Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCMinutes_2009_11_17 489 Brookings City Council November 17, 2009 The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, November 17,2009 at 5:00 p.m.,at City Hall with the following members present: Mayor Tim Reed,Council Members Julie Whaley,John Kubal, Mike McClemans (left at 6:00 p.m.), Mike Bartley, and Jael Thorpe. Council member Tom Bezdichek was absent. City Manager Jeff Weldon, City Attorney Steve Britzman, and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present. Swiftel Center architect presentation. Dan Miller,JLG Architects, gave an overview of the Swiftel Center Expansion Project. From the initial VenuWorks study, they have performed a cursory/overview estimate and focused on updating the numbers to current market place standards. Phase I consists of an additional ballroom, new support space with kitchen and receiving areas, and renovation of existing meeting rooms to be more visible and accessible. Phase II consists of storage space, dressage rooms, support space for performances and such, and renovating/updating the public restrooms. This would include the marshalling area; the space between the Swiftel Center and the Larson Ice Arena. It would be a cold covered/enclosed area for staging livestock animal events and a loading/u�loading area. In looking at the marshalling area, Weldon commented the idea behind it is to provide a staging area for loading/unloading. The area between the two buildings would be enclosed with large overhead doors for access for semis, busses, etc. This enclosure would provide some protection and weatherization with potentially reducing energy losses when accessing the arena and getting the arena back to a hospitable temperature for the public. Mayor Reed asked if the marshalling area could be used as a livestock holding barn. Richter stated, yes, it could be used for livestock and would also bene�t the go-cart and motocross races as well. The area is approximately 10,000 square feet. The way the facility is today, the north doors open to the outside and often struggle to get the arena back to a hospitable temperature if the doors are open for a long period of time. However, this concept needs to be brought to the Fire Marshall to verify it will fit within all codes. Miller stressed in order to have a synergy happen with the Swiftel Center and its economic impact, there should be a joint venture with a developer. They have allocated some space for a future on-site hotel and showed some drawings of what it could look like. Some pictures of the quality/type of ballroom space along with its flexibility, as well as a corridor area, and the additional vestibule on the South side were also shared. Phase I cost estimate is $3.67 Million for new construction and $456,000 for renovations. Phase II cost estimate is $923,000. Both phases have an increase in cost over the previous study: Phase I is 8.6% higher, and Phase II is I 6% higher. Site development could be 8% less if shared with a hotel developer. The overal! cost is $7.6 million; I 5% higher from the previous estimate. The significant factor in the cost increase is market change. Reed asked about the original stage planned for the west side of the building. Miller responded as part of a functional discussion for how much it would get used for the value put into it, they cut it back and instead spread the addition lengthwise alongside the existing building. Reed asked about the concerns of an adequate power supply for events held on the west side. Richter stated the stage area would be removed from the project, at least for now, and as far as the power supply issues on the west side, they are in good control of those concerns and could rectify the situation with additional outlets. Reed commented the HVS Study showed a smaller number of break-out rooms. Richter explained the HVS Study compared to the VenuWorks Study, the ballroom square footage was 12,000 versus 10,000. The plans reviewed today show the ballroom with 10,000 square feet. They originally looked at turning the Daktronics Room into three rooms which could be subdivided into 6 additional meeting rooms, and cut that back to 5. Bartley asked if any consideration was given to outside storage facilities for dirt, panels, gates, etc. as they pose issues sitting outside. Richter replied it is not included in these plans; however, the storage area is on the CIP within the next five years and would be located north 49 � of the RV Park. Bartley asked what would be done prior, during, or after this project and how would it be funded as he wondered if it could or should be combined as the hotel would be located where the current outdoor storage area is located. Weldon clarified this proposal envisions the city taking over the County Resource Center. However, the budget does not include a consideration for compensation to the county for the purchase. That is an issue out there, but it is not part of this budget. He is unsure if it would be a purchase of the space, a lease, or a trade-out of property as this has not been negotiated. The cost of moving offices from the loft to the new office space is not included in this construction. Bartley questioned the entire design seems to be based upon an attached hotel. If the hotel isn't there, the extra facilities are not needed. He asked how it is envisioned approaching hotels and moving forward with no money. Weldon stated there are a couple issues all can agree on: I) the community has a shortage of conference and meeting facilities, and 2) this project, in and of itself, doesn't work without a hotel partner. Presented as part of this project, is the opportunity to find a hotelier to sell or lease a portion of the ground to, so a private developer could build a 80 to 100 room hotel. Some hotel chains have expressed preliminary interest in this project, but nothing specific or concrete; with the primary interest in only operating the hotel. There has been more due diligence done on this project than any other past or present project; studied for over two years with two different feasibility studies conducted. This issue deserves some public dialogue to bring the issue full circle as to whether or not this is to remain a community priority. It has been on the top of the strategic plan for the past two years. Responding to Council Member Bartley's question, how to approach hotels is an issue Weldon is looking for direction on and clarification where it fits within the process. Miller has seen projects go either way; build all at once, or build the convention center first, then look for a hotel. The Alerus Center in Grand Forks, ND is an example of building the convention center first, and finding a hotel later. Building the convention center first makes it easier to attract hotel developers, as they can see what they are attaching onto. The VenuWorks study looked at a five-year economic impact valued at $21 million per year; this number was based on studies of facilities without an attached hotel. The updated Convention Visitors Bureau numbers show a 25% increase over the initial study. The economic impact and success of a facility is based on the number of bookings. If the Swiftel Center continues to have the success with bookings as currently, some of those economic impact dollars will be seen without a hotel, but there would be increased synergy if there was a hotel. Whaley stated it was nice to see some numbers. She wants to go forward with this project, even though it might be a tough sell. She is optimistic a hotel will follow. Reed is concerned with the $21 million economic impact. The 2008 impact statement, with 98,825 people had an estimated economic impact of$9,400,000. The HVS Study stabilized attendance around 78,600; stabilized attendance included team practices for traveling teams, the Pride of the Dakota's rehearsals, etc. Reed figured actual economic impact to be closer to $7.8 million. The HVS Study estimated 93,586 people in attendance, which was an increase of about I 5,000 people. Reed came up with an additional $800,000 in economic impact using the same model with the increase in attendance. Reed wants to understand where the $21 million comes from. Richter stated in talking about economic impacts and models, there is some difference between numbers. VenuWorks went off the base year, 2008, with a $9.4 million in economic impact; 90,000 people in attendance. The majority of the Swiftel Centers events are arena-type events with 2% of those attendees staying over-night. That is a very conservative number as more than 2,000 hotel rooms are rented in a year's time due to events held at the Swiftel Center. The overly conservative Board of Directors use $I 04/day for an overnight visitor. Five-year projections, which include the first year, add an additional I 6,000 visitors with to this expansion project. By year five it VenuWorks projects just over 50,000 whereas HVS Study shows it closer to 14,000. The national number for an overnight visitor's average spending is approximately $280,000; Brookings uses $104,000, a highly conservative number. If you plug those numbers in at $280,000 or $280/day spending, that is how the $21 million economic 491 impact is figured. When adding the convention facility portion to the economic impact model, they kept 2% of attendees as staying overnight, but increased the convention business attendees to 35%, which is still extremely conservative. The average convention attendee stays three nights; incorporated into this is gas, hotel room charges, meals, shopping, etc. It is all incorporated into how the economic dollars work and why communities such as Brookings build these facilities. In looking at convention attendees, 90% is a more realistic percentage of those staying overnight; in the convention business, people are attracted from outside the area to come to a convention. The difference between HVS and VenuWorks, is VenuWorks conducts studies from a management based side. VenuWorks has the advantage of being the day-to-day managers of the building and seeing what is attracted and what isn't. VenuWorks has a strong conviction and from day one before the building was built, the advisory board has talked about having a full-fledged convention center. Eleven years later it is getting closer to that happening. They are convinced and confident this is the right direction to grow out this facility for Brookings. Kubal stated the economic impact figures are very impressive and doesn't have any reason to doubt them. However, he sees an image issue where this is not filtering down to the general public. In running for office, not one person told him spending more money on the Swiftel Center was one of their highest priorities. However, in some recent informal conversations, people have indicated their reluctance to spend more money on the Swiftel Center. Richter agreed with Kubal this has to be brought to an Open Town Hall Meeting. If the hard questions can't be answered, then this project has no merit to move forward. There is support out there, but public education is needed and hasn't been done. There have been two feasibility studies; a validation study and the original study. Schematic drawings and updated cost estimates have been done, now the public needs to weigh in on the project. Weldon stated the public has a lot of questions about the merits of a capital investment of this magnitude. The Council hasn't authorized staff to start that kind of a dialogue, and what the public doesn't know is very easy, conservative, and safe to oppose at the very beginning. There is an obligation to explain the issue to the community; the council needs to give authorization to do so. It is clear and convincing a hotel and additional conference/meeting facilities are needed in this community. Capitalizing on an investment the city and taxpayers have already made is the prime way to do this so nothing is recreated or duplicated unnecessarily. The Swiftel Center is the initial investment. It needs to be updated, modernized, and kept going. In terms of debt service, this project will not begin until the current Swiftel Center is paid for, which makes this project relatively painless to pay for. The fact is if the Swiftel Center becomes antiquated, outdated, and functionally obsolete, it might as well close, because at that point, the marketability will go down, and the operating subsidy will only increase. Investments are needed to stay current and in business. Weldon would like to see this get to the point where it generates enough Triple B Tax to not need a general fund subsidy. There is a rational nexus there; the visitors using the facility would actually be paying for the facility. It makes sense, is good policy, and fiscal management. The subsidy will benefit those who benefit from visitors. This subsidy would support the hotels, restaurants, gas stations, and shops through the economic impact. Thorpe questioned what attempts have been made to engage developers or private developers with this project, whether it be existing or new event centers. She is having a hard time seeing how something of this magnitude can cash flow; how is doubling the investment going to get money out of it and would like to see more information. Weldon stated there has been some preliminary discussions with some hotel developers; they are more interested in running hotels, not so much interested in running convention or conference centers, and if they did, they would want a subsidy. Both Aberdeen and Watertown have city-owned facilities managed by private companies, and are subsidized by the city as the owner of the facility. This is a public events facility, which is rare that it will actually make any money. As a quality of life issue, the same can be said for the Aquatic Center, the Larson Ice Center, and several other quality of life amenities investments have been made in and this isn't any difFerent. Richter clarified the term public facility is used when a facility is built by a municipality, county government, or a university. The Sioux Falls Convention Center, the Sioux Falls Arena, the 49 � Washington Pavilion, the Fargo Dome, and the Alerus Center are all publicly�nanced facilities. They are subsidized in some form by the General Fund of the cities or Third Penny Sales Tax. In 2009, the Swiftel Center's expenses to operate minus the CIP budget was around $I.5 million. Revenue made on events, food, beverage, rent, equipment, etc., was almost $I.2 million. This allows a budget shortage of$300,000; the subsidy bridges that gap. If the economic impact is around $I 0 million, the Second Penny Sales Tax collected is $200,000. The $300,000 shortage would be decreased by $200,000, leaving a budget shortage of$I 00,000. Most of the events at the Swiftel Center are subject to the Third Penny Sales Tax. If a 3% Sales Tax is collected on all events at the Swiftel Center, the economic impact would be $300,000. Weldon stated the $300,000 general fund subsidy directly supports the building; the building's sole function is to have events to attract visitors to town and to keep our citizens here and entertain the quality of life. When visitors are attracted to town, they support the businesses which directly benefit from visitor spending (hotels, restaurant$, gas stations, etc.). Brookings is not in a unique situation subsidizing the Swiftel Center. When private businesses to build such a facility, they look at the bottom line; cities look at the economic return on investment and quality of life issues. McClemans stated his concern with the entire project is the return on investment. Ten million has been spent and now talking about spending another $9 million. Economic impact, sales tax revenue, subsidies....there is no talk on the return of the already invested $I 0 million. The study shows the subsidy increasing from $300,000 to $450,000 and questioned if this is the best use of the city's funds. It can be called economic impact or sales tax revenue, but the reality is a lot of money spent to turn dollars which will never be gotten back. The study is very well done, but he doesn't support it. Hypothetically speaking, Weldon asked if a private developer wanted to build a private water park, if the city should close down the Aquatic Center. McClemans stated it is already built. Weldon added the Swiftel Center has been built too. Weldon doesn't know what the University is going to be doing in the future and it is not in the best interest to pass up opportunities in community investment on speculation of who might do what when. He asked McClemans if he was looking to get a return on capital investment and what kind of capital return on investment has been had with the Larson Ice Center or the Aquatic Center. Weldon does not understand McClemans analogy. McClemans stated it continues to be a situation where the subsidy is in theory covered by sales tax, and $I 9 million is a tremendous investment in a facility. Weldon asked how it differs from other investments. McClemans responded the Aquatic Center is used by the children in the community. Weldon added it is used only 70 days a year. McClemans commented that is pretty limited and maybe a dome should be installed over it with some of the $9 million. Bartley commented the pool, soccer fields, golf course are all quality of life issues subsidized by the city. They bring people to town to shop, buy food, etc. The Swiftel Center has helped recruit retail, restaurants, and other amenities college students want to have in a community. This community elected to step forward to put money in this facility to encourage other businesses to come to this community and enhance the quality of life, which is an expansion of city dollars no one can put a figure on. If a return on investment is tied to this, looking at the millions of dollars invested in this community, the Swiftel Center trumps it. The Swiftel Center has been a great deal for Brookings. ACTION: A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to move forward to the architectural design phase with whatever public hearings are deemed necessary. Discussion: Whaley commented bids need to get out Using the SDDOT property as an example, no one will invest in it until something is bought 7he city has invested in the Swiftel Center;the convention center will only enhance it Kubal asked Whaley if he heard her correctly in that she is ready to take bids. Whaley stated bids could be taken now, or wait another six or seven more months and endure increased costs. Kubal is concerned there hasn't been enough public in formation provided o f what this will do for the City o f Brookings. Kubol is not worried about subsidies i f there is a possibility of a return on investment via economic impact, but he is not convinced this is where it is going to go. 493 Whaley expressed concern with $250,000 spent on two studies, and then possibly just put this project on the shelf. A contractor could take the floor plans and come up with a cost estimate. 1 f a hote!sees this project moving forward, ground could be broke in April. Much can go on in less than a year's time. Having o public hearing was part o f Bartley's motion. The project can be cancelled at any�oint prior to the bid letting. Bartley stated having council support to move onto the next step is needed; remvining in limbo is not an option. Thorpe agreed this will enhance the quality o f li fe, however, she is uncertain it is a fair rationale for moving ahead with a nearly $I 0 million investment. She will have o hard time justi fying to the residents of Brookings, in such an uncertain economy, to invest this amount o f money in such a project Reed ex�ressed concern with economic im pact ranging from $1 to $10 million dollars. With a convention center, a night's stay is worth more, and a comparison o f the 2008 numbers is needed to see what the actual increase would be; the amount people spend will not increose,just the number of people. A request for proposal is needed to understand i f this is adually feasible. It needs to be determined i f the location beside the Swi ftel Center is indeed the ideal location, however, if this is the only option, it will limit what can be done. Weldon agreed with Council Member 7horpe, no matter how much e f f'ort or work has gone into a project it is not a justif cation to do it It has to be right for the community and it has to make a lot of sense. Public education is needed, and Weldon would need support for such an undertaking. He doesn't see any reason to hire any more consultants or do any additional reports which can't be done directly in house to get thrs ro a yes or no issue for the community. On the motion, Kubal questioned i f he understood it to mean adually hiring an architectural f rm. Bartley clarified the motion was to move to the architectural phase with such public hearings as may be necessary; doing the public hearings first. Reed clari fied the motion states to go ahead with the architectural design, 7he City Manager needs to be given clear direction. Kubal vsked i f the motion would involve ¢�aying for an architect at this stage. Bartley clarified before hiring an architect, a contract would have to be approved. Bartley is more concerned to get the dialogue started with the direction being the finvl design phase. We are in agreement to move forward if the public hearings, the design work, and the financing oll works out The motion says to push forward and that is 411. Reed is concerned o f being locked in with our methodology on this one site. On the motion, Bartley and Whaley voted yes; Kubal, McClemans, Reed and Thorpe voted no. Motion failed. ACTION: A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Bartley, to set up a public hearing at the Swiftel Center set soon to move in a forward direction. Reed made a friendly amendment to hold the public hearings at the Council Chambers for it to be televised. Bartley added a friendly amendment with location and date to be determined by the City Manager. On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried. (McClemans le ft meeting at 6:00 p.m.) 6:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETING. Consent Qgenda. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Kubal, to approve the consent agenda as follows: A. Action to approve the agenda. B. Action to approve the October 27, 2009 City Council Meeting minutes. C. Action on Resolution No. I I 0-09, updating the EEOC Statement. Resolution No. I 10-09 Equal Opportunity Policy Statement 49 � It is the fundamental policy of the City of Brookings to provide equal opportunity for all residents, applicants and employees as it pertains to provision of services and employment opportunities in order to ensure that there will be no discrimination against any person on the basis of race, creed, color, religion, sex, age, national origin, citizenship status, sexual orientation, political affiliation, genetic predisposition or carrier status, disability, marital or veteran status, or any other basis prohibited by state or federal law. D. Action on Resolution No. I 1 I-09, for 20 I 0 Dental Insurance Contribution Rates. Resolution No. I I I-09 Establishing Dental Insurance Monthly Contribution Rates for the City of Brookings Dental Insurance Plan Whereas, Be It Resolved, that the 2010 employee and employer contributions for the dental insurance plan be established as follows:City General and Public Safety Employees (Employer's Share - 75% of Single Rate)/Employee's 2010 Share/Total): Employee Only ($26.I 3/$8.71/$34.84), Employee/Spouse ($26.I 3/$40.71/$66.84), Employee/Children ($26.13/$42.57/$68.70),and Family ($26.13/$67.01/$93.14). E. Action to appoint Patty Bacon to Ryan Howlett's vacated position on the Human Rights Committee (term I 1/I 7/2009 through I/I/20 I 2). F. Action on an amendment to the Police Union Contract; On page I was title change within the contract for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union, and on page 23 was a change in the clothing allowance for investigators within the Police Dept. from $250 to $350. This change does not impact the cost or past practice, since it has been $350 for a few years; it only corrects an oversight in language. G. Action to approve a Preliminary Plat for Lots I — 7, Block 6, Valley View Addition. H. Action on Resolution No. I I 2-09, a Resolution fixing time and place for Hearing Upon Assessment Roll for 2008-045TA (East/West Alley from 6"' Street to 7`h Street between 7th Avenue and 8�' Avenue). Resolution No. I 12-09 Resolution FixingTime and Place for Hearing upon Assessment Roll for Street Assessment Project No.200$-04STA (East/West Alley from 6�' Street to 7`'' Street between 7`" Avenue and 8�' Avenue) Be It Resolved by the City Council of the City of Brookings, South Dakota, as follows: I. The assessment roll for Street Assessment Project No. 2008-04STA having been filed in the office of the City Clerk on the 9`h day of November, 2009, the City Council shall meet in the Council Chambers, City Hall, in said City on Tuesday, the 8�` day of December, 2009 at 6:00 o'clock PM, the said date being not less than twenty (20) days from the filing of said assessment roll for hearing thereon. 2. The City Engineer is authorized and directed to prepare a notice describing, in general terms Street Assessment Project No. 2008-04STA, the date of filing the assessment roll, the time and place of hearing thereon, stating that the assessment roll will be open for public inspection at the office of the City Engineer and referring to the assessment roll for further particulars. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to publish said notice in the official newspaper at least one (I) week prior to the date set for hearing and to mail a copy thereof, by first class mail addressed to the owner or owners of any property to be assessed at his, her or their last mailing address as shown by the records of the Director of Equalization at least one (I) week prior to the date set for said hearing. On the motion, all present voted yes; motion carried. 495 I S` Reading— Ordinance No. 30-09. A first reading was held on Ordinance No. 30-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the definition of a Coffeehouse. Public Hearing: December 8, 2009 1 St Reading— Ordinance No. 3 I-09. A first reading was held on Ordinance No. 3 I-09: An application for a Conditional Use to establish an apartment with 3 units on the west I 83 feet of the east 288 feet of the south 140 feet of Block I I, Parkdale Home Second Addition (208 West 8`n Street). Public Hearing: December 8, 2009 Ordinance No. 27-09. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Thorpe, to approve Ordinance No. 27-09: Budget Amendment#2, an Ordinance Authorizing a Supplemental Appropriation to the 2009 Budget for the purpose of providing for additional funds for the operation of the City. No public comment was made. All present voted yes; motion carried. Ordinance No. 2$-09. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Kubal, to approve Ordinance No. 28-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brookings and pertaining to off-street parking requirements for a two-family dwelling for the purposes of administration of the Zoning Ordinance. Council Discussion: Kubal asked for clarification on the two additional parking spaces for each dwefling unit; if it should read for eacf� additional bedroom and not dwelling unit. Dan Hanson, Planning & Zoning Coordinator, stated currently two parking spaces are required per dwelling unit regardless of the number of bedrooms. The proposed change would go one step further and tie together dwelling units and number of bedrooms to the parking requirements. Once a duplex exceeds two bedrooms, one additional on-premise parking space is required for that unit, providing ample on-premise parking. Very few duplexes have four bedrooms, mainly because four unrelated individuals occupying a dwelling unit in a single family or two family dwelling is not allowed. Weldon understood a required parking space for each additional bedroom. Hanson stated a duplex requires four parking spaces. However, if one unit is a three bedroom and the other unit is a two bedroom, �ve parking spaces are required. If both units are three bedroom units, six parking spaces are required. It is a combination of dwelling units and the number of bedrooms. Kubal asked for clarification if a duplex had two units with four bedrooms each, they would be required to have six parking spaces, not eight. Hanson stated that is correct, and this would also apply for conversions. Whaley asked in regards to conversions, how would compliance of the ordinance be enforced. Hanson stated parking in boulevards and front yards is restricted. He gave a scenario of adding an extra bedroom to an existing duplex; along with the permit to install a bedroom, an additional parking space would also have to be installed where city ordinance legally allows. !f it isn't, then they wouldn't be allowed to add the bedroom. This wouldn't be an issue in most cases, as parking is allowed on side lot lines, the sides of the garage, or off of an alley. Most places could �nd a location, but it would be linked. Weldon stated this and the issue of grandfathering has been discussed at the Planning Commission. This ordinance would be prospective and not retroactive or compiied with any pre-existing conditions. Britzman explained grandfathering and how it relates to this issue. This is a complex issue as to how to modify the zoning rules as they affect existing zoned property. The city possesses police powers to regulate the use of public right-of-way; streets and alleys are within the city's authority to regulate parking for the welfare and safety of the community. Police Power is a phrase labeled by the court systems, meaning the authority to look out for the community's safety and welfare. How far a community can go to impose new rules on existing is a debated topic on a variety of different issues nationwide, and has been the subject of four fairly recent Supreme Court decisions as to whether or not a governmental entity has gone too far in imposing regulations. Regulations have a vaiid purpose, but the extent in which they impact people can be viewed as being beyond the authority of the governmental entity to regulate. Whether or not modifications can be made as they apply to existing situations, such as current 49 � rental dwellings, may include the possibility of further zoning ordinance changes applied throughout the city. Caution is being exercised in being aware of the issues and litigation which has occurred throughout the country where regulations went too far. There is one case in South Dakota dealing with parking issues; this is due mainly as South Dakota does not have the population density issues which exist in larger metropolitan areas. Britzman is currently researching possible additional regulations which would be subject to the public input of the Planning Commission and City Council decision making process and will be able to provide a better recommendation in a couple of weeks. If there is a valid reason, and a valid regulation goes with it, there is the authority to proceed. Reed stated more work is needed on the parking issue and will be a topic in the coming months to hopefully resolve some issues. No public comment was made. All present voted yes; motion carried. Ordinance No. 29-09. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Thorpe, to approve Ordinance No. 29-09: An Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Brookings and pertaining to Emergency Services as a permitted use in certain business and industrial districts for the purposes of administration of the Zoning Ordinance. No public comment was made. All present voted yes; motion carried. Resolution No. I I 5-09. A public hearing was held on Resolution No. I I 5-09, a Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property to Private Person (Lyle Johnson — Nichols property). No public comment was made. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Kubal, to approve. All present voted yes; motion carried. Resolution No. I 15-09 Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property to Private Person 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 Lyle Johnson for a period of two (2) years, commencing January I, 2010 and ending December 31, 201 I, and pertaining to the following described property: The designated hay/pasture land, forth-eight (48) acres more or less, in Section 2 I, T I I ON- R50W in the City of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota. The Lease will be an amount of Sixty Dollars and no Cents per acre ($60.00) for hay/pasture land, payable first half on April I and the remaining half on November I of each year. Be It Further Noted, that a Public Hearing on this Resolution was held on November 17, 2009 at 6:00 o'clock P.M. at the City Council Chambers and that all persons were given an opportunity to be heard on the intent to lease real property. Resolution No. I I 6-09. A public hearing was held on Resolution No. I I 6-09, a Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property (South Dakota Ag F�cperiment Station —Airport). No public comment was made. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to approve. All present voted yes; motion carried. Resolution No. I 16-09 Resolution of Intent to Lease Real Property 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 South Dakota Ag Station for a period of one (I) year, commencing on January I, 2010 and ending December 31, 2010 and pertaining to the following described property: The designated hay land and farmland on the Brookings Regional Airport, two hundred seventy- four (274) acres more or less in Sections 26, 27, and 35, T 1 I ON, R50W, in the City of Brookings, Brookings County, South Dakota. The Lease will be an amount of Forty Dollars ($40.00) per acre for hay land and Seventy-two Dollars ($72.00) per acre for crop land, payable first half on April I and the remaining half on 497 November I. The City of Brookings may terminate this Lease at any time in the event a parcel of the above described property is to be sold by the City of Brookings. If a portion of the leased land is sold, the number of acres to be paid for will be adjusted at the unit price per acre. Be It Further Noted, that a Public Hearing on this Resolution was held on November 17, 2009 at 6:00 o'clock P.M. at the City Council Chambers and that all persons were given an opportunity to be heard on the intent to lease real property. Resolution No. I 06-09 - Change Order. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Whaley, to remove Resolution No. 106-09 from the table. A motion was made by Kubal, seconded by Bartley to approve Resolution No. 106-09, a Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 4 (CCO#4) for 2008-09STI Rio Grande, Napa Valley, and Cumberland Court Project, Rounds Construction. All present voted yes; motion carried. Whaley stated the change order increases the overall project cost by $57,000. The original plans didn't envision storm sewer collection. The developers changed their mind and wanted to add storm sewer collection to this project. The cost is eligible for the TIF and would be repaid under reimbursement. Resolution No.106-09 A Resolution Authorizing Change Order No.4(CCO#4) for 2008-09STI Rio Grand, NapaValley & Cumberland Court Project, Rounds Construction Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2008-09STI Rio Grand, Napa Valley & Cumberland Court Project: Construction Change Order Number 4 Adjust contract for additional HDPE storm sewer and rear yard area drains for an increase of $57,885.51 to the contract. Adjust the contract final completion date to December I 5, 2009. Resolution No. I I 3-09 — Change Order. A motion was made by Thorpe, seconded by Whaley, to approve Resolution No. I I 3-09, a Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#I Final) for 2009-04STA Alley Assessment Project (from I I`h Avenue to 12�' Avenue between I S` Street and 2"d Street), Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD. All present voted yes; motion carried. Resolution No. I 13-09 A Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#I Final) for 2009-04STAAlIey Assessment Project (I I�'Avenue to I 2`h Avenue between I 5i Street and 2"d Street) Bowes Construction Inc., Brookings,SD Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2009-04STA Alley Assessment Project: Construction Change Order Number I Final Adjust estimated bid quantities to "as build" quantities for a total decrease of$2,534.39. Resolution No. I I 4-09 — Change Order. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Kubal, to approve Resolution No. I 14-09, a Resolution Authorizing Final Change Order (CCO#2 Final) for 2009-02STA I 5`fi Street South, Camelot Drive, and Christine Avenue Street Assessment Project, Bowes Construction, Inc., Brookings, SD. All present voted yes; motion carried. Resolution No. I 14-09 A Resolution Authorizing Change Order No.2 (CCO#2 Fina() for 2009-02STA 15`h Street South,ChristineAvenue and Camelot Drive StreetAssessment Project Bowes Construction Inc. Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2009-02STA I 5�' Street South, Christine Avenue and Camelot Drive Street Assessment Project: Construction Change Order Number 2 (Final) 49 � Adjust the bid quantities to final as-built quantities for a total increase of$1,365.09 to the contract. Adjust contract substantial completion date to August 6, 2009. Resolution No. I 17-09. A motion was made by Bartley, seconded by Kubal to approve Resolution No. I 17-09, Creating Capital Reserves for Governmental Funds. No public comment was made. All present voted yes; motion carried. Resolution No. I 17-09 Creating Capital Reserves for Governmental Funds Whereas, the City of Brookings has established Governance Policies & Ends Policies, which defines, protects, and prioritizes the workings of City Government, Whereas, Ends Policy I, Financial Stability, Guideline E requires a (5) five year capital improvement plan, Whereas, South Dakota Codified Law 9-21-14.I authorizes municipalities the accumulation of funds for a period longer than one year for specific capital outlay purposes otherwise authorized by law, Whereas, South Dakota Codified Law 9-2 I-I 4.2 states such resolution shall be enacted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body stating clearly the purposes for which the funds are to be accumulated and the maximum amount that may be accumulated, Whereas, South Dakota Codified Law 9-2 I-14.2 further states the funds accumulated shall be expended within sixty months from the date of the resolution or if the specific purposes for which the funds are accumulated are deemed no longer necessary, these funds shall revert to the general fund, Now, Therefore, Be (t Resolved, the following capital reserve funds be created for these governmental funds per the (5) Five Year Capital Improvement Plan and the City Manager with the approval of the Council be allowed to spend these funds when the need arises: Solid Waste Collection Fund — 2010 5-year capital improvement plan/Automated Truck - $200,000; Solid Waste Disposal Fund —2010 5-year capital improvement plan/ Loader - $750,000; Solid Waste Disposal Fund —2010 5-year capital improvement plan/Trench #5 - $200,000; General Fund—acquisition of Land - $2,000,000; General Fund — 2010 5-year capital improvement plan/201 I CIP - $771,950; 75% Sales & Use Tax—2010 5-year capital improvement plan/Streets & RR Crossing - $2,720,000; 25% Sales & Use Tax—20 f 0 5-year capital improvement plan/portion of 201 I CIP - $I,000,000. All other resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Resolution No. I I 8-09. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Thorpe, to approve Resolution No. I 18-09, accepting the property for future park land in Valley View Addition. No public comment was made. All present voted yes; motion carried. Resolution No. I 18-09 A Resolution Accepting a Gift of Real Property to the City of Brookings, South Dakota. Whereas, Blairhill Properties, Inc. desires to gift and convey real property to the City of Brookings, South Dakota, to be used for public purposes and specifically to provide a playground for the Valley View and Esther Heights neighborhoods and future adjacent subdivisions, said real property being described as follows: Lot Sixteen (I 6) in Block Two (2) of Valley View Addition, City of Brookings, County of Srookings, State of South Dakota, and Whereas, the property is conveyed with the restriction that the property shall revert to Blairhill Properties, Inc. if it ceases to be used by the public as a playground serving the Valley View and Esther Heights neighborhoods, and future adjacent subdivisions, and Whereas, the City Council recognizes the significant benefits the community will enjoy as a result of the gift of this real property by BlairHill Properties, Inc., 499 Now, Therefore, It Is Hereby Resolved by the City Council that the real property described above is gratefully accepted by the City of Brookings, South Dakota, subject to the restriction set forth herein. I-29 Corridor Study Agreement. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Thorpe, to approve the Fixed Price Technical Services Agreement; I-29 Corridor Study. No public comment was made. All present voted yes; motion carried. Fixed Price Technical Services Agreement This agreement is entered into by and between City of Brookings, a public entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Dakota and having offices at 414 Main Avenue, Brookings, South Dakota 57006 (hereinafter referred to as the "CITY") and Regional Technology Strategies, Inc., a nonprofit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina and having offices at 205 Lloyd Street, Suite 210, Carrboro, North Caro(ina 275(0 (hereinafter referred to "the Contractor "). The CITY desires to utilize the services of the Contractor and the Contractor desires to provide those services, and in consideration the CITY and the Contractor do agree as follows: I. The Contractor shall perform the services as more specifically described in the Scope of Services contained in the Addendum to this agreement, "Regional Growth Strategy for the I- 29 Corridor" and including the optional Phase One task, "Comparative Benchmarking of Similar Universities and Communities." 2. The performance period for the contract shall be six months. It is anticipated that the contract shall commence on December I, 2009 and end on May 31, 2010. 3. This contract is issued on a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) basis for a total price of$I 17,500. Payment by the CITY under this agreement shall not exceed this amount. 4. The Contractor shall submit invoices and monthly reports presenting progress to date by activity to: AI Heuton, Executive Director, Brookings Economic Development Corporation and Jeff Weldon, City Manager, City of Brookings. Invoice terms are net 20 days. The final invoice should be marked "Final Invoice'. Payments shall be made according to the following schedule and terms: $I 3,750 Upon Execution of the Contract Six monthly payments as presented below. Each payment shall be due to RTS upon approval by the ClTY of the monthly status report describing progress on activities scheduled to be performed as set forth in the six month project timeline included in the Addendum to this agreement. $I 5,000 Month One $I 5,000 Month Two $I 5,000 Month Three $I 5,000 Month Four $I 5,000 Month Five $I 5,000 Month Six $I 3,750 Due Upon Acceptance of Final Phase 2 Strategic Action Plan 5. This agreement may be terminated, in whole or in part, by written notice of the CITY for any reason. The notice of termination shall specify the extent to which performance is terminated and the effective date of such termination. The Contra�tor shall submit a termination claim to the CITY within 60 days of receipt of the notice. The Contractor and the CITY may agree upon the amount to be paid by reason of the termination, provided, that total payments under the agreement shall not exceed the total contract amount and shall not include anticipatory profits for the work terminated nor consequential damages because of the termination. 50 �� 6. The CITY may at any time, by written order, require the Contractor to stop all, or any part, of the work. Upon receipt of such an order the Contractor shall take all reasonable steps to minimize the incurrence of costs allocable to the work covered by the order during the period of work stoppage. The CITY shall either: (i) cancel the stop work order, or (ii) terminate the work covered by such order. 7. Any dispute arising under this contract or the performance thereof which is not settled by ' agreement between the parties shall be settled by appropriate legal, equitable, or administrative proceedings. Pending any decision, appeal or judgment the Contractor shall proceed diligently with the performance of this contract unless otherwise directed by the CITY. 8. The Contractor s relationship with the CITY is that of an independent contractor. Therefore, the Contractor shall be solely responsible for its own financial obligations. Further, the Contractor is not covered by the CITY's insurance including, but not limited to Worker's Compensation, Professional Liability, General Liability, and/or Automotive Liability insurance. 9. This contract contains all of our understandings and agreements relating to the services and may be changed only in writing signed by the CITY's authorized representative. This contract shall be governed by the laws of, and enforced within the jurisdiction of the State of South Dakota. ADDENDUM The Contractor is to provide services as described in the Contractor's September, 2009 proposa! (attached) entitled "Regional Growth Strategy for the {-29 Corridor". MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING By and Between the City of Brookings, a South Dakota municipality, and the City of Watertown, a South Dakota municipality Whereas,in furtherance of the development of the I-29 Corridor Regional Growth Strategy,the I-29 Corridor Task Force has requested proposals from consultants for services to assist the I- 29 Corridor Task Force in conducting a regional economic growth analysis, development of a regional growth strategy and strategy implementation efforts ("the project"), and has now selected a consultant;and Whereas, the I-29 Corridor Task Force includes numerous member entities, including the City of Brookings and the City of Watertown. The City of Brookings and the City of Watertown are municipal corporations authorized to enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action pursuant to SDCL Chapter I-24;and Whereas,the I-29 Corridor Task Force requires a public agency, such as the City of Watertown or the City of Brookings,to serve as a contracting entity and fiscal agent for the project;and Whereas,the City of Brookings has agreed to serve as the contracting entity and fiscal agent on behalf of the I-29 CorridorTask Force. Now,Therefore,the parties do hereby agree as follows: I. The City of Brookings will serve as a contracting entity and fiscal agent on behalf of the I-29 Corridor Task Force for the project,and 2. The City of Brookings will contract with the consultant selected by the I-29 Corridor Task Force, and as fiscal agent for the I-29 Corridor Task Force for this project will receive funds from the I-29 Task Force member entities and other sources, and will disburse payments to the consultant, and will perform such other tasks as fiscal agent as necessary and as the parties hereto agree and subsequently set forth in amendments to this Memorandum of Understanding. McCrory Gardens Visitors Center. A motion was made by Reed, seconded by Whaley, to table discussion on the McCrory Gardens Visitors Center. All present voted yes; motion carried. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion. Whaley asked for an update on the City/County Space Needs Task Force to be on the December 8`h Regular Council Meeting. � Thorpe asked for an update on the status of the Old Landfill Nature Park. Weldon stated it , could be added to the December 8`h Regular Council Meeting. Adjourn. A motion was made by Whaley, seconded by Kubal, to adjourn. All present voted yes; motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. CITY OF BROOKINGS ��`n�— 1�UG� ST: Tim Reed, Mayor �`����9�C� o�, �.�� p•` � �i i� �: � � �, U>: �D O�, G�',y ar.+� rnes, City Clerk ��Ar�C31 q` '�Rtii i�:g