►
From YouTube: City Council Work Session Meeting 03 06 2017
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Good
afternoon,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
and
welcome
to
the
Monday
March
6th
of
2017
to
the
city
council
work
session.
At
this
time,
I
will
call
the
meeting
to
order
and
the
first
one
will
be
Roger
you're
up
for
Roger
foot
for
a
discussion
on
the
phosphorus
removal
facility.
So
the
floor
is
yours:
buddy.
A
B
C
A
B
B
What
this
works
out
is
that,
as
the
lake
has
come
up,
a
good
one
foot
from
the
river
water,
that's
1.6
billion
gallons
of
water,
in
that
one
one
foot
with
the
concentration
of
0.2
4
milligrams
per
liter
of
nitrogen
nitrogen
has
been
very
deficient
in
the
lake
over
the
past
few
years.
That's
why
one
of
the
reasons
why
the
lake
has
been
so
clear
is
because
nitrogen
hasn't
been
there
to
feed
the
aquatic
plants
and
algae
Xin
the
lake.
The
phosphorus
is
still
there.
B
It
doesn't
go
away
as
the
plants
use
it,
they
do
their
thing.
They
die
off
that
gets
rereleased
back
into
the
water,
so
with
the
3,000
pounds
of
nitrogen
that
has
come
in
just
with
that
1
foot
of
water.
If
you
use
a
15
to
1
nitrogen,
the
phosphorus
ratio,
that's
gonna
eat
up
200
pounds
of
phosphorus.
That
sounds
great,
however,
that
200
pounds
of
phosphorus
will
grow
up
to
64
thousand
pounds
of
algae.
B
Everyone
remembers
last
year
when
the
ice
went
out.
The
lake
was
so
clear.
You
can
see
fish
in
the
bottom.
Everyone
was
just
as
static
about
that.
It
ain't
gonna,
be
that
way
this
year,
I
have
with
me
a
sec,
you
disc,
CG
disc.
However,
you
want
to
pronounce
that
it's
a
simple
tool
that
we
use
for
physical
observations
of
the
water
column
on
the
west
end
of
the
lake
last
week.
B
Another
interesting
observation
is
the
oxygen
levels
on
the
east
end
of
the
lake
I'm.
Sorry,
the
west
end
of
the
lake.
The
levels
were
0.8
or
I'm,
sorry,
8
milligrams
per
liter,
which
is
not
a
bad
number.
On
the
east
end
of
the
lake,
where
we
got
very
little
visibility,
it
was
over
18
milligrams
per
liter,
that's
a
huge
number,
and
that
sounds
great.
However,
something
is
producing
this
oxygen
and
I
will
tell
you
right
now
is
when
the
ice
goes
off.
B
The
lake
will
be
green
because
it's
all
the
diatoms
and
the
algae
that
are
eating
this
nutrient,
the
nitrates,
combining
it
with
the
phosphates
and
they're
going
crazy
right
now.
So
that's
that's
the
doom
and
gloom.
We
are
not
gonna,
have
it
clear
as
lake
as
we
did
last
year
now,
let's
see
that
brings
me
to
this
proposal
been
working
on
it
for
over
a
year
now,
I've
included
a
copy
with
the
documentation
for
this
meeting.
B
If
anyone
would
like
a
hard
copy,
I
did
bring
a
few
you
just
let
me
know
I'm
sure,
you've
all
read
through
it.
Basically,
this
is
our
system
that
we
have
existing
at
an
industrial
scale.
These
people,
I've,
been
working
with
I,
could
probably
do
what
they're
doing,
but
I
would
need
five
more
years
and
a
fairly
unlimited
budget
to
match
the
technologies
that
they've
come
up
with
nobody
likes
to
give
me
an
unlimited
budget.
B
So
what
I
would
like
to
do
now
this
this
system,
I
believe,
is
affordable.
It
has
uses
fewer
chemicals,
limited
waste
stream
and
there
is
a
potential
for
cost
recovery
on
it
as
well,
at
least
as
much
as
operating
costs
annually.
What
I
would
like
to
do
is
is
put
this
on
the
capital
improvement
plan,
perhaps
for
eighteen,
perhaps
for
nineteen.
This
is
kind
of
where
you
guys
come
in
and
and
what
you
feel
is
is
necessary.
B
A
A
B
Phosphorus
B
is
phosphorus
and
the
relationship
is
Algie
uses
more
nitrates
than
phosphates.
The
idea
is
to
capture
the
phosphates,
the
things
that
don't
go
away
as
you
seen
with
the
water
in
the
lake
over
the
last
three
or
four
years,
the
amount
coming
in
has
been
less
and
less
and
less
and
last
year
there
was
none
right.
The
existing
nitrates
in
the
lake
have
gone
through
that
nitrate
cycle
and
have
eventually.
B
A
B
A
B
The
reason
why
I
took
the
samples
near
the
plant,
because
it
was
the
easiest
place
to
access
the
lake
I,
also
drilled
holes
on
the
other
side
of
the
lake
by
kopetsky
Lodge
and
the
same
water.
Clarity
on
that
side
as
well,
so
that
whole
eastern
end
of
the
lake
is
mixing
in
with
the
water
coming
down
now.
Thank
You
Roger.
D
I'm
trying
to
get
my
arms
around
the
science,
this
I
mean.
Let's
say
that
we
we
bite
the
ball.
It's
been
the
dollars
we
removed
whatever
number
of
pounds
per
year
and
all
of
a
sudden,
we
get
a
massive
event
that
just
brings
in
you
know
a
couple
feet
of
water:
I
mean
just
overnight.
I
mean
what
what
does
that
do
to
what
we've
just
done
relative
to
reeling?
The
phosphorus
does.
B
It
set
us
back
to
square
one,
no
because
of
the
accumulative
effect.
We
get
one
bad
event,
but
then
we
have
four
or
five
10
years
of
decent
events
that
we
can
keep
up
with
and
keep
ahead
of.
In
this
scenario,
the
200
pounds
of
phosphorus
that
will
be
used
by
the
3000
or
Matt
with
the
3,000
pounds
of
been,
we
could
easily
remove
that
and
keep
ahead
of
that
cycle.
B
E
B
Right
now,
the
lake
is
classified
as
hyper
eutrophic.
Sorry,
that's
a
scientific
term
for
extremely
active.
Very
nutrient-rich
produces
lots
of
of
plants
algae.
It
goes
in
cycles,
those
years
where
we
have
good
water
clarity,
we'll
have
lots
of
plant
growth.
People
call
them
weeds
and
they'll
complain
about
that
on
years
that
we
don't
have
good
clarity,
that's
because
we
have
algae
growth,
and
then
people
will
complain
of
that
as
well
in
August
of
16
to
the
current
nutrient
and
analysis
and
by
the
numbers
on
this
scale
like
as
clear
as
it
was.
B
E
A
E
B
The
clarity
of
the
water
would
be
the
biggest
benefit
with,
as
we
bring
those
nutrient
levels
down.
The
lake
itself
will
reach
a
better
balance
between
the
plants
that
are
growing
the
algae
that
grows.
We
won't
have
major
swings
between
algae
blooms
and
massive
plant
growth.
Things
will
reach
a
better
balance.
The
quality
of
the
water
will
increase.
You
won't
have
to
worry
about
your
dog
getting
into
any
toxic
algae.
B
A
B
We,
this
isn't
the
only
thing
that
we've
looked
at.
We
did
get
a
proposal
from
Clark
engineering
on
a
diaphragm
filtration
type
system,
more
of
a
mechanical
removal.
They
do
have
filters
that
will
take
out
dissolved
phosphorous
particles,
extremely
small.
However,
the
price
of
that
system
at
this
scale
is
about
twice
the
price
of
what
I'm
proposing
tonight
and.
A
E
D
B
Gee,
how
do
you
answer
that?
The
way
that
the
current
administration
is
threatening
the
EPA
grant
funds
from
that
direction?
We
probably
should
not
count
on
them.
I've
heard
of
rumors,
of
course,
anywhere
from
30%
to
70%
cuts
to
that
department
and,
as
you
know,
a
lot
of
our
funding
comes
through
the
EPA
through
the
DNR
statewide
state
wise.
That
is
a
possibility.
B
B
B
G
B
What
they've
done
is
they've,
given
us
two
options:
one
at
33,
0.33
million
gallons
per
day
of
water
treated
and
then
doubled
that
so
what
I've
been
asking
for
us
is
600
pounds
just
to
keep
everyone
on
the
same
page.
No,
that's
a
requirement.
Can
you
do
600
pounds
and
yes,
they
say
they
can
and
the
water
that
I've
sent
them
in
barrels.
They've
shown
me
the
lab
work,
independent,
lab
work
that
says
that
they
can
do
that
at
94,
95
percent
efficiency
rate.
B
The
1200
is,
if
they
double
their
system,
to
show
us
the
difference,
the
economy
of
scale
if
they
want.
If
we
want
to
double
the
size
of
the
system,
it
will
not
double
the
price,
and
then
we
would
be
able
to
achieve
those
goals
in
10
years
instead
of
20.
So
over
a
long
term,
it
would
be
a
cost
savings.
Roger.
B
H
B
That'll
make
life
difficult
for
a
while.
That's
that's
definitely
true.
When,
when
we
put
in
the
the
new
inlet
for
the
the
golf
course
irrigation
system,
the
total
suspended
solids
in
the
plant
just
went
through
the
roof.
I
believe
I
got
a
nasty
gram
from
the
state
for
that,
so
any
any
type
of
yes,
sir
you
so
you
saw
that
you
can
attest
so
anytime.
You
do
any
bottom
manipulation.
Yes,
there
is
an
issue
in
my
researching
dredging
options.
The
state
will
require
some
sort
of
sediment
control
with
that.
A
B
What
I
this
be
coming
before
you
today
was
just
to
kind
of
give
you
a
heads
up
of
what
I'm
thinking
to
let
you
know
that
this
possibility
is
there
I
can't
invite
the
people
from
the
company
to
come
and
speak
to
you
directly,
so
you're
not
getting
me
as
the
middleman,
so
I
don't
fiddle
anything
up.
So
if
you
like
me
to
schedule
that
I
definitely
will
yeah.
A
B
A
H
I
I
We've
we
evaluate
the
previous
year's
events
and
and
provide
that
information
to
the
state,
and
then
they
also
comment
on
that,
and
so
what
I
have
up
on
the
screen
is
the
summary
of
their
findings
of
our
2015
report,
and
then
they
make
comments
for
us
to
improve
our
program
in
2016
and
and
so
forth.
So
reviewing
the
2015
report,
the
state's
comments
is:
the
city
has
not
developed
or
required
procedures
for
assessing
and
evaluating
I
DD
e,
which
is
illicit
discharge
portion
of
our
program,
and
so
what
we
did
is
we.
I
I
I
Another
comment
was
the
2016
stormwater
management
plan
included
BMPs
for
construction
site,
runoff
control
that
were
not
completed.
These
BMPs
consisted
of
providing
and
educational
opportunities
for
contractors
and
providing
training
to
staff
members.
We
have
been
getting
training
for
staff
mentor
members,
so
we're
update
on
that
and
we
do
have
comments
on
the
educational
piece
from
the
contractors
and
I'll
explain
that
a
little
bit
later.
How
how
we're
handling
that
another
comment
was.
There
is
no
formal
database
to
track
the
program
activities
discussed
in
the
annual
report
again
we'll
go
through
that.
I
I
Here,
if
you
look
on
this
box,
here's
where
our
one
of
our
responses
are
our
standard
operating
procedures
was
revised
on
3
6
of
17
to
identify
the
appropriate
responses
positions
and
include
the
procedure
for
evaluating
and
assessing
the
plan.
Part
of
those
updates
are
a
lot
of
our
references
were
to
different
administrative.
Our
actual
job
titles
made
making
reference
to
a
Planning
and
Zoning
or
or
or
the
public
works
director,
and
we
don't
I
mean
the
mayor.
Is
the
official
public
works
director
in
title,
but
in
operation?
I
He
doesn't
want
to
oversee
these
things,
so
he
delegates
to
me.
So
what
we
did
is
we
changed
the
language
to
be
a
little
bit
more
appropriate
to
administrative
official,
so
he
he
designates
that
administrative
official
and
most
likely
it'll
remain
with
the
engineer's
office.
So
just
little
procedural
things
like
that
that
we're
working
on
to
kind
of
clean
things
up
make
it
a
little
easier.
I
Ask
questions
whenever
you
have
a
have
a
question,
because
if
I
speed
through
this
and
I've
gotten
past
it'll
take
me
a
minute
to
get
back
to
it.
So
here
again,
this
is
some
of
our
responses.
Stan
during
an
operating
procedure,
manual
for
illicit
discharge,
detection
and
elimination
will
be
revised
to
include
procedures
for
evaluating
and
assessing
the
illicit
discharge
plan.
So
our
goal
was
to
update
the
illicit
discharge
standard
operating
procedures
manual
to
be
in
compliance
by
December
16.
I
We
actually
did
the
update
in
March
of
2017,
so
that's
when
we're
implementing
and
I
should
say
we
actually
did
the
verbage
here
a
short
time
ago.
Here
again,
goals
were
not
completed
in
2016,
provide
an
explanation
why
the
goal
was
not
met
in
the
new
implementation
schedule
for
meeting
the
goal.
So
our
response
was
the
mapping.
Changes
were
not
fully
incorporated
in
2016
due
to
workload
limitations,
but
the
goal
will
be
to
catch
up
with
that
updates
in
2017,
so
we're
going
forward
and
make
make
the
program
better.
I
Here
again
was
another
comment
for
the
goals
that
were
not
completed
in
2016
provide
an
explanation
why
the
goal
was
not
met
and
a
new
implementation
schedule
for
meeting
the
goal.
So
again,
our
response
goal
of
providing
educational
opportunities
for
contractors
by
providing
training
and
or
mailing
was
not
met.
However,
each
building
permit
issued
was
accompanied
by
an
informational
flyer,
so
the
goal
was
met
via
a
different
method
or
BMP.
We
call
that
yeah.
I
The
goal
has
been
modified
in
the
stormwater
management
program
to
add
this
BMP,
so
we're
actually
giving
information
to
contractors
and/or
developers
in
a
different
format
than
what
our
original
plan
showed.
So
the
information
is
getting
to
them.
It's
just
not
in
a
formal
training.
In
other
words,
we
don't
hold
an
event
that
invites
everybody
in
and
has
a
big.
You
know
to
do
schedule
in
the
class,
but
we
haven't
ruled
that
out
and
we
certainly
might
be
able
to
get
to
that
goal
here.
So.
I
Or
kind
of
a
workshop
tape,
seminar
where
we
invited
man
and
so
on,
what
what's
working?
What's
not
working
in
the
community
and
see
if
what
if
we
can
get
them
engaged
in
making
it
better
I
guess
so
that's
really
going
through
the
our
annual
report
and
then
I
just
want
to
point
out
one
other
thing
related
to
that
and
here's
where
the
other
part
of
your
packet
was
an
actual
excerpt
or
the
actual
stormwater
management
program,
and
we
made
revisions
in
March
6
of
2017
again.
I
A
lot
of
that
was
administrative
things
and
we
did
highlight
the
changes
in
yellow.
If
anybody
has
any
questions
on
those
I,
don't
know
that
I
want
to
go
page
by
page
through
this
document,
but
anyway
we
did
simplify
things
a
little
bit
as
far
as
some
of
the
verbage,
but
our
goal
still
to
meet
the
program
and
make
the
state
satisfied
with
our
report.
D
I
We
I
mean
a
lot
of
that
program.
Stuff
is
done
like,
for
instance,
will
will
submit
this
report
to
the
DNR
and
they'll
evaluate
it.
We
won't
get
comments
back
until
mid
mid
to
late
summer
at
the
earliest,
and
then
we,
you
know
we'll,
spend
that
time
responding
to
whatever
questions
this
isn't
I
mean
this
has
been
an
ongoing
program
since
2007,
so
the
changes
and
the
tracking
hasn't
changed
a
lot
over
that
time.
A
A
So
all
right,
Thank,
You
Shane,
appreciate
okay,
moving
on
number
four
discussion
on
ordinance:
number
1713,
removing
chapter
7.1,
three
of
the
revised
ordinance
to
dissolve
the
civic
and
Recreation
Board
and
place
the
Prairie
lakes
Wellness
Center
under
the
Park
and
Rec
board.
This
is
something
that
it's
quite
interesting
how
this?
How
this
really
came
about?
This,
isn't
something
that
was
planned
by
any
means,
Justin
and
I'm,
going
to
allow
you
two
to
discuss
this
for
us.
Thank.
J
You
very
much
mayor
as
the
mayor
mentioned.
This
was
something
unexpected.
The
mayor
had
asked
me
to
kind
of
take
a
look
at
the
lay
of
the
land
statutorily
ordinance
wise
with
the
transition
to
prairie
lakes.
Wellness
Center
in
the
process
did
some
research
in
the
chapter
in
our
state
code
related
to
parks
and
recreation.
J
They're,
actually,
two
separate
hats.
If
you
will
one
parks,
one
recreation,
but
per
that
state
law
that
that
compendium
of
state
law,
first-class
municipalities
like
Watertown,
are
empowered
to
combine
those
two
authorities
into
one
board,
as
it
has
done
with
the
Parks
and
Recreation
Board
in
the
process.
J
So
because
there
were
two
political
subdivisions
of
the
state
that
were
in
control,
if
you
will
owning
certain
parts
of
this
structure,
the
city's
four
bears
found
it
prudent
to
create
a
separate
body
if
you
will,
under
SDC
L
chapter
42,
to
operate
this
joint
use
facility.
So
the
memo
that
came
with
this
proposal
lays
out
the
statutory
basis
for
this
change
and
why
it
is,
it
appears
to
be
necessary
to
make
this
change
quite
simply.
South
Dakota,
codified
law
requires
that
recreational
facilities
be
under
the
recreation
board
in
water
towns
case.
J
A
And
I
want
to
add
just
a
couple
words
to
that,
so
you
all
understand.
What's
going
on
and
I'm
just
kind
of
coming
to
just
touch
base
on
a
little
bit,
you
know
we
had
the
two
entities.
It
was
all
good
and
well
until
we
went
out
on
our
own
without
the
school,
then
that
actually
made
that
board
illegal,
we'll
put
this
under
the
park
and
Rec
board,
which
is
good
and
fine.
A
I
think
that'll
be
no
problem,
but
I
do
think
that
it's
important
that
we
create
or
keep
an
advisory
board
for
the
rec
center,
which
this
kind
of
really
works
with
that
that
rec
center.
You
know,
because
we
have
a
lot
going
on
there
and-
and
it
will
be
in
that
aspect,
an
advisory
board
who
will
then
advise
to
the
Park
and
Rec
board
on
things
going
on.
Does
that
make
sense
to
all
you
guys?
So
that
being
said,
if
there's
any
questions
for
just
and
chuckling
I
do.
E
A
How
do
we
do
that?
Absolutely
not
what
happens
is
is
that
the
Park
and
Rec
board
they
actually
have
suggestions
that
they
bring
to
the
mayor.
The
mayor
then
actually
looks
through
those
talks
to
most
of
those
individuals
and
then
brings
it
in
front
of
the
council,
and
you
actually,
through
through
a
voting
process,
approved
that
person
on
the
board.
A
A
K
Have
one
quick
question
see
before
you're
done
there?
Is
there
been
any
I
know,
there's
been
talk
or
in
maybe
I
can
be
implemented
throughout
this,
the
same
board
of
some
sort
of
athletic
committee
or
what
do
I
want
to
say
there
Sports
Committee
sports
committee,
I,
guess
or
Sports
Authority
or
whatever
that
could
be
developed
right
in
within
that
you.
A
Know
I
know:
there's
been
talk
about
a
Sports
Authority
board
in
town.
I
haven't
really
seen
any
anything
of
it
as
of
yet
but
I
know
that
Julia
the
CVV
is
looking
at
a
Sports
Authority
board.
I
haven't
seen
any
any
substance
of
that.
So
at
this
particular
time,
I
think
what
the
advisory
board
going
to
the
Park
and
Rec
board.
We're
gonna
be
in
pretty
good
shape
on
this
thing
and
then.
F
D
A
Think
so,
and
frankly,
it's
a
pretty
good
idea,
you
can
have
a
Sports
Authority
depends
on
how
much
authority
we
give
them.
You
know
if
it's
more
of
an
advisory
that
goes
still
to
the
park
and
Rec
because
we
have
to
we
have
to.
We
have
to
understand
that
Park
and
Rec
board
is
there
and
it's
under
under
your
st
CL
laws
that
you
get
I.
Think.
K
Your
Sports
Authority
is
gonna,
basically
look
at
more
the
promotion
side
of
it.
I
think
that's
why
you
know
it's
very
important
to
have
70
from
the
CVB
on
there
and
but
I
agree
with
what
Dan
said.
You
know
with
all
these
new
facilities.
I
think
we
need
to
spend
a
lot
of
money
down
to
put
the
facilities
together.
Now
we
gotta
start
putting
them
to
use.
Put
it
that
way
exactly
just.
E
A
E
But
I
think
that's
something
we
have
to
push
forward
on
and
I
know:
I
just
stopped
in
to
visit
Gary
Young
the
other
day
because
of
the
new
softball
complex
and
just
wanted
to
mention
that
Gary
had
said.
There's
a
couple
of
big
tournaments,
pretty
good-sized
tournaments
that
they
intend
to
bring
to
the
new
facilities
this
year
and
and
I
asked
him.
I
said
we
have
had
these.
Had
we
not
built
this
facility
said
absolutely
not,
and
so,
but
we
do
we
have
to
get
on
that.
E
A
Perfect,
okay,
thanks
Justin
I
think
we're
gonna
move
on
to
number
five
here
we
go.
Are
you
ready
on
this
one?
This
is
discussion.
Our
proposed
changes
to
the
signing
outdoor
advertising
ordinances.
This
is
something
that
has
been
worked
on
for
quite
some
time.
Luke
you're.
Here
you
can
come
on
up
and
yeah.
C
A
J
Let
you
take
it
well,
Mira
Luke
I
think
is
the
brains
behind
the
operation,
but
he
has
allowed
me
to
give
a
few
introductory
remarks
being
relatively
new
to
this
process.
The
sign
code,
ordinance,
as
you
would
pointed
out
here,
has
been
a
work
in
progress
for
quite
some
time
and
really
I.
Think
the
roots
of
this
process
go
back
at
least
three
years,
and
there
had
been
discussions.
J
You
know
in
2014-2015
about
you
know,
looking
at
portable
signs
and
the
impact
on
the
community
there
and
the
City
Council
then
adopted
in
June
of
2015,
as
you
recall,
ordinance
1516,
which
strengthened
regulations,
affordable
signs
and
including
an
establishment
of
a
ban
on
off-premise
portable
signs.
Off-Premise
signs
just
for
terminologies
sake
are
generally
speaking,
another
term
for
billboards
or
signs
not
advertising
the
business
on
whose
premises
the
signs
are
located.
So
conversations
started
with
portable
signs
and
then
the
conversations
started.
J
Evolving
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
to
looking
at
really
kind
of
all
forms
of
off-premise
signs
and
looking,
maybe
more
comprehensively
at
our
sign
code,
ordinance
in
chapter
21.
Eighty
on
January
4th
2016,
the
city
water
Tona,
adopted
a
moratorium
on
off
premise,
sign
applications
and
soon
after
the
city
convened
this
group.
This
task
force,
if
you
will
of
individuals
within
city,
government
and
individuals
serving
on
boards
and
Luke
experts
in
the
field,
to
kind
of
look
at
what
changes
may
be
needed
to
be
made
to
chapter
20
180.
J
The
group
has
since
met
at
least
five
times,
to
compile
and
fine-tune
the
provisions
that
you
see
before
you
now.
As
these
discussions
started
up,
we
started
looking
at
the
legal
landscape
and
seeing
that,
in
fact,
the
US
Supreme
Court
had
weighed
in
on
this
issue,
20:15
in
a
fairly
large
way
in
town
of
Gilbert
Arizona
v
Reid,
the
US
Supreme
Court
broaden
the
scope
of
what
was
considered
content-based
speech
prohibitions
with
regard
to
signs
you.
J
We
were
required
to
incorporate
this
decision
in
our
work
and
place
far
greater
scrutiny
on
sign
regulations
as
a
result.
Ultimately,
then,
the
changes
that
we
proposed,
or
the
changes
that
we
were
looking
at
most
intently,
really
fell
into
three
categories
and
just
put
this
up
here
on
the
projector
real
quick.
If
it
could,
the
first
priority
was
to
eliminate
redundant
Administrative,
Procedure
and
other
provisions
that
were
contained
in
the
code
to
sort
of
streamline
it,
because
it's
quite
long
and
even
after
these
revisions
it
remains
long,
but
for
good
reason.
J
The
second
was
to
look
at
the
number
of
signs
and,
in
particular
off
premise
signs.
The
third
concern
was
to
look
again
at
regulating
portable
signs.
What
was
permissible,
what
was
impermissible?
No
really,
the
second
and
third
concerns
were
driven
in
large
part
by
that
tone
of
Gilbert
versus
Reed,
a
US
Supreme
Court
case.
Now
you
have
the
language
before
you
here.
Obviously,
as
the
mayor
pointed
out,
this
isn't
the
final
draft.
Not
even
close
they're
going
to
be
substantive
discussions
held
with
the
public
with
stakeholders,
the
taskforce
mentioned
at
least
two
public
meetings.
C
Justin
did
a
fantastic
job
of
explaining,
procedurally
or
just
the
timeframe,
how
we
got
there
I
simplifying
it
down
a
little
bit.
The
the
city
was
going
through
some
issues,
concerns
with
portable
signs
and
billboards
knew
that
there
was
an
intent
or
an
interest
to
try
and
update
those
regulations.
That
process
was
made
significantly
more
difficult
due
to
the
national
landscape
and
court
cases
there,
and
so
that's
why
we
weren't
able
to
just
turn
around
two
months.
Come
back
to
you
and
say
here
we
go.
C
So
that's
really
the
the
what
wound
up
going
on
and
then
procedurally
what
we
did
and-
and
you
know
Bruce
was
on
that
board
and
near
that
group,
and
we
go
through
and
and
give
just
some
discussion
and
and
had
worked
through
some
sample
language
and
really
we
bounce
ideas
off
and
and
get
as
close
as
we
could
and
that's
where
we're
at
we're.
As
close
as
we
can
now,.
J
With
that
I
guess,
however,
the
City
Council
would
like
to
proceed.
I
can
go
through
these
provisions
section
by
section,
explain
why
it
was
that
they
were
struck
and
answer
any
questions
as
we
go
through
it
or.
However,
you'd
like
to
proceed.
There
are
particular
areas
of
interest
that
you
have
that
you'd
want
us
to
highlight.
E
You
know
the
size
capability
and
location
and
with
with
the
whole
concept
that
we
cannot,
we
can't
decide
on
what
we
want
to
do,
because
it's
off
premise
anymore,
because
of
the
language
we
have
to,
we
have
to
make
a
decision
and
I'll
just
make
a
real
easy
example
say
we
were
gonna,
go
on
a
stretch
of
highway
20.
We
look
at
highway
20,
we
say
well,
what
do
we
want?
I
mean:
do
we
want
more
signs?
E
Are
we
okay
with
more
signs,
so
there's
I
think
we
got
to
be
careful
because
it
got
to
be
a
balance
between
Commerce
doing
business
in
the
community
and
restricting
for
aesthetics
that
that's
really
kind
of
what
we
got
to
be
looking
at
as
we
move
forward
with
this
thing,
that's
going
to
be
a
big
decision
and
I.
Think
a
lot
of
the
public
input
will
help
us
with
that
decision.
How
to
make
that.
E
But
you
know
there's
got
to
be
that
balance
of
restriction
versus
aesthetics
and
I
think
it
may
be
something
where
one
of
the
thoughts
that
we
had
was
maybe
looking
at
individual
zones,
individual
areas
or
thoroughfares
that
we
say:
okay,
we're
gonna,
be
able
to
allow
this
many.
This
far
apart
this
size
and.
C
Think
to
piggyback
off.
At
that
point
we
were
at
a
point
meeting
a
couple
of
times
where
we
talked
about.
Well,
maybe
we
we
take
a
bite
at
figuring
out
what
size
and
how
many
in
this
area
in
that
area
and
got
to
the
point
where
we
realized
we're
gonna
we're
gonna,
be
at
this
for
a
couple
more
years
and
we're
not
gonna
have
anyone
involved
and
that's
if
we're
gonna
try
and
do
that.
The
bottom
line
is,
let
me
go
back.
C
I
was
getting
at
it
when
you
go
back
to
the
public,
get
a
little
information.
If
we
wind
up
getting
to
a
point
where
we
find
someone
we
feel
like,
maybe
we've
overstepped
in
some
places.
That's
where
the
idea
of
overlay
districts
come
into
place.
Where
you
look
at
corridors
and
say
you
know
what
we're
ok
with
it
here,
but
want
to
expand
into
this
area
or
that,
but
that
might
be
a
second
flush.
It
might
be
the
first
flush
here
to.
J
Get
to
councilman
Bueller's
point
about
that
balance.
It
is
a
very
difficult
balance
to
achieve
because
of
this
US
Supreme
Court
ruling.
You
know
looking
at
that
ruling,
which
essentially
set
forth
a
very
stringent
criteria
by
which
you
can
regulate
any
sign
for
content
on
a
Content
basis
makes
it
very
tough
I
mean
by
that
standard.
In
theory,
it's
possible
that
you
can't
regulate
differences
between
even
off
premise
and
on
premise
signs,
because
what's
the
distinguishing
factor
between
off
premise
and
on
premise,
science,
the
content
to.
C
A
C
A
E
C
And
and
I
I'll
tell
you
Justin
let
in
two
categories
of
changes
that
we
had
to
dive
in
a
little
bit,
specifically
without
actually
reading
through
them,
as
he
said,
removing
some
duplicitous
language,
which
was
basically
the
approval
mechanism
that
we
already
have
in
another
section
of
ordinance
limit,
eliminate
about
two
pages
of
ordinance
based
on
that,
because
we
already
have
a
building
permit
and
Board
of
Adjustment
process.
There's
the
first
standpoint.
The
other
standpoint
was
a
was
a
portion
on
portable
signs,
and
that
was
a
little
bit
refining.
C
What
was
on
him?
It
was
more
about
the
size
and
how
many
they
were.
So
the
idea
with
it
was
just
the
one
of
the
and
then
one
other
concern
or
issue
that
was
brought
up
was
the
idea
of
bear
Lots
with
with
billboards
on
them,
and
so
one
recommendation
comes
out
of
that
group
is:
is
that
signs
become
accessory
uses,
which
means
there
has
to
be
a
building
on
site
to
have
and.
E
And
I
think
if,
if
I
might
I
think
what
we
meant
by
the
extreme
to
that
is
that
the
only
place
you
could
have
a
sign
for
your
business
is
adjacent
to
your
business.
Correct!
Okay,
that's
that's
the
extreme.
The
other
side
would
be
to
allow
off-premise
eyes.
You
know,
and
one
of
the
examples
we
had
was
if
he
had
Jose
carpet
and
he's
kind
of
off
the
beaten
path,
but
he
wants
to
put
a
sign
somewhere.
You
know
it's
to
his
benefit
for
commerce
to
be
able
to
do
that
somewhere
else
in
some
instances.
G
D
Guys
I've
got
a
question:
I
pulled
something
out
of
South
Dakota
Municipal
League
magazine
from
several
months
ago,
yet
that
referenced
the
Supreme
Court
case,
you're
referencing
and
it
says
I'm
quoting
out
to
summarize
the
court's
opinion
in
five
words
sign
codes
must
be
content-neutral.
Okay,
is
that
I've
you?
Can
you
explain
that
again
sure.
J
Sure
so
you
know
using
the
visual
that
Luke
had
provided.
So
the
idea
is
that
a
sign
is
anything
written,
any
sort
of
symbology
anything
conveying
some
kind
of
message,
and
it
doesn't
necessarily
even
have
to
be
in
words.
So
the
idea
is
once
you're
conveying
a
message.
It
is
a
form
of
speech.
The
question
is:
to
what
extent
is
the
First
Amendment
apply?
Well
when
it
comes
to
prior
restraints
of
speech
or
regulations
that
restrain
speech
you're
effectively
doing
that
by
saying
you
can't
put
signs
in
certain
places
because
the
signs
are
speech.
J
But
as
the
Municipal
League
pointed
out
and
as
a
number
of
commentators
have
pointed
out,
the
majority
could
be
read
as
saying
no
content
basis
whatsoever,
including
the
distinction
between
on
and
off
premise.
But
I
would
say
that
that
ambiguity
still
exists,
but
we're
just
taking
a
very
conservative
approach
and
how
we
structure
our
ordinances,
not
knowing
which
way
the
court
might
ultimately
fall
on
that
and.
C
Into
that
point,
it
comes
back
to
that
question
of.
If,
if
really
the
question
is
the
number
and
the
size
of
them,
what
does
it
really
matter?
What's
on
them
and
to
that
point,
as
Justin
said
a
content-based,
it
basically
means
that
if
you
have
to
read
it
to
figure
out
what
category
it
falls
in,
then
your
your
ordinance
is
probably
content-based
right.
A
F
A
C
Affect
us,
I
won't
even
dive
into
too
far.
Realistically,
the
first
thing
I'm
going
to
tell
you,
is
the
county's
asked
me
and
I
put
together
through
my
office
at
the
with
the
county
zoning
office,
a
an
informational
page
on
the
county's
website,
and
that
is
at
the
county's
website.
It's
Cottington
org
on
the
left-hand
side
of
that
page,
there's
a
tab
or
a
link
that
says
ordinance,
65
information.
What
that
is,
is
information
just
a
it's.
C
It's
intended
to
be
a
fact
sheet
of
process
is
how
we
got
to
this
point
and
then
and
then
some
links
it's
the
document
itself.
It
is
presentations
that
the
zoning
office
state's
attorney
has
delivered
to
the
the
county
commissioners,
just
kind
of
do
inform
about
realistically
what
happens
if
we,
if
we
go
on
one
side
or
the
other
of
the
vote
and
I'll
get
into
what
that
is
in
just
a
second
here,
there's
also
clips
from
you
know
you
you,
you
broadcast.
C
C
H
C
That's
where
the
link
is,
and
then
also
just
for
those
who
don't
love
to
sit
through
full
government
meetings.
I
also
point
out
where
it
starts
just
to
save
some
people
an
hour
and
a
half
of
listening
the
things
they
don't
care
as
much
about.
So
what
ordinance
65
is
excuse
me,
the
county
went
through
is
involved
in
a
lawsuit
with
some
individuals
about
a
about
a
permit.
The
county
issued
for
a
feedlot
we're
gonna
be
two
years
into
that
here
in
a
month,
or
so
initially
the
county's
permit
issuing
the
permit
was
upheld.
C
There
was
a
supplemental
decision
issued
that
came
out
in
late
November.
That
indicated,
first
of
all,
that
a
process
that
the
county
had
used
in
adopting
ordinances,
in
particular
the
zoning
ordinance
in
2006,
was
not
done
according
to
state
law.
The
county
is
appealing
that
decision.
However,
one
thing
that
is
worth
noting
I
guess
before
I
get
into
that
the
that
decision
was
made.
C
However,
the
judge
said
that
the
ordinance
taking
that
ordinance
out
and
looking
at
the
ordinance
underneath
you're
familiar
with
this,
but
basically
the
lines
that
you
get
they're
the
additions
or
subtractions
to
an
ordinance
just
go
to
the
old
ordinance
before.
So.
The
point
is:
if
we
took
away
the
changes
that
made
an
ordinance
30,
the
ordinance
that
you
were
using
County
underneath
that
still
would
have
rendered
your
decision.
Valid
is
what
the
judge
said.
C
Similarly
and
frankly,
they
needed
to
do
business
issue
permits
for
houses
and
since
those
rules
had
been
on
the
books
figured
that
people
would
be
used
to
them.
That's
the
best
way
to
handle
things.
So
that's
what
the
county
did.
They
read
the
rules
that
they
had
in
ordinance
65.
There
were
no
changes
or
additions
to
any
of
them,
but
they've
reacted.
The
rules
with
it
held
the
public
hearings
had
one
individual
show
up
at
a
Planning
Commission
meeting
and
addressed
the
board
and
nobody
at
the
County
Commission
meeting
and
adopted
it.
C
There's
the
ability
out
there
as
well,
but
what
the
county
has
adopted
a
moratorium
in
the
end
here,
where
we
sit
as
there's
a
moratorium
on
any
rules
that
were
adopted
in
the
manner
similar
to
what
the
judge
said
we
shouldn't
have
done.
There
were
30
ordinances
like
that
over
the
40
that
we
had
adopted.
C
Thankfully,
with
regards
to
how
that
affects
the
area
as
far
as
the
county
around
the
city
of
Watertown
you'll
recall
a
couple
years
ago,
we
adopted
joint
jurisdiction
ordinances,
the
area
affected
by
joint
jurisdiction,
ordinance
that
was
adopted
in
a
fashion
that
would
pass
that
test
or
that
question.
So
the
point
is
anything
in
that
joint
jurisdiction
area
was
made
whole
and
so.
A
C
The
short
answer
is
no
they're,
not
okay,
the
what
has
happened
is
they?
Actually
they
get
kind
of
a
double
whammy
in
that,
because
what
winds
up
happening?
One
of
those
ordinances
as
Mary
had
alluded
to
was
the
floodplain
ordinance
at
the
county
had
adopted.
The
regulations
really
didn't
change
that
much,
but
in
2009,
as
with
the
city,
the
flood
map
changed
and
weari
adopted
that
in
that
time,
and
it
was
done
in
a
similar
fashion,
and
so
what
happens
is
the
in
the
joint
jurisdiction
area?
C
The
zoning
office
had
received
a
letter
from
FEMA
region
8
office
in
creating
numerous
issues
that
would
arise
if
the
ordinance
was
repealed
and
one
of
those
a
couple
of
those
included-
and
you
know
no,
no
public
assistance
money
is
particularly
if
there's
a
flood
now
I
want
to
keep
in
my
want
you
to
keep
in
mind,
that
is,
for
the
unincorporated
areas
of
the
county.
That
does
not
affect
city
limits
within
the
city
of
Watertown.
C
That's
what
that's
what
we
found
with
regards
to
that,
but
that
was
that
was
what
the
ones
I
was
going
to
mention.
There's
floodplain
ordinances,
one,
that's
an
issue!
There's
joy
ranch!
The
ability
to
have
joy
ranch
was
one
of
those
ordinances
the
permit
that
issued
for
that
would
be
considered
invalid.
If
ordinance
65
were
repealed,
there
was
a
fertilizer
plant
north
of
Wallace.
That
also
is
in
the
same
boat
about
a
six
million
dollar
plant.
C
So
the
only
place
before
before
that
time
frame
that
was
allowed
to
have
a
garage
or
shed
was
on
a
farm
that
ability
was
obviously
added
and
with
the
repeal
of
that
ordinance
would
take
away
the
ability
to
have
a
garage
on
a
non
farm
dwelling
and
so
garages
sheds
would
not
be
allowed
to
be
permitted
than
the
other
one
that
comes
up
is
I.
Just
had
this
conversation
with
a
builder
today,
the
county
has
a
process.
C
A
C
That's
pretty
much
right.
The
one
that's
going
to
be
a
bigger
deal
is
going
to
be
the
home
builders
that
build
on
site,
because
those
are
the
projects
that
take
the
longest
I,
like
I,
said
that
particular
builder
knew
of
it
one
example
off
top
of
his
head
of
one
that
he
had
done
in
the
past
and
I'll.
C
Tell
you
right
now:
I
had
to
call
an
individual
today
and
tell
him
because
he
wanted
to
do
that,
and
I
had
to
tell
him
that
he
will
not
have
that
option
right
now,
because
right
now,
with
the
referral,
we
don't
have
that
option
and
depending
on
how
the
vote
goes,
he
may
either
have
to
take
down
his
house
before
he
builds
or
find
another
way.
When
is
the
vote
Luke,
the
vote
is
March
27th
and
again.
C
A
no
vote
would
be
would
take
away
ordinance,
65
and
it
would
put
us
back
to
and
I
don't
want
to
make
it
sound
like
we're
going
to
the
dark
ages,
we're
not
going
to
the
dark
ages
of
Zoning,
but
it
would
take
us
back
to
the
rules
we
had
in
2001
from
a
standpoint
of
going
forward.
The
county
has
been
planning
on
doing
an
ordinance
update
this
year
and
was
frankly
planning
on
having
a
scoping
meeting
in
February
after
this
was
adopted.
Of
course,
we've
had
to
move
timeframes
back
realistically.
C
What
will
happen
is
after
the
election,
yeah,
ordinance,
65,
I,
anticipate
and
I've
got
to
run
this
by
the
Planning
Commission,
but
I
I.
What
I've
been
told
is
that
the
intent
is
add,
affordance
65
is
upheld.
Then
we
probably
hold
a
scoping
meeting
and
start
the
process
in
April.
If
the
ordinance
is
repealed,
then
first
item
of
business
will
be
to
get
flood
plain
ordinance
and
in
effect,
I,
don't
know
if
that
will
help.
C
C
F
F
C
K
E
C
It's
repealed
if
it's
repealed
or
if
it's
upheld
the
product,
the
cost,
the
wind
up
being
on
the
surface
about
the
same,
the
cost
is
coming
in
on
the
cost,
the
election
itself.
In
all
reality,
it's
a
last
estimate
was
somewhere
around
$50,000,
but
from
the
standpoint
of
updating
it,
it
probably
won't
cause
a
ton
of
dollars.
C
E
C
C
The
short
answer
is
no,
and
the
reason
is
because
the
statutes
are
different
for
County
versus
City.
In
the
city
standpoint,
the
adoption
of
an
ordinance
has
one
statute
that
says
a
Planning
Commission
shall
hold
a
public
hearing
with
ten
days
notice.
The
next
one
says
the
City
Council
shall
hold
a
public
hearing
with
ten
days
notice
in
the
County
statute.
That
says
and
I
again
I.
Please
don't
take
this
as
any
legal
interpretation,
but
I've
read
enough
of
these.