BROOKINGS – The Brookings City Council heard a first reading Tuesday on Ordinance 20-017, which proposes to extend COVID-19 restrictions that are in place and are set to expire Sept. 8.

If approved, the restrictions would be extended for another 60 days.

Current Ordinance 20-010 has Brookings in Phase 3, City Manager Paul Briseno said. Phase 3 is listed as moderate in the city’s 4-phase Reopening Road Map, which was detailed at the Aug. 11 meeting.

Ordinance 20-010 requires employees of bars, restaurants and salons to wear masks, Briseno said. The law also provides regulations on social distancing for specific businesses, limitations of occupancy and retail regulations. 

The councilors received current metrics and updated information regarding COVID numbers in their packets for the meeting. 

Briseno said the only metric that the city meets currently is the hospitalization capacity.

“Mitigation through testing was close, based on the number of positive cases,” Briseno said.

Staff does recommend the extension of the current ordinance, he said, adding he included two possible amendments for the council to consider: restrictions on all residential gatherings larger than 10 people and requiring masks in public places where 6 feet of social distancing cannot be achieved.

Restricting social gatherings will give the police department the ability to address parties, and to do it more quickly, Briseno said.

He reached out to a number of university communities about requiring masks in public places.

“It’s all across the board, depending on the state, (and) the governor,” Briseno said, adding that Vermillion has an ordinance with “masks are expected” language, but it has no regulatory actions behind it.

The council can consider any amendment tonight, he added.

Public comments

Bradley Walker wanted to know what happens to a person when they test positive. 

“It seems to me, that if a person tests positive, they should be required to isolate from the community, until they are deemed by the Department of Health to be cleared of all symptoms. This is why we have contact tracing,” Walker said. 

“The population of our city has increased by a third” with the students coming back to SDSU, he pointed out.

He asked if SDSU was requiring those with positive test results to isolate. 

“It doesn’t seem to me to do any good to put restrictions and regulations on people who are not sick when you allow the people that are actually sick – and capable theoretically of spreading the disease throughout the community – to remain in circulation,” Walker said.

“You might want to call the state health department and have that conversation with them,” Mayor Keith Corbett said.

Results of COVID-19 tests are reported to the state Department of Health, which does not share the results with the city. The city has no knowledge of who has tested positive or any authority to isolate them. Public health experts have also stated that people with no symptoms and who don’t know they have COVID-19 can transmit the virus to others. 

SDSU President Barry Dunn expressed appreciation to the council for its support and added SDSU supports the ordinance.

“Just to be clear, the testing we do at South Dakota State, – which we’re actually ramping up now even more – if a person tests positive, the state health department orders them into isolation. And we are providing rooms for isolation and quarantine for those close contacts at SDSU,” Dunn said.

Bill Alsaker is a resident of Brookings.

“I don’t think we’re doing enough right now to stop the spread, so any amendments that our city council is willing to adopt to increase safety I think would be good moves,” Alsaker said adding people have seen “a large mob of maskless young people trying to get in a certain bar on Main Avenue.”

“Looking at the positive testing rates, I don’t think that things are good, right now. I know sometimes people don’t get alarmed until the hospitalizations are bad, but, of course, that’s only an indicator. So I just hope we don’t wait (to take) any further steps until we get to that point,” Alsaker said.

Possible fines

Councilor Nick Wendell asked what enforcement of the restriction on residential gatherings would look like.

There’s a couple of different ways, Briseno said, starting with educating homeowners/residents.

“If they continue to have parties/gatherings that would violate this, there would be a potential fine of, I believe $100 is the first level,” Briseno said. “If there are alcohol violations associated with it, that fine could increase as much as $1,000.

“People should be cognizant of that as they have parties and events in this community that if there are alcohol-related issues with it, there is that potential,” Briseno added.

Wendell asked Police Chief Dave Erickson what would prompt an officer to break up one of these residential gatherings.

A lot of that depends on what the council decides to put into the ordinance, and guidance from the city manager, Erickson said. 

“If it’s treated like any other ordinance or state law violation, as long as there’s a violation that’s visible to an officer, it becomes probable cause for them to make contact and take action,” Erickson said.

A fine for disturbing the peace runs around $126, and the current ordinance violation is $262, Erickson said.

“The $1,000 fine that Paul spoke of is a state law violation of common nuisance which violates any alcohol law, so if we have underage drinking or if they’re selling keg beer without a license, things of that nature,” Erickson said.

Added workload

Councilor Patty Bacon asked if the gatherings would be pretty much the same ones or if the council would be adding to the police department’s workload.

The ordinance will give officers more ability to respond, Erickson said. 

Right now, unless it’s evident to an officer that a violation is taking place, “we really can’t make contact with them at that point unless we get a complaint about disturbing the peace or somebody gives us information that they know there’s underage drinkers at the location,” Erickson said.

The ordinance would allow officers to make contact with gatherings simply because they have more than 10 people, he said. 

“We have responded to 11 house parties in the last three weeks. Of those, most were not – citations were not given,” he said.

Councilor Leah Brink wanted to know if officers could intervene if more than 10 people were inside a residence, instead of outside.

An officer would ask the reporting party if they observed more than 10 people going in, Erickson said. 

“I have to be able to establish that information, that evidence that justifies my response,” Erickson said. “There would have to be actual, articulable evidence.”

Councilor Holly Tilton Byrne asked if the ordinance would pertain only to unrelated individuals and not families, and if it would apply if the gathering could be socially distanced. 

It depends on how the council words the ordinance, Briseno said.

Families would be excluded, City Attorney Steve Britzman said. 

“It would be narrowly tailored to address the situation with parties, which we regulated and dealt with for many years,” he said.

“There aren’t that many repeat offenders, I would say,” Britzman said. “Usually the warnings, and perhaps if there is a complaint filed, we don’t see the same people in court for those. And so I think it could be helpful.”

Retail prohibitions

Tilton Byrne asked for clarification on how the ordinance affects retail businesses.

There are a lot of questions raised about retail businesses, Briseno said. 

Retailers are required to provide a barrier between the customer and the employee at the cash register to cut down on the risk of exposure while they interact, he said. Retail employees are not required to wear masks, “but many retail establishments have required their employees to wear masks, which we do appreciate.”

Councilors held the first reading Tuesday to extend the COVID restrictions without adding any amendments. A second reading is set for Sept. 8.

Contact Jodelle Greiner at jgreiner@brookingsregister.com.