the £unds to the Boatd;and, WHEREAS,Section 3 provided that the administration of the design and construction of these facilities and ovexsight of building committees appointed therefore,as provided in Chapter 5- 14-3 shall be under the general charge and supervision of the Governor and the executive director of the Board of Regents or theit designees;and, WHEREAS, the City of Brookings by virtue of the power granted to the Ciry of Brookings under SDCL 9-12-4 and 9-12-5 has the power to enter into an agreement with the State of South Dakota and with any authorized agency of the sta.te to catry out any authorized municipal function, and is authorized to give and convey any personal property of the munic,ipality to the state to be used for an authorized public purpose upon the terms and in the manner provided by resolution of the governing body; and, WHERF.AS, the State of South Dakota identified the property described as follows, to-wit: From the SE comer of the NW'/4 of Section 24,Township 110N,Range 50W proceed N90°W 332 feet and E90°N 79 feet to Point of Beguuung(POB). From POB pxoceed E90°S 224 feet;thence S90°W 419 feet;thence W90°N 224 feet;thence N90°E 419 to POB. Said tract containing 2.16 acres of Section 24,T110,R50W; and upon which real property is to be constructed the Wellness Center facility as authorized by the legisla.tive acts mentioned previously;and, WHEREAS,the State of South Dakota is constructing a Wellness Center facility on the campus of South Dakota State University,Brookings, South Dakota, on behalf of the Board of Regents of the State of South Dakota;and, WHEREAS,the City of Brookings is contributing to the financing for the constnzction of said faciliry to enhance the availabiliry of multi-use facilities for the City of Brookings and surrounding Brookings County axea;and, WHEREAS,in order to recognize the cooperative effort of the City of Brookings and South Dakota.State University for the use of the facility,which is being joindy constructed,and in ordex to reduce to writing the contractual obligation established by the Board of Regents and the local unit of govemment,namely,the City of Brookings, a municipal corporation of the State of South Dakota. NOW,THEREFORE,this Memorandum of Understanding and legally binding contract is entered into by and between (South Dakota State University) the Board of Regents of the State of South Dakota.and the City of Brookings,a municipal corporation of the State of South Dakota,to set forth in writing in general terms the right of access to the facility and the nature of the cooperative arrangements which will be utilized in the use of the facility to maximize the benefit,not only to the campus of South Dakota State University,but also to the City of Brookings and surrounding Brookings County area. 1. All patties to this agreement recognize that this is a legally binding conttact granting an opportunity for ciry residents and others to join the faciliry in the manner to be established by South Dakota State University,which opportunity is granted and given in consideration of the payment by the City of Brookings of$500,000 for the construction of and the equipping and furnishing of a Wellness Centex facility at South Dakota State University,Brookings, South Dakota. 2. All parties to this agreement recognize that the facility being constructed is primarily intended for the educational,health and wellness needs of the campus of South Dakota State University,undex the ditection of the Board of Regents. 254 3. The administration of South Dakota State University,through the Board of Regents, shall be responsible for the primary management and maintenance of the facility, including scheduling,security,maintenance, control of concessions, formulation and enforcement of building rules,and establishment of fee schedules for use of the facility. 4. Brookings residents and others may purchase Wellness Center membexships at varying cost levels to meet their individual needs. This Memorandum of Understanding does not constitute a binding contract concerning the specific use of the facility for any specific events,but it does impose an obligation and duty upon the State of South Dakota to pxovide for a right of access to the facility in the manner conttactually established hexein. This Memorandum of Understanding for the intergovernmental cooperation and use of the facility being constructed on the campus of South Dakota State University is executed by South Dakota State Universitq subject to approval by the Board of Regents. Larson Ice Center building,(�arking lot modification�roject. Allyn Frerichs,Parks&Recreation Director,updated the council on the intexioz work that is currently underway in the Ice.Arena and was budgeted for with 2009 funds. There was a capital expenditure approved in the amount of$625,000,with$375,000 in donated funds from BISA (Brookings Ice Skating Assoc.), and the other$250,000 in city funds. The intent was to repla.ce the boards in the blue xink and duplicate the permanent seating on the blue rink's south side to be similar to the red rink's north side seating. There will create a mezzanine and permanent seating for an additiona1750-800 people on the north side of the red rink. Underneath this atea will be space for future varsity dressing rooms. The boards and glass have alteady been installed in the blue rink. Banner&Assoc. are completing the design and specifications for the construction of the permanent seating in the red rink with the intent the bids will be opened in January with construction to begin Apri11 and be done by June 26 before the red rink summer ice pxogram. Subsequent to the budget pxocess in early fall,BISA was offered a donation to be used to provide some exterior modifications and appearance to the west entrance of the Larson Ice Center. Originally,when the Ice Center was designed there were some additional exterior treatments deleted from the original bidding process due to funding concerns. This will re-esta.blish that exterior fa�ade,and change some things in the west parking lot. Frerichs showed some drawings which portrayed an overview of what the exterior treatment would look like. The front of the building would change tremendously with the addition of a large cover with signage twice as large as what is there now,which would be readable from I-29,with coloxed treatment, silhouettes and columns on the side of the building. The intent is for this to be a city project. It would be let to bid by the city with construction to be summer of 2009,but not at the same time as the interior improvements. Improvements would also be made the west parking lot. The drive-through in front of the building will be cornpletely closed off by a 12-foot wide sidewalk with lighting that stretches westwaxd from the building to the west edge of the parking lot. This change will provide for two drop-off zones: one coming in from the south and the other coming in from the north. There will be one-way parking on both sides of the lane of traffic,with the rest of the parking lot staying as is. The capacity of the paxking lot did not change,but there wil�,be the required 8-10 accessible parking spots more easily identified. The concept proposed is the estimated$125-150,000 cost of the pxoject would be funded by the city. Since it is not in the 2009 Budget,the donor has agteed to loan the money to the city,which the city would then pay back starting in 2012, the year after the Aquatic Center Loan is paid off,which allows use of money for construction in 2009. The funds for the building fa�ade, etc.would be donated thru BISA. Council Di,rcu.r.rion: Betidichek a.rked if there is going to be bike rack.r out ther�for.rummer time u.re. Ye.r. Be�dichek alro a,rked if the lr�e.r in the drasving a�curr�ntly there. Frerich,r stated tho.re tree,r are there now with no construction rcheduled to di.rr�rpt the area between the.ridewalk and the building other than the front entrance ar�a. Betidichek stated he svould aahpreczate teeing some bike racks that ar�fun,po.rribly.romething that�vould r�r�.rent ice hockey. Frerich.r.rtated there i.r o�iportunity to look into that. tY>haley a.rked if the�'>25-150,000 included frxrng the northparking lot. Frerich.r.rtated the�i.r money in the 2009 Budget to repair and overlay the parking lot on the ea.rt.ride of the buildin� but nothing beyond the exi.rting atphalt. There is nothing budgeted for fiaring the north parking lot. W/haley arked if a co.rt e.rtimate ha.r ever been done for irrr�irovement.r to the north parking lot. Fr�richr commented there has not been an e.rtimate done, but could get one rather earily. lY/haley commented if the ea,rt�ide i.c being r�paired, that would be the appmpriate time to make 255 improvement.r to narth parking lot. W/eldon.rtated he urill check into an e.rtimate for the north parking lot. Weldon a.rked if the we.rtparking lot�vould need to be re-.rtriped orparking line.r reconfigured. Frerich.r.rtated there would only be a minor.rtriping change. Weldon que.rtioned a curUed canopy and the types of challenge.r for managing falling ice and.rnow,rliding off the canopy. He a.rked if,pike.r�vere going to be u,red on the edge,r, or hoiv zvill that be managed. Rick Solonen, Banner d�' A.r.roc., ,rtated everything currently i.r a,rchematic de.rign a.r far a,r.relecting the type of material u.red. If it was a,rtee! roof they u�ould u.re.rno2vguard.r that would catch the rnaw and ice and keep it on the roof until it melted. They ar� planning on having a gutter�y.rtem u�hich svould pipe the svater o�'of the rnof to the.rtorm.re2ver. F�rich.c reminded the council the,re are all preliminary dra�ving.r in de.rign and co.rt e.rtimate.r. W>eldon.rtated.rta�'i,r reque.rtin� by svay of action, a motion to app�nve the conceptual a,rpect of the p�nject, svith direction to.rta�to continue to move ahead urith the pro�ject and to ad�just the 2012 CIP to accommodate financing. That�vill then give the authority to bid and continue tvork svith BISA and the donor, and bring the project back for a contract award. MOTION: A motion was made by Munsterman, secanded by Reed, to approve the conceptual aspect of the project, direct staff to continue to move ahead with the project, and to direct staff to adjust the 2012 CIP to accommodate that financing. Bartley added a friendly amendment to include accepting the loan from the donor. All present voted yes; motion carried. Re�ort from the Brookings Trans�ortation Board Weldon presented this report as the final product fxom the Brookings Transportation Board constituted last March. This report represents participation not only from the boaxd,but also from the providers in the community on a wide variety of transportarion issues primarily related to transit. They had a couple of excellent tools,with some reports prepared by North Dakota State University. NDSU did some analysis relative to a fixed route system in Brookings. This report is intended to be a living document which will be up for renewal by this board for review and amendment every two years with the off-year being an implementation yeax to incorpoxate some of the recommendations, with being subject to funding availability. It will be an oppoxtunity to get some transit improvement projects in the works. Council Di.rcu.r.rion: Mun.rterman svould like to put thi.r'on a January�vork.re.r.rion and.►pend time u�alking thmugh it. He feel.r it i.r very rvell done and i.r a great.rtart for the Tran.rportation Board. Reed a.rked if he could get a co.rt e.rtimate on lvay finding.rignage befo�the council di.rcu.r.rion. W/eddon.rtated they could, but hi,r only he�itation avould be a matter of horv many and location, a.r the.rcope of thi,r analysi.r did not look at .rpecific placement. It svould take a bit mo�detailed avork, and would have to look at rvhich docation.r for�vhich type.r of sign.r. The report ha.r a li.rt that i.r intended to be a.r compr�hen.rive a.r rve could po.r.ribly think of, with the po.cribility of mor�. Keed�vonder�d about a.rking.rta�ho2v they see thi.r.rection pmceeding. He u�ould lzke to know by budget time in 2009 to knorv if there'.r.romething that could be done. Brunner.rugge.rted adding thi.r to the S or>0 year capital plan, a.r item.r there are of particular need. Whaley que.rtioned ivhy emergency planning received only tsvo vote.r and�vonde�zd�vhat that con.ri.rted of. I�eldon coudd not recall, but u�ill look at hi.r note.r and let Wlhaley kno�v. Reed wondered about laoking at North Dakota'.r.rtudy. They had a.rection on eme�gency planning�vhich might be a place to look that it coudd have gotten pulled fmm. South Dakota Denartment of Transportation�roperty (I-29& Highway 14� A motion was made by Munsterman, seconded by Reed, to reject the puxchase agreement for the SDDOT property located at Highway 14 and I-29. No public comment. Council Di.rcu.c.rion: W>eldon recommend at thi.r point in time rtijecting the purz�ha.re agreement, not becau.re thert i.rn't intere.rt in the j»nnper y, but the purcha.re price in thi.r economic climate i.r not in the be.ct inter�.rt of the commrtnity at this time. He bedieve.r the council'c rea.ron.r for wanting to acquire the pmpery are.ctill valid forgrnwth in the community. Bartley a.rked ju.rt a.r a point-of-order, motion.r need to be�nade in a positive manner and thi.r ane is to reject. He que,rtioned if that uJa,r con�idered a po.ritive motion, or if it woudd be be.rt to make a motion to accept and then vote it dorvn. BritZman.rtated the contract rvould pmvide that rve a�required to give notice of our intention not to,�urcha.re. The motion would be, ifphra.red in a porztive ten.re that we de.ri�to give notice of our intention not ta purcha.re. It would be a motion to give notice ta the.rtate that the city doe.r not de.rire to�iureha.re the p�nperZy. That would be a 25 � po.iitive motion, becau.re the.rubject matter i.rgiuing notice. W>e are not voting down the option, we are required under the contract to give them notice and.ro the motion would be to give them notice of our intention not to purcha.re the pmperty. Brit.�nan doe.rn't view the motion a.r a negative motion. On the motion all present voted yes;motion carried. Executive Session. A motion was made by Reed,seconded by Whaley to entex into Executive Session at 7:03 p.m. to consult with legal council for purpose of proposed litigation with the City Attorney, City Manager and Deputy City Clerk present. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed to exit Executive Session at 7:37 p.m. A 'ourn. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Reed,to adjourn. All present voted yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m. CITY OF OOKINGS cott D unsterman,Mayor A •f°:`� O ��q,009�OF 2� :z �- / `' / 4�� d ►9 c:c� h °' �i �/G h AK ,Ciry Clexk