HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015_01_13 CC PKTCity Council
City of Brookings
Meeting Agenda
Brookings City Council
Brookings City & County
Government Center
520 3rd St., Suite 230
Brookings, SD 57006
Phone: (605) 692-6281
Fax: (605) 692-6907
Council Chambers6:00 PMTuesday, January 13, 2015
The City of Brookings is committed to providing a high quality of life for its citizens and fostering a diverse
economic base through innovative thinking, strategic planning, and proactive, fiscally responsible municipal
management.
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING
1. Call to Order / Pledge of Allegiance.
2. Record of Council Attendance.
3. Consent Agenda:
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and
will be acted upon by the Council at one time, without discussion, unless a member of
the Council or City Manager requests an opportunity to address any given item. Items
removed from the Consent Agenda will be discussed at the beginning of the formal
items. Approval by the Council of the Consent Agenda items means that the
recommendation of the City Manager is approved along with the terms and conditions
described in the agenda supporting documentation.
3.A. Action to approve the agenda.
3.B.ID 2015-0018 Action to approve the draft October 21 and December 9 City Council
minutes.
10/21/2014 Council Minutes
12/09/2014 Council Minutes
Attachments:
3.C.ID 2015-0021 Action on appointments to the Board of Health.
Page 1 City of Brookings
January 13, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda
3.D.RES 15-003 Action on Resolution 15-003, a Resolution authorizing Change Order
No. 1 (Final) for 2014-01SWR Concrete Maintenance Project; Timmons
Construction.
ResolutionAttachments:
4. Items removed from Consent Agenda.
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
5. Open Forum/Presentations/Reports:
5.A. Open Forum.
At this time, any member of the public may request time on the agenda for an item not
listed. Items are typically scheduled for the end of the meeting; however, very brief
announcements or invitations will be allowed at this time.
5.B. SDSU Student Association Report.
5.C.ID 2015-0031 SDSU Student Association Strategic Plan Presentation.
Strategic Plan Presentation
GAF Final Report
GAF Priority Project Summary
Attachments:
5.D.ID 2015-0015 Introduction of new Department Directors.
5.E.ID 2015-0016 Presentation by the Brookings Economic Development Corporation
(BEDC) on the 2013 Visioning Charrette Final Report.
2013 Brookings Area Visioning CharretteAttachments:
6. Contracts/Change Orders:
6.A.RES 15-002 Action on Resolution 15-002, a Resolution authorizing Change Order
No. 1 (Final) for 2014-07STI Asphalt Concrete Freight on Board Project;
Bowes Construction, Inc.
ResolutionAttachments:
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
6.B.RES 15-004 Action on Resolution 15-004, a Resolution awarding a contract for a 75
foot Quint Fire Apparatus for the Fire Department.
ResolutionAttachments:
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
7. Ordinance First Readings:
No vote is taken on the first reading of an Ordinance. The title of the Ordinance is read
and the date for the public hearing is announced.
Page 2 City of Brookings
January 13, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda
7.A.ORD 15-001 Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 15-001, an Ordinance on a
petition to rezone Lot 11, Block 10, Moriarty Fourth Addition from a
Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1C District.
Ordinance
Rezoning Notice
Planning Commission Minutes & Summary
Rezone Map
Aerial Map
Residence R-1C Regulations
Location Map
Attachments:
8. Public Hearings and Second Readings:
8.A.RES 15-006 Public hearing and action on Resolution 15-006, a Resolution
authorizing the City Manager to sign an On-Off Sale Wine Operating
Agreement for ERL, LLC, DBA The Depot, Kathy McClemans, Robb
McClemans and Elizabeth McClemans, owners, 921 20th St. So.,
Brookings, SD.
Resolution
Hearing Notice
Operating Agreement - Wine
Attachments:
Action: Open & Close Public Hearing, Motion to Approve, Roll Call
9. Other Business:
9.A.RES 15-005 Action on Resolution 15-005, a Resolution authorizing the City Manager
to sign the Wetland Agreement between the South Dakota Department
of Transportation and the City of Brookings.
Resolution
Draft Agreement
Attachments:
Action: Motion to Approve, Request Public Comment, Roll Call
10. City Council member introduction of topics for future discussion.
Any Council Member may request discussion of any issue at a future meeting only.
Items cannot be added for action at this meeting. A motion and second is required
stating the issue, requested outcome, and time. A majority vote is required.
11.ID 2015-0014 Brookings Municipal Utilities Quarterly Financial Report.
Council PresentationAttachments:
12. Executive Session
Page 3 City of Brookings
January 13, 2015City Council Meeting Agenda
12.A.ID 2015-0032 Executive Session, pursuant to SDCL 1-25-2, to discuss marketing or
pricing strategies by a board or commission of a business owned by the
state or any of its political subdivisions, when public discussion may be
harmful to the competitive position of the business.
Action: Motion to enter executive session - voice vote
Action: Motion to exit executive session - voice vote
13. Adjourn.
Action: motion to adjourn
Brookings City Council:
Tim Reed, Mayor, Keith Corbett, Deputy Mayor & Council Member
Council Members Tom Bezdichek, Jael Thorpe, John Kubal, Dan Hansen, Ope Niemeyer
Council Staff:
Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager Steven Britzman, City Attorney Shari Thornes, City Clerk
View the City Council Meeting Live on the City Government Access Channel 9.
Rebroadcast Schedule: Wednesday 1:00pm/Thursday 7:00pm/Friday 9:00pm/Saturday 1:00pm
The complete City Council agenda packet is available on the city website: www.cityofbrookings.org
Assisted Listening Systems (ALS) are available upon request. Please contact Shari Thornes, Brookings City
Clerk, at (605)692-6281 or sthornes@cityofbrookings.org. If you require additional assistance, alternative
formats, and/or accessible locations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, please contact Shari
Thornes, City ADA Coordinator, at (605)692-6281 at least three working days prior to the meeting.
Engage Brookings is an online tool where citizens can engage, communicate and collaborate with community
decision makers and other residents. Where these ideas overlap is the future of Brookings.
www.engagebrookings.org
Page 4 City of Brookings
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:ID 2015-0018,Version:1
Action to approve the draft October 21 and December 9 City Council minutes.
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Brookings City Council
October 21, 2014 (unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a study session on Tuesday, October 21, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., at
City Hall with the following members present: Mayor Tim Reed, Council Members Jael Thorpe,
John Kubal, Dan Hansen, Tom Bezdichek, Ope Niemeyer and Keith Corbett. City Attorney Steve
Britzman, City Manager Jeff Weldon and City Clerk Shari Thornes were also present.
Highway 14B Recommendation. A motion was made by Hansen, seconded by Kubal, to approve a
revised recommendation from the Transportation Steering Committee pertaining to roundabout design
for Highway 14B. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Sustainability Draft Action Plan. Weldon will modify future bid documents to include multiple fuel
vehicles as an alternate.
A subcommittee of the Sustainability Council is gathering data on a coordinator position.
Sustainability will be discussed at the Council 2015 Goal Setting Retreat. The Council asked for the
subcommittee’s research for their January meeting.
A motion was made by Bezdichek, seconded by Kubal, to discuss a plastic bag ban at a future council
meeting. Bezdichek and Kubal voted yes; Corbett, Hansen, Niemeyer, Reed and Thorpe voted no;
motion failed.
A motion was made by Thorpe, seconded by Hansen, to have a policy discussion about net metering at a
December council meeting. All present voted yes; motion carried.
University Community Coalition. A motion was made by Niemeyer, seconded by Corbett, the move
forward with a draft ordinance to create a University Community Coalition. All present voted yes;
motion carried.
Other discussion topics included a report on Kauffman Entrepreneurial Conference, Drainage Plan in
Joint Jurisdictional Area, a review of the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, and City Council ex-officio
reports.
Adjourn.A motion was made by Corbett, seconded by Kubal, to adjourn. All present voted yes; motion
carried. Meeting adjourned at 7:57 p.m.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
ATTEST: Tim Reed, Mayor
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Brookings City Council
December 9, 2014 (unapproved)
The Brookings City Council held a meeting on Tuesday, December 9, 2014 at 5:00
p.m., at City Hall with the following members present: Mayor Tim Reed, Council
Members Keith Corbett, Dan Hansen, Ope Niemeyer, John Kubal, Tom Bezdichek, and
Jael Thorpe. City Attorney Steve Britzman, City Manager Jeffrey Weldon, and City
Clerk Shari Thornes were also present.
Executive Session. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by
Council Member Corbett, to enter into Executive Session at 5:00 p.m. for purposes of
discussing the qualifications, competence, performance, character or fitness of any
public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee with the City Clerk
and City manager present. All present voted yes; motion carried. A motion was made
by Council Member Tim Reed, seconded by Council Member Dan Hansen, to exit
Executive Session at 5:50 p.m. All present voted yes; motion carried.
Consent Agenda: Historic Preservation Commission appointments were removed
from the Consent Agenda. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded
by Council Member Corbett, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. The motion
carried by the following vote: Yes: 6 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal,
Niemeyer; Thorpe was not present.
3.A. Action to approve the agenda as amended.
3.B. Action to approve the November 25 City Council Minutes.
3.C. Action on various appointments to City Boards, Committees and
Commissions. Board of Adjustment: reappoint Jere Hieb, Lynn James Mennis (1st
Alternate) and Eric Youmans (2nd Alternate) (terms 1/1/2015-1/1/2018); Board of
Health: reappoint Paul Irwin and Tricia Matson-Buus (terms 1/1/2015-1/1/2018);
Brookings Committe for People who have Disabilities: reappoint Lonnie Bayer, Dave
Miller, Jessie Kuechenmeister, Nancy Hartenhoff-Crooks, Nadine Gjerde, and Alan
Davis (terms 1/1/2015-1/1/2018); Brookings Health Systems Board of Trustees:
reappoint Walter Wosje (term 1/1/2015-1/1/2018); Business Improvement District #1
Board: reappoint Bob Johnson (term 1/1/2015-1/1/2018); Human Rights Committee:
reappoint Lawrence Novotny, Patty Bacon, Chandradhar Dwivedi (terms 1/1/2015-
1/1/2018); Library Board: reappoint Janell Hoffelt and Bill Gengler (terms 1/1/2015-
1/1/2018); Sustainability Council: reappoint Jane Hegland, Mike Lockrem and Bob
McGrath (terms 1/1/2015-1/1/2018); Swiftel Center Advisory Committee: reappoint Tom
Coughlin (term 1/1/2015-1/1/2018); Traffic Safety Committee: reappoint Carol
Rettkowski (Chamber Representative), James Weiss (Industry Representative), and
Gary Gramm (Senior Citizens Representative) (terms 12/31/2014-12/31/2017).
3.D. Action to cancel the December 16 City Council Meeting.
3.E. Action on Resolution 14-106, a Resolution declaring old safety house
surplus property.
Resolution No. 14-106 - Resolution Declaring Fire Department Equipment as Surplus
Whereas, the City of Brookings is the owner of the following described equipment
formerly used at the City of Brookings Fire Department: Old Safety House – Fixed
Asset Number 101-0055
Whereas, the City Manager is hereby authorized to donate said surplus property; and
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the governing body of the City of Brookings, South
Dakota, that this property be declared surplus property according to SDCL Chapter 6-
13.
3.F. Action on Resolution 14-107, a Resolution authorizing check write-offs for
the Brookings Municipal Liquor Store.
Resolution No 14-107 - Resolution authorizing check write-off for the Brookings
Municipal Liquor Store
Whereas, The Brookings Municipal Liquor Store has received a total amount of $27.21
in insufficient funds and no account checks; and
Whereas, these checks and bills have been processed for collection with the States
Attorney and Sheriff's Office and have been considered uncollectible;
Now, Therefore Be It Resolved that the following checks totaling $27.21 for the Liquor
Store be determined as uncollectible and removed from the records. Such checks will
be retained by the State's Attorney Office to support possible subsequent collection of
that debt: 09-21-2013 Tristan C Jacobson $15.44; 01-14-2014 Robert Koch, Lisa Koch
$11.77, for a total of $27.21.
3.G. Action on Resolution 14-112, a Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 5A
(Final) for Brookings Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase IA), AIP #3-46-0005-
025-2012; Loiseau Construction, Inc.
Resolution 14-112 - A Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 5A, Final, for Brookings
Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase IA), AIP #3-46-0005-025-
2012; Loiseau Construction, Inc.
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for
Brookings Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase IA), AIP #3-46-0005-025-2012,
Construction Change Order Number 5A (Final): Adjust bid quantities to as constructed
quantities at the associated unit bid prices for a total change of $0.00 to the contract to
close out the project.
3.H.Action on Resolution 14-118, a Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 4 for
Brookings Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase 2), AIP #3-46-0005-026-2013;
Bowes Construction, Inc.
Resolution 14-118 - A Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 4 for Brookings
Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase 2), AIP #3-46-0005-026-2013; Bowes
Construction, Inc.
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for
Brookings Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase 2), AIP #3-46-0005-026-2013,
Construction Change Order Number 4, Bowes Construction, Inc.: Adjust the contract
from bid item quantities to as-constructed quantities and for additional work for
temporary taxiway marking, construction safety plan modification, removal and disposal
of 48” RCP storm sewer, Furnish a 2’ x 3’ Type B Inlet, 18” RCP; RCP storm sewer and
flared end for a total decrease of $2,467.06 to the project. Extend contract time by 210
calendar days to June 12, 2015.
3.I.Action to approve Resolution 14-117, a Resolution authorizing Change Order
No. 1 (Final) for 2014-08STI Street Maintenance and Overlay Project; Bowes
Construction, Inc.
Resolution 14-117 - Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 1 (Final) for 2014-08STI
Street Maintenance and Overlay Project; Bowes Construction, Inc.
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2014-
08STI, Street Maintenance and Overlay Project: Construction Change Order Number 1
(Final): Adjust plan quantities to as-constructed quantities and additional work for traffic
signal conduit re-route, sawed in detector loops, and 220 feet of 8” PVC for the airport
taxilane for a total decrease of $23,952.39 to the contract to close out the project.
Quarterly Financial Report from Brookings Health System. Representatives of
Brookings Health Systems provided the City Council and public with a financial report
and update on current and pending issues.
Report on concept of net-metering for self-generated electrical sales to electrical
grid. Representatives of Brookings Municipal Utilities and Missouri River Energy
Services provided the City Council with information about net-metering. Net metering is
a concept whereby small, private electrical generators sell to the local utility provider
excess electricity. This concept was identified by the Sustainability Council's
benchmark study.
Resolution 14-108. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by
Council Member Kubal, that Resolution 14-108, a Resolution authorizing Change Order
No. 9 for Brookings Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase 1), AIP #3-46-0005-025-
2012; Loiseau Construction, Inc. be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Resolution 14-108 - a Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 9 for Brookings
Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase I), AIP #3-46-0005-025-2012
Loiseau Construction, Inc.
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for
Brookings Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase I), AIP #3-46-0005-025-2012,
Construction Change Order Number 9: Adjust plan quantities to as-constructed
quantities and additional work for additional seeding for the equalization basins for a
total increase of $7,474.15 to the current contract price. Adjust contract time by 304
calendar days to extend completion date to June 15, 2015.
Resolution 14-109. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by
Council Member Corbett, that Resolution 14-109, a Resolution awarding a contract for
the purchase of a Six Yard Rear Load Garbage Truck be approved. The motion carried
by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer,
and Thorpe.
Resolution No. 14-109 - Resolution Awarding Bids Rear Load Garbage Truck
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received three bids on November 25th, 2014 for
one (1) 2015 Rear Load 6 yard garbage Truck: Sanitation Products, Inc Sioux Falls, SD
with a bid of $115,750.00, trade-in value of $15,000.00 for a total cost of $100,750.00;
Northern Truck, Sioux Falls, SD with a bid of $93,992.00, trade-in value of $12,000.00,
for a total cost of $81,992.00; and KOIS Equipment, Commerce City, CO with a bid of
$89,618.00, trade-in value of $6,000.00, for a total cost of $83,618.00.
The bids from Northern Truck and KOIS Equipment were rejected because they did not
meet the bid specifications.
Now Therefore, Be it Resolved that the bid from Sanitation Products, Inc. in the amount
of $100,750.00 be accepted.
Resolution 14-110. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by
Council Member Corbett, that Resolution 14-110, a Resolution to approve the purchase
for a Police SUV Vehicle off of state contract be approved. The motion carried by the
following vote: Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer, and
Thorpe.
Resolution No. 14-110 - Resolution Awarding Bid for Police SUV
Whereas, the City of Brookings opened bids for Police Vehicles on Tuesday, November
18, 2014 at 1:30 pm at the Brookings City and County Government Center; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following state bid for Police Vehicle:
Billion Motors in Sioux Falls: $32,430. for an unmarked Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV).
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the low bid of $32,430 for the Police SUV from
Billion Motors in Sioux Falls be accepted.
Resolution 14-115. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by
Council Member Kubal, that Resolution 14-115, a Resolution Awarding a Contract for
Purchase of One New Skid-Steer Loader with Snowblower for Brookings Parks,
Recreation and Forestry Dept. be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Resolution No. 14-115 - Resolution Awarding a Contract for Purchase of One New Skid-
Steer Loader with Snowblower for Brookings Parks, Recreation and Forestry Dept.
Whereas, the City of Brookings held a bid letting at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 2,
2014; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for One New Skid-Steer
Loader with Snowblower: Butler Machinery, Sioux Falls, SD, with a bid of $59,923.00
for a Caterpillar 272D XHP; Schuneman Equipment, Brookings, SD, with a bid of
$58,772.74 for a John Deere 332E; and Bobcat of Brookings, Brookings, SD, with a bid
of $48,500.42 for a Bobcat S750.
Now Therefore, Be it Resolved that the bid from Bobcat of Brookings of Brookings, SD
in the amount of $48,500.42 be accepted.
The capital budget for this expenditure is $50,000.00.
Resolution 14-116. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by
Council Member Corbett, that Resolution 14-116, a Resolution authorizing Change
Order No. 3 for Brookings Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase 2), AIP #3-46-0005-
026-2013; Muth Electric, Inc. be approved. The motion carried by the following vote:
Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Resolution 14-116 - A Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 3 for Brookings
Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase 2), AIP #3-46-0005-026-2013; Muth Electric, Inc.
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for
Brookings Runway Re-Alignment Project (Phase 2), AIP #3-46-0005-026-2013,
Construction Change Order Number 3, Muth Electric, Inc.: Adjust the contract
quantities to as-constructed quantities and for additional work for MALSR groundwater
pumping, re-aiming MALSR lamps, and fence and grounding for the outer marker for a
total increase of $18,120.59 to the project. Adjust the contract time by 322 calendar
days to July 3, 2015.
Resolution 14-119. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by
Council Member Corbett, that Resolution 14-119, a Resolution awarding a contract for
Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) for the Fire Dept. be approved. The motion
carried by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal,
Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Resolution No. 14-119 - Resolution Awarding Bids on Self-Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA)
Whereas, the City of Brookings held a bid letting at 1:30 pm on Tuesday, December 2,
2014; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for Self-Contained
Breathing Apparatus: Feld Fire Bid of $219,467.64 including Deduct for Trade-in -
$14,000.00. Contingent upon delivery of a minimum of 21 SCBA’s by the end of 2014.
Allegiant Emergency Services Bid of $250,545.00 with Deduct for Trade-in -$35,000,
plus Add-in for Aerial Platform $2,850. Final Bid of $218,395.00.
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the bid of $219,467.64 of Feld Fire be accepted.
Resolution 14-120. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by
Council Member Niemeyer, that Resolution No. 14-120, a Resolution awarding a 5-Year
Contract for Lease of 40 Golf Carts for Brookings Parks, Recreation and Forestry Dept.
(EdgeBrook Golf Course) be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 7
- Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Resolution No. 14-120 - Resolution awarding a 5-Year Contract for Lease of 40 Golf
Carts for Brookings Parks, Recreation and Forestry Dept. (EdgeBrook Golf Course).
Whereas, the City of Brookings held a bid letting at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday, December 2,
2014; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received one bid for a 5-Year Contract for Lease of
40 Golf Carts for Brookings Parks, Recreation and Forestry Dept. (EdgeBrook Golf
Course): Hidden Valley Golf Carts, Brandon, SD with a bid on 40 Carts of $27,894.64
each year, for a Total Bid of $139,473.20 (5 years), and a Tournament Fleet bid of $40
per day/per cart.
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the bid from Hidden Valley Golf Carts of Brandon,
SD in the amount of $139,473.20 and $40 per day/per cart be
accepted.
The 2015-19 EdgeBrook CIP Budget for this expenditure is $132,000 for five years
($26,000-26,500 each year).
First Reading – Ordinance 14-029. A first reading and introduction was held on
Ordinance 14-029, an Ordinance Revising Division 3 of Chapter 82 of the Code of
Ordinances of the City of Brookings and Pertaining to Speed Zones on Main avenue
South in the City of Brookings. Public Hearing: January 13, 2015.
Ordinance 14-026. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by
Council Member Niemeyer, that Ordinance 14-026, an Ordinance Authorizing A
Supplemental Appropriation to the 2014 Budget For the Purpose of Providing Additional
Funds for the Operation of the City be approved. The motion carried by the following
vote: Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Ordinance 14-027. A motion was made by Council Member Kubal, seconded by
Council Member Corbett, that Ordinance 14-027, an Ordinance to Rezone Lot B, Block
1, Hunter's Ridge Addition from a Residence R-1A District to a Residence R-1B District
be approved. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek,
Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Annual Liquor & Wine Alcohol License Renewals. A motion was made by Council
Member Hansen, seconded by Council Member Corbett, that the Liquor and Wine
Alcohol License Renewals for 2015 be approved: Liquor (Off-Sale): Brookings
Municipal Liquor Store, 780 22nd Ave. So. Liquor (On-Sale): Fireside Inc., 2515 E. 6th
St.; Applebee’s / Porter Apple Co. B Inc., 3001 LeFevre Dr.; BraVo’s Inc., 610 Medary
Ave.; Buffalo Wild Wings Bar & Grill, 1721 6th St.; Cubby’s Sports Bar & Grill / GDT
Inc., 307 Main Ave.; Danny’s / David Olson Inc., 703 Main Ave. So.; Elks Brookings
Lodge #1490, 516 4th St.; Jim’s Tap, 309 Main Ave.; Lantern Lounge / Half Pint
Enterprise Inc, 303 3rd St.; 9 Bar Nightclub / Nine Inc., 303 Main Ave.; Old Market
Eatery / The Lee Group, 424 5th St.; Park Hospitality, Inc., 2500 6th St.; Pheasant Café
& Lounge, 726 Main Ave. So.; Pints & Quarts, 313 Main Ave.; Prairie Lanes Inc., 722
Western Ave.; Ram & O’Hare’s Ent LLC/The Ram, 327 Main Ave.; Ray’s Corner /
Fergen Enterprises Inc., 401 Main Ave.; Skinner’s Pub Inc., 300 Main Ave.; Sully’s Irish
Pub/B&L Sullivan Inc., 421 Main Ave.; VFW GEO Dokken Post 2118, 520 Main Ave.
Restaurant (On-Sale): Whiskey Creek Wood Fire Grill/Brookings Steak Co. LLC, 621
32nd Ave. Wine (On-Off Sale): Aramark/McCrory Gardens Visitors Center, 6th St. &
22nd Ave.; BraVo’s Inc., 610 Medary Ave.; Brookings Municipal Liquor Store, 780 22nd
Ave. So.; Carpy’s Pub, 714 22nd Ave. So.; Children’s Museum of South Dakota, 521
4th St.; CHS, Inc. / Zip Trip #63, 1005 6th St.; CHS, Inc. / Zip Trip #64, 3045 LeFevre
Dr.; Cottonwood Coffee Inc., 1710 6th St.; Guadalajara, 1715 6th St., Suite F; Hy-Vee
Food Store, 700 22nd Ave.; Krave, Inc., 1040 22nd Ave. So.; New Sake, Inc., 724 22nd
Ave. So.; Old Sanctuary, 928 4th St.; Pheasant Café & Lounge, 726 Main Ave. So.;
Schoon’s Pump N’ Pak South, 1205 Main Ave. So.; Skinner’s Pub Inc., 300 Main Ave.;
Swiftel Center, 824 32nd Ave.; Wal-Mart Supercenter #1538, 2233 6th St. The motion
carried by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal,
Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Resolution 14-105. A motion was made by Council Member Corbett, seconded by
Council Member Hansen, that Resolution 14-105, a Resolution authorizing the City
Manager to sign an On-Off Sale Wine Operating Agreement for MN LCC, Italian
Garden, Mark Thompson, owner, 1300 Main Ave. So., Brookings, SD be approved. The
motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal,
Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Resolution No. 14-105 - Italian Garden, MN LLC – Wine Operating Agreement
Be It Resolved by the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the City Council hereby
approves a Lease Agreement for the Operating Liquor Management Agreement for
Wine between the City of Brookings and Mark Thompson, owner, Italian Garden, MN
LLC, for the purpose of a liquor manager to operate the On-Sale Establishment or
business for and on behalf of the City of Brookings at 1300 Main Avenue South, also
known as Italian Garden.
Be It Further Resolved that the City Manager be authorized to execute the Agreement
on behalf of the City, which shall be for a period of five (5) years, with a renewal for
another five (5) years.
Resolution 14-113. A motion was made by Council Member Kubal, seconded by
Council Member Thorpe, that Resolution No. 14-113, a Resolution authorizing the
placement of 4-Way Stop Signs at the Intersection of 32nd Street South and Main
Avenue South be approved. Public Comment: M.K. Hugghins, Paul Moriarty, Lonnie
Ammann.
A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by Council Member
Corbett, to table Resolution 14-113 to the January 27, 2015 City Council Meeting. The
motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal,
Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Resolution 14-114. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by
Council Member Thorpe, that Resolution 14-114, a Resolution authorizing Changing the
Names of 13th Avenue, 16th Avenue, and 11th Street, and strike 8th Street and 20th
Avenue.
A motion to amend was made by Council Member Niemeyer, seconded by Council
Member Bezdichek, that 13th Avenue and 16th Avenue south of 8th Street would
remain as they are. The motion failed by the following vote: Yes: 2 – Kubal, and
Niemeyer; No: 5 – Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, and Thorpe.
On the main motion, the motion passed by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Reed, Bezdichek,
Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Resolution 14-114 - A Resolution authorizing Changing the Names of 8th Street, 20th
Avenue, 13th Avenue, 16th Avenue, and 11th Street.
Whereas, the City Council is authorized under Article I, Section 74-1 to change the
names of streets within the city; and
Whereas, the City Council has received a request to change the names of portions of
8th Street, 20th Avenue, 13th Avenue, 16th Avenue and 11th Street.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved by the governing body that the following changes be
made:
Old street name: 13th Avenue north of 6th Street / New street name: Campanile Avenue
Old street name: 16th Avenue north of 6th Street / New street name: Jackrabbit Avenue
Old street name: 11th Street east of 16th Avenue / New street name: University
Boulevard
Abutting legal descriptions: To be inserted after approval of the resolution.
The City Clerk is directed to file a copy of this resolution with the Brookings County
Register of Deeds Office and to request that the above referenced plat(s) be notated
with the new street names and a reference to this resolution be added describing the
proper miscellaneous record.
Brookings Transportation Steering Committee Recommendation Regarding
Highway 14 (6th Street) from Main Avenue to Medary Avenue. A motion was made
by Mayor Reed, seconded by Council Member Bezdichek, that the Brookings
Transportation Steering Committee Report be accepted, but not the Transportation
Steering Committee's recommendation, nor the SDDOT's proposed plans. Public
Comment: Carl Kline, Lawrence Novotny, Jeanette Bare, Pat Fishback, Paul Moriarty,
Patty Bacon, and Caleb Evenson. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 7 -
Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Resolution 14-111. A motion was made by Council Member Hansen, seconded by
Council Member Niemeyer, that Resolution 14-111, a Resolution in support of SDML
legislation supporting a Local-Option Sales Tax dedicated to infrastructure
improvements be approved to include a statement that the South Dakota Municipal
League would look at not adding this tax to food. The motion carried by the following
vote: No: 1 – Thorpe; Yes: 6 - Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, and Niemeyer.
Resolution 14-111 - A Resolution supporting Enabling Legislation authorizing a
Local Option Additional Penny of Municipal Sales Tax with the approval of voters for
Specific Infrastructure Projects
Whereas, the South Dakota Municipal League (SDML) intends to pursue legislation
during the 2015 Legislative Session to provide municipalities with an additional tool to
finance needed infrastructure; and
Whereas, the ability to adequately finance necessary and desirable capital improvement
and infrastructure items for a community’s economic vitality and quality of life are
among the most significant long-range financial challenges facing cities; and
Whereas, efforts to generate sufficient revenue for capital infrastructure projects should
be flexible and responsive to the needs of the local municipality; and
Whereas, efforts to generate such revenue should be retained as a local option at the
discretion of the local municipality to enhance local control and be authorized in a
manner with local approval and transparent to the community.
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the City Council of the City of Brookings, South
Dakota supports legislation during the 2015 Legislative Session authorizing
municipalities to approve an increase in the local sales tax in an amount not to exceed
one penny with such revenue dedicated to costs associated with specific capital
expenditures and infrastructure improvements provided that:
(1)The City Council adopts an ordinance specifying the proposed use of the tax and
its estimated cost, the revenue rate of the sales tax not to exceed one percent,
and term in years proposed for the collection of the proposed use.
(2)The voters of the City of Brookings approve by a majority vote at a regular or
special election the imposition of a sales tax commensurate with the ordinance.
(3)Revenue from this additional amount shall sunset when sufficient revenue has
been generated to pay the costs, or the term as provided by the ordinance and
public vote, whichever is sooner.
(4)Revenue from this amount shall only be used for the proposed use as provided by
the ordinance and public vote.
(5)The base for this additional tax would not include food.
City Manager 2015 Compensation Package. A motion was made by Mayor Reed,
seconded by Council Member Corbett, that the 2015 City Manager Compensation
Package increasing annual compensation by 4%, from $141,887.05 to $147,562.53, an
increase of $5,675.48. The motion carried by the following vote: Yes: 7 - Reed,
Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
City Council Topics for Future Discussion. A motion was made by Council Member
Thorpe, seconded by Mayor Reed, that staff be directed to do a Traffic Study of 32nd
Street and 22nd Avenue and investigate the need of a stop sign and report at the
January 27, 2015 City Council Meeting. Motion passes with the following vote: Yes: 7 -
Reed, Bezdichek, Corbett, Hansen, Kubal, Niemeyer, and Thorpe.
Adjourn. A motion was made by Council Member Kubal, seconded by Council Member
Hansen, that the meeting e adjourned at 9:48 p.m. The motion carried by a unanimous
vote.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:ID 2015-0021,Version:1
Action on appointments to the Board of Health.
Summary:
The Mayor is recommending the appointment of Bob Brotsky and Albert Patin to the Board of Health.
Terms: 1/1/2015-1/1/2018
Board of Health
Term:3 years
Residency:County required (2 may live outside Brookings city limits, but must reside
in Brookings County)
The purpose of the Board of Health is to provide a general supervision of the health of the city with
full powers to take all steps and measures necessary to promote the cleanliness and healthfulness
and to prevent and arrest the spread of any contagious or infectious diseases and harmful
environmental conditions, and to quarantine any person or evacuate any area contaminated by such
condition or disease. In addition, the Board is to provide public education for the need of all phases
of an integrated solid waste management system;
o Establish a comprehensive realistic solid waste plan for the city.
o Develop a financial policy that would be used for raising funds required to build and
operate an integrated solid waste program.
o Develop and promote pilot programs for recycling and collection of household
hazardous waste and reducing solid waste.
Recommendation:
Approve
Attachments:
None
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:RES 15-003,Version:1
Action on Resolution 15-003, a Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 1 (Final) for 2014-01SWR
Concrete Maintenance Project; Timmons Construction.
Summary:
This resolution will approve Change Order No. 1 (Final) for the 2014-01SWR Concrete Maintenance
Project.
Background:
This project was the annual Concrete Maintenance Project, which entailed construction of
miscellaneous concrete work in the area west of Medary Avenue between 6th Street and 20th Street
South. The project included repair of curb and gutter, fillets, valley gutters, curb ramps and
homeowner trip hazard sidewalks. This project also included constructing a concrete parking lot at
the corner of 3rd Street and 3rd Avenue where the old fire auxiliary building was previously located.
This project has been completed and is ready to be closed out. This resolution will adjust the plan
quantities to as-built quantities, for a decrease of $9,041.89 to close out the contract. The decrease
was due to more property owners completing their own sidewalk work than was anticipated at the
time of the bid letting. There is no change to the contract completion date. The change order is
summarized below:
Original Contract Price:$113,692.50
Change from Previously Approved Change Orders:$0.00
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order:$113,692.50
Decrease of this Change Order (No. 1 Final):$9,041.89
Contract Price incorporating this Change Order:$104,650.61
Fiscal Impact:
There will be a decrease of $9,041.89 to the contract.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the change order.
Attachments:
Resolution
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Resolution No. 15-003
Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 1 (CCO#1) for
2014-01SWR, Concrete Maintenance Project; Timmons Construction
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2014-
01SWR, Concrete Maintenance Project:
Construction Change Order Number 1: Adjust contract plans quantities to as-
constructed quantities for a total decrease of $9,041.89 to close out the project.
Passed and approved this 13th day of January, 2015.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
________________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:ID 2015-0031,Version:1
SDSU Student Association Strategic Plan Presentation.
Summary:
Background:
Fiscal Impact:
Attachments:
Strategic Plan Presentation
GAF Final Report
GAF Priority Project Summary
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
GENERAL ACTIVITY FEE
STRATEGIC PLAN
FY16-FY20
Current GAF Breakdown
served
Union
$4.02
Total
$28.00
Title IX
$1.89Athletics
$8.60
UAFBC
$9.24
Wellness
$4.21
Risk
Management
$0.04
How we were organized
served
Career
Development
Student
Services Work
Group
Oversight
Committee
Wellness
Center
Work Group
Stadium
Work Group
Transportation
Work Group
Multi-Cultural
& Union
Work Group
How we did the work
nearly
5,000
students
4Environmental
Scan
Focus
Groups
Surveys
Electronic
& In-
Person
Initial
Recommendations
How we did the work
nearly
5,000
students
entalVetting
Process
Initial
Recommendations
Steering
Committee
Recommendation
SA Approval UAFBC Approval Presented to
SDSU President
Presented to
BOR
Preliminary Recommendations
[To be Validated by Survey & Student Organization Review]
$.87
Career
Development
$3.50
-$4.50 Union
Expansion
$.80
Stadium
Maintenance
& Student
Org Fee
& Repair Fee
$.87
$3.50$2.22
Circulator
Route &
Bikes
-$4.50 Union
Expansion
-$4.50
Wellness
Center
Expansion
STRATEGIC PLAN PROPOSAL
Plan Element Proposed
Rate
Proposed
Implementation
GAF Funds
Generated
Career Services P1 &
Club Sports
$0.40 FY16 $110,000
Wellness $3.50 FY17 $962,000
VBR, Multi-Cultural,
Student Org. Center,
Student Org.
Resources, & Career
Services P2
$3.97 FY18 $1,091,750
Transportation $1.40 FY19 $385,000
1
GENERAL ACTIVITY FEE
STRATEGIC PLAN
SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY
STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION
FY16 – FY20
November 24, 2014
2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Any campus is comprised of a mix of students, faculty and staff. When this mix of constituencies comes
together in just the right way, it creates a community which serves the ultimate purpose of higher
education – student success. We are pleased to submit this document as an important part of ensuring
that South Dakota State University will continue to be a place where students can seek this dream.
3
GAF Steering Committee
Jeff Hale, Student Affairs
Allyson Helms, Residence Hall Association
Andrew Kapperman, Students’ Association
Ruth Latterell, Students’ Association/UAFBC
Courtland McCranie, Students’ Association*
Dobby O’Donnell, UPC Representative
Clarke Sanders, At-Large Student Representative
Chris Schmit, Faculty Representative
Douglas R. Wermedal, Student Affairs*
Career Development / Student Services Work Group
Matt Dahle, Students’ Association*
Jorgen Dahl, Club Sports
Scott DesLauriers, Hobo Day Committee
Ben Kamrath, Joint Engineering Council
Jade Kampsen, Ag Proxy Council
Kayla McEldowney, UPC
Ashley Tonak, Students’ Association
Nick Wendell, Student Affairs
Multi-Cultural Center / Union Work Group
Iman Ali, Multi-Cultural Affairs
Corey Chicoine, Students’ Association*
CD Douglas, Multi-Cultural Affairs
Jon Meendering, Facilities and Services
Jennifer Novotny, Union
Sarah Ruiz, UPC
Lexi Opheim, Students’ Association
Jacob Zahler, Student Union Advisory Committee
Stadium Work Group
Leon Costello, Athletic Department
Deb Debates, Faculty
Josh Jasper, Pride of the Dakotas
Stephan Miedema, Residence Hall Association
Alex Powell, Students’ Association
Nick Reagan, Students’ Association*
4
Transportation Work Group
Suzette Burckhardt, Faculty
Wyatt Johnson, Students’ Association
Rebecca Matzek, HEROH
Jennifer McLaughlin, Students’ Association*
Steve Rames, Facilities and Services
Derek Peterson, Parking Services
Ben Stout, Student*
Wellness Center Expansion Work Group
Austin Chicoine, Students’ Association*
Jeff Huskey, Student Affairs
Tayler Bennett, HEROH
Levi Hattervig, Students’ Association
Les Olive, Facilities and Services
Mikaila Worden, Wellness Center
*Denotes individual who served as chair, or co-chair.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION AND DOCUMENT OVERVIEW 9
SECTION 2: ORGANIZATION OF GAF STEERING COMMITTEE AND WORK GROUPS 10
SECTION 3: WORK GROUP INITIAL FINDINGS 11
SECTION 4: CAMPUS-WIDE SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS 15
SECTION 5: COST ANALYSIS BETWEEN SDSU AND STATE AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS 23
SECTION 6: THE VETTING PROCESS 26
SECTION 7: THE GAF STRATEGIC PLAN 27
APPENDICES 29
6
INDEX OF FIGURES AND TABLES
TABLE 1: POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION ORDER FROM WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS 7
TABLE 2: AMENDMENTS TO INITIAL WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS 8
TABLE 3: GAF STRATEGIC PRIORITY PROJECTS STEERING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 9
FIGURE 1: STEERING COMMITTEE ORGANIZATION 10
TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF GAF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WORK GROUPS 15
TABLE 5: POTENTIAL IMPLEMENTATION ORDER FROM WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS 15
TABLE 6: STRONGLY AGREE/AGREE RANKINGS FROM CAMPUS SURVEY 17
TABLE 7: STRONGLY/SOMEWHAT DISAGREE RANKINGS FROM CAMPUS SURVEY 18
TABLE 8: HIGH, LOW, & NO PRIORITY RANKING OF GAF PROJECTS 18
TABLE 9: RANKING OF GAF PROJECTS BY FREQUENCY OF COMMENT 19
TABLE 10: GAF FEES FY15 ACTUAL, FY16-FY20 PROJECTED 24
TABLE 11: REGENTAL UNDERGRADUATE RESIDENT, RECIPROCITY, NON-RESIDENT TUITION
& FEE RATES – FY15 ACTUAL, AND FY16-FY20 PROJECTED 24
TABLE 12: PROJECTED TUITION & FEES AT IOWA STATE FY15 ACTUAL, FY16-20 PROJECTED 26
TABLE 13: PROJECTED TUITION AND FEES AT MINNESOTA STATE-MANKATO FY15 ACTUAL,
FY16-FY20 PROJECTED 26
TABLE 14: PROJECTED TUITION AND FEES AT NDSU FY15 ACTUAL, FY16-FY20 PROJECTED 26
TABLE 15: GAF PRIORITY PROJECTS 28
7
GENERAL ACTIVITY FEE STRATEGIC PLAN FY16 – FY20
Executive Summary
During the late spring 2014 semester Students’ Association (SA) leadership determined to undertake a
longer-term view of prioritizing expenditure from the General Activity Fee (GAF). To organize the effort
and to ensure a broad-based investigation of what might be the priorities for expenditures from GAF
revenues, a GAF Steering Committee was appointed. (See Page 3 for a roster of appointees.)
Work Groups reporting to a Steering Committee were organized into five broad categories of potential
GAF projects. Initial consideration was given to projects in the following areas: Career Development
and Student Services personnel and services, Football Stadium maintenance and repair, Transportation
bus and bike options, a Union expansion, and a Wellness Center expansion. A student senator served as
chair for each Work Group and received expert support from a senior administrator assigned to each
Work Group from the respective areas.
The techniques engaged by Work Groups to formulate recommendations included focus groups, surveys
(electronic and in-person), and best practice scans of institutions known to have model programs in a
given area. To support these efforts Work Groups were provided training in various survey research
platforms such as Survey Monkey, Campus Labs and QuestionPro to improve the standardization of
survey data. More than 1,500 students took part in focus groups or surveys conducted by Work Groups.
Allocation amounts tied to specific projects were understood to be the best available estimates and not
guarantees that the recommended projects could be completed for the forecasted allocations. This was
particularly true in the case of projects involving construction. Actual allocations can only be confidently
determined after hiring architecture and engineering firms and through completion of the Board of
Regents project approval process (e.g. including the Preliminary Facility Statement, Facility Program Plan
and Facility Design Plan). These allocation estimates became shorthand for referring to a priority
project’s potential financial impact. Initial recommendations from Work Groups are in Table 1 below.
Table 1: POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ORDER FROM WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
Projected allocations, although understood to be preliminary, were useful in making general cost
comparisons to in-state and regional competitor institutions. A market analysis comparing all South
Dakota Board of Regents (SDBOR) institutions and selected enrollment competitors in Iowa, Minnesota,
and North Dakota revealed that all projects recommended by the Work Groups could be accommodated
in the existing rate structures without harming SDSU’s competitive position. At full implementation in
FY20 the projects in Table 1 would add $10.49 per credit hour to tuition and fees. This rate would be
the third-highest in the SDBOR system after the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology ($52.40)
and the University of South Dakota ($44.39) ranking ahead of SDSU. This projection allows for 3%
annual inflation on GAF from actual FY15 rates. A more detailed presentation of cost comparisons
between BOR and regional competitor institutions is found in Appendix A.
Fiscal Year Project Type Cost Estimate Per Credit Hour
FY16 Stadium M&R Support 0.80$
FY17 Career Development, Student Services, Multi-Cultural Center, VBR, Student Org. Offices 3.90$
FY18 Student Services and Wellness Center 3.57$
FY19 Bike Share Program 0.22$
FY20 Fixed Route Bus Systerm from Off-Campus to Campus 2.00$
8
To ensure the Work Group recommended projects aligned with interests among the general student
population, a survey was sent to 11,731 including the 10,444 students taking at least one course on the
main campus in the fall of 2014. Completed results were obtained from 3,056 respondents for a return
rate topping 26%. The Steering Committee convened on three separate occasions to consider the
numeric results and the text data supplied by the survey. Results from the survey indicated general
support for most projects. However, the bike share program was noted as having the least support and
consideration of this project was deferred at this time. Further, the bus circulator route also had below-
average support from the general student population. These factors, plus the difficulty to implement a
“circulation” route with an emphasis on a “walking campus” and the re-allocation of interior streets to
green space, also led to the deferral of further consideration of a bus route operating only on campus.
In addition to the Likert scale rating of each potential project, two comment-based questions were
included in the campus-wide survey. One question invited respondents to comment on any of the
proposed projects; the second question invited respondents to suggest any project that was not among
the proposed initiatives. In this portion of the survey only two projects had more negative comments
than positive comments; one being the bus circulator route on campus (66 more negative than positive
comments) and support for stadium operations (25 more negative than positive comments).
As the Steering Committee finalized its process for identifying priority GAF projects, the following
adjustments, detailed in Table 2 below, were made from the initial Work Group recommendations.
Minutes and agendas from Steering Committee meetings are found in Appendix B.
Table 2: AMENDMENTS TO INITIAL WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS (alphabetical order)
Plan Element Work Group
Recommendation
Steering Committee
Recommendation
Rationale
Bike Share $0.22 in FY18 Project deferred Not supported in campus-
wide survey.
Bus Circulator on
Campus
Part of $2.00 in
FY19
Project deferred Not supported in campus-
wide survey, impractical to
implement.
Bus Route to
Campus
Part of $2.00 in
FY19
Reduced funding relative to
no bus circulator route,
implementation FY19
Well supported, needs
additional study regarding
feasibility and partners.
Career
Development and
Services
$0.40 in FY17,
$0.37 in FY18
Approved at recommended
levels and initial phase
moved forward to FY16
Surveyed as most supported
project in campus-wide
survey.
Stadium
Maintenance and
Repair Support
$0.80 in FY16 Project deferred Stadium was supported, but
additional investment was
not.
Union Projects
(MCC, Offices,
VBR)
$3.50 in FY17 Approved at recommended
levels and moved back to
FY18
Supported in survey,
additional time to develop
program required.
Wellness Center $3.50 in FY18 Approved at recommended
levels and moved forward to
FY17
Well supported in survey and
mature plans for program
exist.
9
Thus the final recommendation of the Steering Committee for GAF-funded priority projects, and
planned implementation time frame are summarized in the Table 3 below.
Table 3: GAF STRATEGIC PRIORITY PROJECTS STEERING RECOMMENDATONS (chronological order)
Note: Assumes 275,000 credit hours annually
The suggested amounts in Table 3 are best estimates available during the planning timeframe. Each
construction project recommended will benefit from the engagement of architecture and engineering
firms. Still other projects such as additional Career Development personnel and the Bus Route to
campus pre-suppose important partnerships. Career Development success will rest in working with the
academic colleges, such as the existing career services pilot with the College of Agricultural and
Biological Sciences. A fixed bus route to campus must have collaboration with the City of Brookings.
These factors illustrate the inherent dynamism of the GAF Strategic Plan. Future factors such as these or
other opportunities for students to lead or partner on other facilities, services or personnel impacting
student success will be the continuing work of the SA and campus planners.
Section 1: Introduction and Document Overview
The purpose of this document is to describe the Students’ Association (SA) plan, with input from key
constituent student organizations and the general student population, to strategically identify project
priorities that may be supported by GAF revenues. The GAF is assessed to each credit hour for students
taking state-supported credits at South Dakota State University (SDSU). This fee supports selected
student facilities, such as the University Student Union and the Wellness Center. The GAF also provides
for no-cost admission for students into an array of campus events such as plays, concerts, speakers, and
athletic competitions. The two additional annual components of the GAF include a SDBOR inflationary
rate increase (10-year average is $0.53) and a campus-proposed rate increase which is frequently
earmarked for particular projects or services.
The approval protocol for a university-proposed GAF rate increase includes an internal campus review
and approval conducted by the SA, the University Activity Fee and Budget Committee (UAFBC), and the
Vice President for Student Affairs with final campus approval given by the President. Following approval
by the university’s president, proposed GAF rates for an academic year are submitted to the SDBOR for
final approval and inclusion in the overall tuition and fees assessed each student. University Support Fee
(USF) and GAF, when added together with room, board and book costs, comprise the overall cost of
attendance. These fee and tuition packages are typically approved during the spring SDBOR meeting for
implementation the following fall semester.
This document is comprised of seven major sections; a brief overview of each section follows. The first
segment of the document opens with attention to whom and how initial planning stages were engaged.
It details the broad mix of students, faculty and staff who developed project and service
recommendations to be funded by GAF. These volunteers were organized into five Work Groups
focused on the following project areas: additional Career Development services including support for
club sports and training, maintenance and operational support for the Football Stadium, a Union
expansion including a Multi-Cultural Center, student organization offices and a Volstorff Ballroom
Plan Element Proposed Rate Implementation GAF Funds
Career Development and Club Sports 0.40$ FY16 110,000$
Wellness Center 3.50$ FY17 962,000$
Career Development, Multi-Cultural Center, Student Org. Offices, Student Services, and VBR 3.97$ FY18 1,091,750$
Bus Route Off-Campus to On-Campus Locations 1.40$ FY19 385,000$
10
remodel, a shared bike and bus transportation system, and a Wellness Center expansion. The Work
Groups, in turn, reported to a GAF Steering Committee which reviewed the findings of the Work Groups
and developed additional research to further refine an understanding of the potential GAF-funded
projects and services.
Section 2 of the document reports the organizational structure of the GAF Steering Committee and
Work Groups. Section 3 of the document describes initial recommendations from the Work Groups for
GAF-funded priority projects. Section 4 of the document traces the development of a survey instrument
to validate GAF projects and services recommended by the Work Groups. The results of this survey and
its subsequent analysis by the GAF Steering Committee are also examined in this section.
A cost analysis of recommended projects and services is presented in Section 5 of the document. All
project and service costs are shared as preliminary estimates. To determine potential affordability,
costs of recommended GAF projects and services are added to the tuition and fees costs at SDSU and
then forecast against the tuition and fee costs at all other South Dakota public institutions and major
out-of-state enrollment competitors to ensure that proposed cost estimates for projects and services do
not put SDSU in an untenable market position.
Section 6 discusses how the draft plan was vetted with key student organizations by Steering Committee
members and how feedback was gleaned from the vetting process, further enabling plan refinements.
Finally, Section 7 of the document synthesizes all findings and using the planning inputs previously
identified: Work Group recommendations, general survey results, and enrollment market analyses – to
draft a GAF strategic plan.
Section 2: Organization of the GAF Steering Committee and Work Groups
During fall semester 2014 semester SA leadership determined to take a longer-term more strategic view
of GAF-funded projects and services. The desire was to develop a plan that paralleled the timeframe of
IMPACT 2018, the University’s five-year strategic plan. SA and a number of student organizations
(Residence Hall Association, University Program Council, Student Union Advisory Council, Student
Athlete Advisory Council, the Pride, Greek Council, etc.) created Work Groups and a GAF Steering
Committee to develop the plan. Ultimately more than 50 students, faculty and staff were involved in
populating the Work Groups and the Steering Committee; a master membership roster of all volunteers
is found on Page 3. See Figure 1 below for a representation of committee and Work Group structure.
11
Each Work Group was chaired, or co-chaired by a student senator and supported by a content area
expert, typically a department head or senior level management staff.
Each Work Group was provided an environmental scan of relevant work at peer institutions and (see
Appendix C) usage data for the given facility service to characterize demand within the facility and
compare this use to national benchmarks. Each Work Group also generated its own original data via
focus groups, in-person and electronic survey data, and some Work Groups also conducted further
research to identify best practices in their project or service area. In all more than 50 students attended
a direct in-person focus group hosted by the various Work Groups, and an additional 1,500 students
responded to separate surveys using Survey Monkey and Campus Labs software platforms. A brief
overview of each of the Work Group’s findings from these various research endeavors are presented in
the next section of this document.
Section 3: Work Group Initial Findings
(NOTE: All calculations of gross revenue for an estimated GAF increase are based on the assumption of 275,000 credit hours annually as
supplied by the Office of Budget & Finance.)
Career Development / Student Services Work Group: Existing usage data from the Office of Career
Development identified more than 2,000 career fair attendees, an additional 350 students who were
assisted through individual meetings with career advisors, and 575 additional students who participated
in at least one career-focused workshop. More than 3,000 students sought direct services; other
students were aided indirectly through the website and publications.
Student fee funding of career development centers is a common practice with more than half of the
institutions in the environmental scan following this funding model. However, the SDSU model with just
four FTE devoted to department operation is markedly understaffed. The National Association of
Colleges and Employers (NACE) 2013 Benchmarking Survey noted that an institution with the same
demographics as SDSU should have 13.4 full-time staff dedicated to career development. Overcoming
this staff deficit forms the heart of the recommendation to target GAF funds for additional staff
positions and more career development services to students.
Specifically, the GAF funds would match funds from academic units to create five college liaison
positions during the next five years. This type of partnership is already practiced in a pilot between the
College of Agriculture and Biological Sciences and the Office of Career Development. Phase 1 of this fee
would be timed for FY16 ($0.30/credit hour) and Phase 2 in FY18 (an additional $0.40/credit hour). In
phase one (FY16), the addition of $0.30/credit hour would generate $82,500. This initial assessment
would support two new positions when matched with funds from academic units. In phase two (FY18),
the fee would increase to $0.70/credit hour (an additional $0.40), generating $192,500 annually and
supporting all five college liaison positions when matched with funding from the colleges.
This Work Group was also charged with assessing the adequacy of funds supporting student
organizations. The 2014 Center for Student Engagement’s Annual Report identified 274 recognized
student organizations. Participation in student organizations is significant according to a survey
conducted by this Work Group that indicated that 56% of respondents to an electronic survey sent to
400 students had participated in a student organization, and an additional 19% had participated in a
sport club. Based on these results an assessment of $0.17/credit hour was recommended ($0.10 for
club sports in FY16 and $0.07 for student organizations in FY 17), $46,750 annually at full
implementation to support student organization management with leadership training, organization
12
management software, general marketing expenses, equipment and supplies and unanticipated travel
expenses. The complete Career Development/Student Service Work Group report is found in Appendix
D.
Multi-Cultural Center and Union Work Group: This Work Group studied selected “best practice”
institutions such as University of Nebraska Lincoln, Creighton University and Minnesota State University
-- Mankato. It was observed that all Union facilities at the identified institutions receive some level of
student fee support for routine operations and additional assessments when expansions and
renovations were constructed.
The Multi-Cultural Center and Union Work Group launched an ambitious survey to develop themes for
potential additions to the Union. Their specific survey received responses from more than 1,000 of the
3,000 students surveyed using Survey Monkey software for the survey instrument and analysis. The
results of this survey present a picture of an active student population looking for a venue in which to
convene and organize their activities. Nearly three-fourths (74%) of respondents reported being a
member of a student organization and 73% of respondents who are members of a student organization
reported they did not currently have assigned space within the Union.
Three leading candidates for potential GAF funding emerged from ideas to meet burgeoning student
demand for meeting, activity and event space include a Multi-Cultural Center, an improved multi-
purpose event space (Volstorff Ballroom, or VBR), and a student organization office area. The Multi-
Cultural Center (MCC) is of the greatest priority of the projects that surfaced during this Work Group’s
research, supported unanimously by students in focus groups as an essential factor for the success of
students’ of color. The current MCC space on the lower level of the Union is well-used, but has limited
square footage to accommodate a growing population of students of color. Focus group commentary
also indicated a concern that new students may not use the space because of this over-crowded nature.
A main floor location for a MCC, likely through Union expansion, was also consistently evident in the
focus group commentary.
VBR usage data indicates that space limitations have resulted in certain events and programs being
turned away to off-campus locations. Each event turned away erodes the income potential and the
opportunity to hold costs down for students. Thus, funding a project to improve the square footage of
and flexibility of this space was another important theme in this Work Groups’ findings.
The Work Group proposed a $3.50 - $4.50 GAF increase in FY16 to respond to the three persistent
themes observed in their research. At the $3.50 level this assessment would produce $962,500 annually
and could serve the construction of a $12 million expansion (assuming $80,000 in revenue serves $1
million in debt service). Approval to hire an architecture and engineering firm to examine building
configurations for recommended expansion would be a necessary step to specifically identifying and
locating the potential building expansions described above. The complete Multi-Cultural/Union Work
Group Report is available in Appendix E.
Stadium Work Group: During the past five years, student attendance at SDSU football games has
averaged 2,213 students per game, or 13,278 annually during a typical six-game home schedule. In their
environmental scan the Stadium Work Group noted that each of the 15 universities studied had a
portion of mandatory fees designated for athletics. Further some universities which had recently
completed a large-scale athletic project had each instituted either a separate fee or a GAF increase to
13
support the stadium projects at universities including Missouri State, University of Minnesota, Southern
Illinois, Idaho and Oklahoma State.
Focus groups were also conducted by the Stadium Work Group. Results of these focus groups indicate
that most students interviewed supported a fee devoted to the stadium when linked with the stadium
being accessible for other special student events such as club and intramural sport playoff contests,
Pride of the Dakotas practice, UPC-sponsored events such as concerts, and Jackrabbit road game
viewings on the scoreboard.
This conditional support was corroborated by an electronic survey completed by the Stadium Work
Group. This survey was sent to 1,000 students, and 251 responses (25%) were obtained. Paralleling the
conditional-use finding in the focus groups, this survey showed that 61% of students were in favor of
using GAF to support stadium maintenance and operation if other student events besides football
games were able to use this venue.
Based on this data and similar practices at peer institutions the Stadium Work Group recommended a
$0.80 GAF assessment be made in support of maintenance and operating costs of the new stadium
beginning in FY16. This assessment would produce annual revenue in the amount of $220,000. The full
Stadium Work Group is found in Appendix F.
Transportation Work Group: An environmental scan of institutions offering bus transportation and a
bike-share program reveals best practice programs at Western Illinois, the University of Wyoming, and
the University of Wisconsin Stevens’ Point (UWSP). Average usage at these programs topped 900,000
riders annually. SDSU ridership is projected to be about half of this average ranging between 335,000
and 468,000, according to the Brookings Fixed-Route Bus Service Study commissioned by the City of
Brookings and the Students’ Association in 2013. This forecasted total calculates approximately 34 to 47
rides per student on campus in an academic year, or slightly more than once a week for the academic
year. Safe Ride, a campus transportation system already operated Thursday through Saturday nights
during the academic year, produces 13,564 rides annually (three-year average). Students at the best-
practice institutions noted earlier all contribute financially to the operational expense of their bus
systems.
The Transportation Work Group held four different focus groups with 23 students and six faculty
members participating in the various sessions. In general, bus transportation received more support
than the concept of a bike-share program. Two types of bus programs were examined, one being an on-
campus circulator route and the other being an off-campus to campus fixed-route system. Greater
interest was shown in the off-campus to campus route. The potential usefulness of an on-campus
circulator route seems limited by the recent moves to place parking on the perimeter of campus and the
elimination of several internal campus streets.
Investment in bus transportation is a significant commitment and institutions with active bus
transportation systems typically had municipal partners. For instance North Dakota State University
(NDSU) contributes approximately $576,000 annually to the First Transit bus transportation system in
Fargo. UWSP students pay $1.88 per credit hour for unlimited access to the campus and community
transportation system in the City of Stevens Point.
14
Based on these significant costs and the need to specifically identify how the City of Brookings might
participate, the recommendation is that any GAF allocation to a bus transportation project occur
deeper into the five-year planning cycle to allow time for the specifics of a MOU between the City and
campus to be developed. A $2 appropriation is recommended for implementation of a bus
transportation system in FY18; this would generate $550,000 annually for investment in the system,
similar to NDSU rates.
The potential for a bike-share program was also studied by reviewing the implementation efforts at
North Dakota State University which plans a third-party sponsored system set to kick-off next fall. Since
a bike-share program has been implemented previously at SDSU without significant success, it is also
recommended that this project be implemented later in the strategic planning cycle so additional time
to study the most efficacious implementation is allowed. However, based on a scan of similar
institutions, it is believed a bike-share program could be implemented in FY19 at the $0.22 per credit
hour level, producing $60,500 annually. Appendix G provides the full Transportation Work Group
Report.
Wellness Center Work Group: Wellness Center expansion has been a topic virtually since the building’s
opening in 2008. Initial surveys and focus groups investigating the possibility of a Wellness Center
expansion were first conducted in 2011. Students in these earlier survey and focus groups efforts
reported an overall satisfaction with the services and programs provided by the Wellness Center but
also felt the facility was too crowded. This overcrowding was a barrier to use; in all, 814 students were
represented by the various surveys and focus groups completed in 2011.
The concern for crowding is borne out in a review of the usage data. Wellness Center facility usage has
increased by 30% since opening with 321,984 users in FY14 compared to 246,692 in the facility’s initial
year of operation. Current fall 2014 data shows usage is again up, at 17% ahead of last year’s record
pace.
By any standard the Wellness Center is undersized and underfunded. Space benchmarking was
conducted during the last academic year against national standards; university peer institutions and
other institutions within the state are detailed in Appendix H. SDSU currently has 6.22 square feet of
recreational space per student, approximately 50% below the national standard of 12.55 square feet per
student, according to Space Planning Guidelines for Campus Recreational Sport Facilities (Brown, R. and
Haines, D., 2009, University of Illinois). In terms of funding, USD’s wellness facility is funded at
$9.75/credit hour exclusively for fitness and recreation facilities. Conversely, the SDSU fee of
$4.21/credit hour also supports the Student Health Clinic and the Counseling Center facilities in the
Wellness Center.
The Wellness Center Work Group recommends the following in terms of a program served by an
expansion: two group fitness studios, four multi-purpose courts (basketball and volleyball), two
racquetball courts, an outdoor recreation center an extension of the track to the new building’s
perimeter, and re-configuring portions of the Student Health Clinic and Counseling Center for efficiency.
This recommendation also includes the personnel (full- time and student employment positions) and the
associated budget to maintain and operate the additional 58,870 square feet to the recreation space
provided by the facility, effectively aligning with national standards for recreation space at 11.77 square
feet per student, based on 2014 fall enrollment.
15
A mix of fund sources will accomplish the funding necessary for the recommended facility configuration.
This proposed plan includes securing $4.24 million from a combination of private funding, rate increases
to community members and potential corporate participation in service provision. It is worthy of note
that more than $1.8 million funds were raised privately for the original construction of the facility, with
an additional gift of $250,000 from the City of Brookings. The balance of funding will come from a
recommended GAF increase of $3.50 to be implemented in FY16 to allow time for the private fund
raising to progress. This$3.50 assessment would produce $962,500 annually and could provide $12
million toward the construction budget (assuming $80,000 in revenue serves $1 million in debt service).
The total fund sources would result in a $16.28 facility fee paid by students to serve the campus and
community.
The current GAF allocations for FY15 are $28, distributed in the following fashion: Risk Management,
$0.04;, Title IX, $1.89; Union, $4.02; Wellness Center, $4.21; Athletics $8.60, and Students’
Association/UAFBC, $9.24. In aggregate, recommendations for additional GAF assessments total a
$10.49 increase (37.46%) across the five-year strategic planning cycle. Table 4 below shows the year-
over-year increase in dollar amounts, the percentage increase for each year, a running total for
increases and the actual GAF assessed per credit hour in each year.
Table 4: SUMMARY OF GAF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM WORK GROUPS
Note: GAF assessed in 2014-15 academic year was $28.00
Projects recommended by the Work Groups are staggered to allow time to raise private funds and to
develop necessary operating and financing agreements with external partners. Table 5 below
summarizes the order of implementation of the Work Group recommended projects.
Table 5: POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ORDER FROM WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
SECTION 4: CAMPUS-WIDE SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS
The next step in the process was to validate the initial ideas for GAF projects by vetting potential
projects with a larger audience. It was determined that a widely distributed survey was the most
effective method to gather feedback from the general student population. The Steering Committee
devoted three meetings to developing a survey instrument comprehensive enough to give all potential
projects a reasonable representation to any respondent and concise enough so that the it could be
2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
Increase $0.80$ 3.90$ 3.57$ 0.22$ 2.00$
Increase %2.86 13.54 10.92 0.61 5.48
Running Total 0.80$ 4.70$ 8.27$ 8.49$ 10.49$
GAF Assessed 28.80$ 32.70$ 36.27$ 36.49$ 38.49$
Academic Year Project Type Fiscal Year
2015-16 Career Development, Club Sports, Stadium M&R Support FY16
2016-17 Multi-Cultural Center, Student Organization Offices, VBR FY17
2017-18 Student Services and Wellness Center FY18
2018-19 Bike Share Program FY19
2019-20 Fixed Route Bus System form Off-Campus to Campus FY20
16
completed in less than 10 minutes. The survey requested demographic data to assess project support
from students by gender, class standing, on- or off-campus residency, frequency of attending campus
events, and transfer or non-transfer student status.
In terms of questions about projects recommended by the Work Groups, respondents were asked to
rate the importance of a given project to the quality of life on campus on a five pointe Likert scale. .
Question 1 listed below is typical of question structure, and the full survey instrument is presented in
Appendix I.
“A Multi-Cultural Center providing social and educational programming and serving all students and
especially the needs of historically under-represented student groups is an important element in the
quality of campus life.
1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree”
To further reinforce the internal reliability of the survey, respondents after completing the Likert scale
were also asked to assign a simple rating of, “High” “Low” or “No” priority for the completion of any of
the nine proposed projects. The final two survey questions allowed respondents to contribute
commentary on any of the nine proposed projects, or alternatively, to propose the consideration of
another GAF project not articulated in the survey.
The survey was distributed by e-mail personnel to all students with at least one course on the Brookings
main campus, via their Jacks e-mail accounts. These distribution criteria resulted in 11,731 survey
requests being sent out. The survey was open from October 8, 2014, to October 21, 2014. During this
time period two reminders were sent to non-completers. Survey return was incentivized by offering
students entry into a randomized drawing for free books for spring semester, with one award going to
an off-campus respondent and another award to an on-campus respondent. The survey was delivered
using the QuestionPro platform which provided initial analytics and did not permit more than one
submittal per e-mail address of original distribution.
The survey was completed by 3,056 of the 11,731 students to whom e-mail messages were sent for an
overall return rate of 26.1%. Among the 3,519 students who opened the survey instrument 3,056
completed it producing a completion rate of 86.8%. Based on the demographic data collected the
following observations were made:
Women dominate the respondent pool replying at rate of about 1.6 times greater than the rate
of men (2,146 female respondents vs. 1,347 male respondents).
Freshmen lead, but do not dominate the respondent pool: Basically all class levels fall within a
10% range with only graduate respondents falling outside this range. (Freshmen = 27.75%,
Sophomores = 22.69%, Juniors = 21.69%, Seniors = 19.87% and Graduate Students = 7.99%).
Transfer students, while in the minority of the respondents, did contribute to the survey in
numbers approaching 20% (615, or 17.49%, of respondents were transfer students).
Perhaps the most surprising demographic result is that a majority of respondents were off-
campus residents, considering that freshmen are almost exclusively on-campus residents were
the leading class in the pool. This result indicates a good balance in the respondent pool
between on- and off-campus students (1,708 on-campus students to 1,809 off-campus
students).
17
In reporting the Likert scale data the scores have been collapsed by adding the “Strongly Agree” and
“Agree” ratings, allowing the “Neutral” rating to stand on its own; and adding the “Somewhat Disagree
and “Strongly Disagree” ratings. This method adds clarity and efficiency in reporting student support for
the proposed projects. When examining the data some initial observations are possible:
Wellness Center is the only project that receives a majority “Strongly Agree” rating;
The Multi-Cultural Center is the only item that receives a majority neutral rating; and
The Bike-Share Program is the only item which receives a majority Strongly Disagree response.
Table 6 below presents the projects ranked in descending order of the strength of the Strongly
Agree/Agree score. This then can be taken as a measure of the intensity of support for a given project.
Both the raw numbers and percentages are reported, along with the number of respondents rating a
given item. Please note the survey had 3,519 participant and 3,056 completers meaning that total
responses for any given item are not uniform.
Table 6: RANKING OF STRONGLY AGREE / AGREE RESPONSES
Mean = 1,656
Project Type Strongly Agree/Agree Responses % Total Respondents to Item
Career Services 2,296 74.13 3,097
Career Advisor 2,229 72.21 3,087
Wellness Center 2,145 70.47 3,044
Stadium M&R Support 1,845 59.92 3,079
Buses to Campus 1,799 58.77 3,061
Volstorff Ballroom
Update 1,507 49.17 3,065
Bus Circulator on
Campus 1,384 45.45 3,045
Student Org. Offices 1,368 44.43 3,079
Multi-Cultural Center 1,061 34.70 3,058
Bike Share Program 928 30.19 3,074
Presented in Table 7, on the following page, are the question responses ranked in descending order of
the strength of the Strongly/Somewhat Disagree score. This can be interpreted as the intensity of
negative impressions of any given project’s potential. Both the raw numbers and percentages are
reported, along with the number of respondents rating a given item.
18
Table 7: RANKING OF STRONGLY / SOMEWHAT DISAGREE RESPONSES
Mean = 734
Project Type
Strongly/Somewhat Disagree
Responses % Total Respondents to Item
Bike Share Program 1,443 46.94 3,074
Multi-Cultural Center 1,014 33.16 3,058
Bus Circulator on
Campus 955 31.36 3,045
Student Org. Offices 837 27.18 3,079
Volstorff Ballroom
Update 817 26.66 3,065
Stadium M&R Support 650 21.11 3,079
Bus Off Campus 555 18.13 3,061
Wellness Center 499 16.39 3,044
Career Advisor 312 10.11 3,087
Career Services 257 8.30 3,097
Table 8 below indicates student response to a reiteration of each of the projects. Respondents were
asked to rate items as “High” “Low” or “No” priority. Results from this rating provide a basis for
comparison with the previous Likert ratings. Greater confidence could be placed in moving forward with
items ranked positively terms of agreement and priority. Correspondingly greater confidence could be
placed in stepping away from items ranking low in both phases of the instrument. Table 8 indicates
both the raw and percentage scores for a given GAF project. Initial observations from this segment of
the survey are noted a below as well.
None of the items received a No Priority rating.
The highest rated High Priority item is Career Development Services; the only other items with a
plurality of high-priority indicators are the Wellness Center, and Bus Service from off- campus to
campus locations.
Table 8: HIGH, LOW AND NO PRIORITY RANKING OF PROPOSED GAF PROJECTS
High % Low % No %
Bus Service On Campus 838 27.08 1172 37.87 1085 35.06
Wellness Center 1375 44.56 1176 38.11 535 17.34
Stadium support 957 31.04 1341 43.50 785 25.46
Career development services 1768 57.65 1020 33.26 279 9.10
Multi-Cultural Center 481 15.72 1330 43.48 1248 40.80
Bus Service to campus 1282 41.65 1165 37.85 631 20.50
Bike program 612 19.97 1243 40.57 1209 39.46
Student org office space 871 28.26 1405 45.59 806 26.15
VBR remodel or expansion 1062 34.39 1378 44.62 648 20.98
The final two questions of the survey asked respondents to provide any commentary on the proposed
projects, or alternatively to suggest projects other than those proposed to be funded by a GAF
19
allocation. Approximately 40% of respondents, or 1,232 students provided commentary regarding the
proposed projects. A few respondents commented on each project, the typical response was to
comment on projects about which the respondent felt the most strongly. The feedback included 2,688
comments provided by 1,232 respondents. The commentary was coded as “pro” or “con” in content.
Table 9 below presents a ranked summary of student commentary regarding the proposed projects.
Table 9: RANKING OF PROJECT BY FREQUENCY OF COMMENT
Text-based comments were also reviewed to identify an individual response that was representative of
both pro and con themes for each of the proposed projects. What follows is listing of these selected
comments, any indication of capital letters or emphasis is supplied by the comment’s author. Each
potential project is attributed three pro and three con comments from the overall comment pool.
Bus Route Circulator On-Campus Only
Pro
“A bus system would be really handy going from class to class.”
“The bus service on-campus would be nice especially during the winter when students have to
travel from one end of the campus to the other.”
“All of the big schools around the nation have on campus bus stops. If SDSU is going to grow we
need an on campus bus route. I have been asked many times by recruits and their parent if
there is one.”
Con
“A bus system WITHIN campus is not needed. The campus is small enough to walk around;”
“I can get anywhere on campus in 10 minutes. It will take longer on a bus”.
“There is limited access to the middle of campus which means you will still have to walk.”
Fixed Bus Route to Campus from Off-Campus Locations
Pro
“Many students, including myself, have been discouraged to go to class because parking and
driving in the winter is so bad.”
“I strongly believe that we need a bus service that goes to off-campus locations. Most people
on campus, and especially international students, find it hard to go places off campus …”
“A bus service would be really helpful. It would cut back on traffic, lack of parking, and especially
gas costs.”
Plan Element # of Comments % Commenting Pro Comments % Pro Con Comments % Con
Bus Off-Campus 466 17.33 349 74.89 117 25.11
Bus Circulator 388 14.43 161 41.49 227 58.51
Wellness Center 364 13.54 295 81.04 69 18.96
Bike Share 353 13.13 188 53.26 165 46.74
Football Stadium M&R 319 11.88 147 46.08 172 53.92
Career Development 228 8.48 195 85.53 33 14.47
Multi-Cultural Center 210 7.81 114 54.29 96 45.71
Student Org. Offices 194 7.22 124 63.92 70 36.08
Volstorff Ballroom 166 6.18 99 59.64 67 40.36
TOTALS 2688 1672 1016
20
Con
“A bus system is not necessary and would be a waste of money and resources.”
“It is college and not high school nor is it a college responsibility to provide transportation.”
“There is no need for a bus service. Brookings is not that big.”
Bike Share Program
Pro
“A rent-a-bike program would be extremely helpful for students who have classes back-to-back
on opposite ends of campus and don’t have a bike of their own.”
The rent-a-bike program could be used by all students on campus and would be a great
opportunity which I think many people will take advantage of.”
“I think rent-a-bike is a great idea for people who can’t afford to buy a bike or who can’t easily
transport one from home.”
Con
“The rent-a-bike program would be difficult to make work. It will also be difficult to keep bikes
from being stolen.”
“A bike program would be a waste of time and money because almost every student has their
own bike.”
“The bike idea is a good idea, but not logical since most of the school year is winter.”
Wellness Center
Pro
“EXPAND THE WC! I don’t know why it was built so small.”
“The WC is just simply so small. I bet if it was expanded, more people could participate in the
activities in that the WC has to offer.”
“I come at 6 a.m. to avoid the rush and still could not get on the equipment I wanted.”
Con
“I already resent what I spend for the Wellness Center, don’t make it worse.”
“Just quit expanding and build what you need the first time.”
“Don’t use it, don’t plan to, don’t want my money going into it.”
Football Stadium M&R Support
Pro
“Athletics facilities need to be updated to be competitive with other Div. I schools on order to
draw in more students to the university.”
“I also think as students we can help pay for the maintenance costs of the new stadium. The
university and donors have done all they can to get the project going and provide campus with a
beautiful stadium that a program of our level deserves so I believe paying for the maintenance is
the least we can do as students who will use the facility and also get in free.”
“I believe that support for the football stadium is a key factor. The football stadium could serve
more purposes than football. If concerts were held there this would attract more revenue not
only for the school but the city of Brookings. They would also attract more potential students to
commit to SDSU.”
21
Con
“I am against funding the operation of the FS. The stadium will be built and there will be
funding for it…The stadium is not a facility the majority of students use.”
“I don’t see how GAF funds would be allocated for the new football stadium and for what
reason.”
“I feel the football program can raise their own money to provide the stadium upkeep.”
Career Development and Student Services
Pro
“I believe that CD is a vital thing that juniors and seniors would take advantage of.”
“I believe that CD is the most important item to use funding on. I feel many students don’t
know where to go with their college education. I think this would give students a better
opportunity to explore career fields and jobs associated with them. “
“This is one area discussed that is actually education related.”
Con
“SDSU has a strong career development program already, and if it doesn’t, it should invest its
own money in it.”
“Using GAF to create more career development would not be wise as because only a minority of
students would use it.”
“I thought SDSU already offered career development services such as resume building and
interview recordings?”
Multi-Cultural Center
Pro
“An expansion of MCC is paramount to the development of campus. It shows commitment on
the part of the university toward minority students, and would help with retention of students
who might otherwise transfer to a more understanding campus, which SDSU isn’t”.
“The MCC undoubtedly needs an upgrade. There is basically only room for BSA n there. …SDSU
needs to show it is committed to the accommodation, protection, well-being, and success of
marginalized/minority students. If it is truly invested in being an inclusive campus and institution
in the future, it must SHOW them and not just say them.”
“Space is tight there is only room for one organization in there now.”
Con
“I am struggling with the concept of a MCC. Seems like something that would be used to say
that we have it and ‘look how diverse we are…”
“I do not use the MCC. I am a gay student and I do not use the MCC. The MCC is not an
important part of campus life at this university. There is an incredibly small number of students
here who are multi-cultural, the whole issue of “bringing the MCC up from the back of the bus”
is ridiculous. A non-multi-cultural student has NO reason to use the MCC. Those that do…can
22
find it. The volume of students for whom the MCC is useful is arguably negligible. In conclusion,
the MCC….should not be funded by GAF.”
“Do not develop MCC. I don’t even know what it means, but I imagine it a museum or gathering
place of sorts to historically underrepresented minorities. Key word here is “historically” as in
they are not under represented today. Everyone here has equal rights and there is no need to
have a building to commemorate that. At best, I imagine it being a childish place full of
elementary-school-esque where minorities whine about racist things they have seen …(the Civil
Rights passed 50 years ago), and at worst, I imagine it to be a white-exclusion center , where
white people as a whole are called out for being historically racist. …if it is multi-cultural art, we
already have an art museum and this building would be redundant. We already learned about
these things in high school and money could be better spent on more productive things than to
appease leftists.”
Volstorff Ballroom Renovation
Pro
“A multi-purpose event space is incredibly important when considering expansion plans and
should be one of the highest priorities…it is a useful thing that would be used by both staff and
students.”
“The Volstorff Ballroom is just not big enough for the amount of students at this school. I
helped coordinate the Common Read kickoff last month, and we had over 300 people come,
many of whom had to sit on the floor or stand in the back because there was not enough room.
Either that room needs to be expanded or another one like it needs to be built.”
“The VBR is used often because it is a prime location in the union. Adding something to that and
making it more accessible to more groups would be awesome.”
Con
“You just got done with a union expansion.”
“I DO NOT AT ALL SUPPORT expansion of the union.”
“Before expansion, maybe we should assess the needs of people…put more money into
maintaining and upgrading older buildings, rather than upgrading and expanding newer
buildings.”
Student Organization Offices
Pro
“USD has this in their Union and it is an amazing way for organizations to connect with students.
This will encourage students to get involved in the university.”
“I have been attending SDSU for three years and three things I wish we had better are… (WC,
CD) the Student union. The union has come so far since my first year! I am sad I only have one
year left. Excellent for student recruiting! Keep expanding!”
“Student organizations (specifically the GSA) are a huge part of my life here on campus. We are
technically part of the MCC but do not have any office or representation there… I would like to
23
see an expansion of that, as well as more room for us and other student organizations as well.
Having a place to feel welcomed and call your own would be phenomenal.”
Con
“Student organization offices don’t need more space because student organizations are run by
students who are busy enough and they usually meet in the union. This breeds more informal
environments that are highly recommended for student organizations.”
The union space has enough offices as it is as far as I can tell.”
“Put your money into the academic side and not some new office for a student club that never
gets used.”
The final question on the survey queried respondents regarding ideas they may have for projects as
alternatives to the projects proposed by the Work Groups. The comments were received from 447
respondents or about 15% of all respondents choosing to make comment in this area. As this question
essentially asked students to brainstorm, patterns of response did not emerge as readily the as it did
when inquiry focused on the projects proposed by the Work Groups. Still some themes did assert
themselves and common responses mentioned by more than 10 respondents are identified below,
frequency of response is indicated in parantheses. Also noted are whether the ideas indicated are
historically GAF funded items.
Historically GAF Funded
More retail food venues (34)
Study space in the Union (19)
Upgrade environment for bike use on campus (16)
Not Historically GAF Funded
Support for the PAC phase II (29)
More parking, or a parking garage (25)
Underground tunnels, above ground tunnels or warming houses in the winter (21)
Improved Wi-Fi across campus (21)
Upgrade old residence halls (21)
Update older classrooms and office areas (e.g. Scobey, Wecota, West, Ag, and ROTC)
Upgrade the library (16)
SECTION 5: COST ANALYSIS BETWEEN SDSU AND STATE AND REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS
An overarching concern regarding the potential for increased GAF rates is the balance between
providing students the facilities and services that maintain a high quality of campus life against and
overall affordability when compared to similar universities. This section of the plan discusses how
potential increases, based on cost projections, would impact SDSU’s relative competitive position within
the state and against SDSU’s main regional enrollment competitors.
Table 10 on the following page summarizes the base year FY14 GAF rates of all South Dakota BOR
institutions and advances this rate 3% annually until FY19 for each institution. Conversely the SDSU GAF
24
rate moves according to the GAF rates and implementation timing recommended by the Work Groups,
(e.g. $0.80 for the stadium in FY15, $3.50 for Union expansion in FY16, etc.).
Table 10: GAF FEES FY15 ACTUAL, FY 16 – FY 20 PROJECTED
(NOTE: Based on initial Work Group Recommendations)
The average GAF rate for BOR institutions in FY 19 with the 3% assumed annual increase is $39.16. Even
including all proposed projects the projected SDSU rate falls below the system average and ranks third
highest rate in the system behind Mines and USD, the other PhD-granting universities. True GAF rates
would also include a BOR inflation rate which has averaged $0.53 (2.46%) over the last 10 years. This
value has not been included in these projections as it represents a constant and has been excluded from
calculations to avoid masking the impact of campus-controlled GAF increases.
Table 11 below represents the projections in Table 10 above rolled into USF and tuition and fees for
each institution. SDSU rates indicated in Table 11 begin at actual rates assessed for FY15, and are
inflated in FY16 to FY20 by 3% plus the GAF rate indicated in Table 10 above. Projections for the
resident, Minnesota and nonresident rates are presented in Table 11. The tuition rates are taken from
the SDBOR 2014 Fact Book.
Table 11: REGENTAL UNDERGRADUATE RESIDENT, MN RECIPROCITY AND NON-RESIDENT TUITION &
FEE RATES – FY15 ACTUAL, AND FY16-FY20 PROJECTED
TABLE 11 is continued on the following page.
YEAR BHSU DSU NSU SDSMT SDSU USD
FY15 30.50$ 26.80$ 28.70$ 45.20$ 28.00$ 38.30$
FY16 31.42$ 27.60$ 29.56$ 46.56$ 28.80$ 39.45$
FY17 32.36$ 28.43$ 30.45$ 47.95$ 32.70$ 40.63$
FY18 33.33$ 29.29$ 31.36$ 49.39$ 36.27$ 41.85$
FY19 34.33$ 30.16$ 32.30$ 50.87$ 36.49$ 43.10$
FY20 35.36$ 31.07$ 33.27$ 52.40$ 38.49$ 44.39$
REGENTAL SYSTEM TUITION RATES ACTUAL FY15, and FY16-FY20 PROJECTED
UNDERGRADUATE RESIDENT 30 CREDITS/YEAR ASSUMES 3% INCREASE ANNUALLY
YEAR BHSU DSU NSU SDSMT SDSU USD
FY15 7,617$ 7,506$ 7,563$ 8,229$ 7,713$ 8,022$
FY16 7,845$ 7,731$ 7,790$ 8,476$ 7,968$ 8,263$
FY17 8,080$ 7,963$ 8,024$ 8,730$ 8,324$ 8,511$
FY18 8,339$ 8,202$ 8,265$ 8,992$ 8,687$ 8,766$
FY19 8,589$ 8,448$ 8,513$ 9,262$ 8,948$ 9,029$
FY20 8,845$ 8,701$ 8,768$ 9,540$ 9,276$ 9,300$
25
Table 11 Continued
In each scenario represented above SDSU’s position remains essentially the third-highest rate behind
Mines and USD, respectively. The exception to this general rule is the Minnesota resident rate, where
SDSU has the highest rate. However, this is likely because Minnesota base reciprocity rate assessed by
SDSU is the second-highest of all Minnesota rates in the BOR system at $169.55 per credit, slightly
behind DSU at $170.75, and is not impacted by the proposed GAF increases.
Preserving SDSU’s competitive position with out-of-state enrollment competitor institutions is an
important goal in considering costs of potential GAF projects. The following series of tables compares
selected enrollment competitor institution rates for in-state, non-resident, South Dakota resident and
SDSU rates for a student from that given state. To ensure comparability with costs represented in Table
11, cost figures in Tables 12–14 for 30 credits annually and represent tuition and fee costs only; room,
board and book costs are excluded. The costs represented for FY 14 are actual cost data that is inflated
by a 3% constant to FY19. SDSU figures use the recommended projects and GAF rates, as determined by
the Work Groups, and anticipates a tuition freeze in FY 15.
Recent aggressive moves particularly by Iowa public institutions to retain Iowa residents with large rate
increases to non-resident rates are evidenced in the tables below. Selected enrollment competitor
institutions are from Iowa, Minnesota and North Dakota. Across the seven institutions studied (three
are in the tables below and the balance are in Appendix J) for each of the fiscal years reported, SDSU
costs typically do not exceed the resident rates offered the students of Iowa, Minnesota and North
Dakota. In fact for the two Minnesota institutions (Minnesota State Mankato and St. Cloud State), SDSU
rates assessed Minnesotans never exceed the residential rates of these institutions. If the projections
presented in these tables hold, then SDSU costs would exceed in-state rates in only 13 instances of the
REGENTAL SYSTEM TUITION RATES ACTUAL FY15, and FY16-FY20 PROJECTED
UNDERGRADUATE MN RESIDENT 30 CREDITS/YEAR ASSUMES 3% INCREASE ANNUALLY
YEAR BHSU DSU NSU SDSMT SDSU USD
FY15 8,636$ 8,693$ 8,636$ 8,636$ 8,636$ 8,636$
FY16 8,895$ 8,954$ 8,895$ 8,895$ 8,919$ 8,895$
FY17 9,162$ 9,223$ 9,162$ 9,162$ 9,294$ 9,162$
FY18 9,437$ 9,500$ 9,437$ 9,437$ 9,680$ 9,437$
FY19 9,750$ 9,785$ 9,750$ 9,750$ 9,977$ 9,750$
FY20 10,043$ 10,079$ 10,043$ 10,043$ 10,436$ 10,043$
REGENTAL SYSTEM TUITION RATES ACTUAL FY15, and FY16-FY20 PROJECTED
UNDERGRADUATE NON- RESIDENT 30 CREDITS/YEAR ASSUMES 3% INCREASE ANNUALLY
YEAR BHSU DSU NSU SDSMT SDSU USD
FY15 9,617$ 9,506$ 9,563$ 11,055$ 9,789$ 10,098$
FY16 9,906$ 9,791$ 9,850$ 11,387$ 10,107$ 10,401$
FY17 10,203$ 10,085$ 10,146$ 11,729$ 10,527$ 10,713$
FY18 10,509$ 10,450$ 10,450$ 12,081$ 10,950$ 11,034$
FY19 10,824$ 10,764$ 10,764$ 12,443$ 11,286$ 11,365$
FY20 11,149$ 11,087$ 11,087$ 12,816$ 11,685$ 11,706$
26
entire 35 data points covered by the cost analysis (five years, seven universities), and never by more
than $134. See Appendix J for additional details.
Table 12: Projected Tuition and Fees at Iowa State FY15 Actual FY16-20 Projected
Assumes 30 credits annually
Table 13: Projected Tuition and Fees at Minnesota State – Mankato FY15 Actual FY16-FY20 Projected
Assumes 30 credits annually
Table 14: Projected Tuition and Fees at North Dakota State FY15 Actual FY16-FY20 Projected
Assumes 30 credits annually
SECTION 6: THE VETTING PROCESS
In crafting the final recommendation for GAF projects, the Steering Committee engaged a number of
student organizations that had been contributors to the process via the Work Groups. The SA President
and Vice President conducted vetting sessions with stakeholder student organizations, an important
component in the overall GAF research process. These organizations include the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, a Bible study group, Black Student Association, Chi Omega, Delta Chi Farmhouse,
Pride, Gay Straight Alliance, Residence Hall Association, Student Union Advisory Council, Students’
Association Town Hall Meeting, University Program Council, Veterans Resource Club, and the Wellness
Center Advisory Council. In addition a general town-hall style meeting was offered to any additional
student organizations that wanted to review the proposed projects. Listed on the following page are
the key insights gleaned from this process and used to inform the final plan.
Iowa State Resident Non-Resident SD Resident SDSU Iowa Resident
FY15 9,655$ 25,773$ 25,773$ 9,789$
FY16 9,945$ 26,456$ 26,456$ 10,107$
FY17 10,243$ 27,343$ 27,343$ 10,527$
FY18 10,550$ 28,163$ 28,163$ 10,950$
FY19 10,867$ 29,008$ 29,008$ 11,286$
FY20 11,193$ 29,878$ 29,878$ 11,685$
MN State -- Mankato Resident Non-Resident SD Resident SDSU MN Resident
FY15 9,468$ 18,816$ 9,893$ 8,636$
FY16 9,752$ 19,380$ 10,190$ 8,895$
FY17 10,045$ 19,962$ 10,496$ 9,162$
FY18 10,346$ 20,561$ 10,811$ 9,437$
FY19 10,656$ 21,178$ 11,135$ 9,750$
FY20 10,976$ 22,431$ 11,469$ 10,043$
North Dakota State Resident Non-Resident SD Resident SDSU ND Resident
FY15 9,775$ 23,561$ 13,903$ 9,789$
FY16 10,068$ 24,268$ 14,320$ 10,107$
FY17 10,370$ 24,996$ 14,750$ 10,527$
FY18 10,681$ 25,746$ 15,921$ 10,950$
FY19 11,002$ 26,518$ 15,647$ 11,286$
FY20 11,332$ 27,314$ 16,117$ 11,685$
27
The projects as identified in Table 3 were supported without additions or deletions
Transportation has support to be moved up the list to an earlier year.
The Wellness Center Expansion has support to be moved up to an earlier year.
These were the prominent themes that emerged from the vetting process. Other minor modifications
were discussed and are detailed in the vetting notes found in Appendix K.
SECTION 7: THE GAF STRATEGIC PRIORITY PLAN
In arriving at the following recommendation, careful consideration was given to the comprehensive plan
inputs discussed previously within this document. These plan inputs include the following:
Work Group research and initial project recommendations (e.g. environmental scans, focus
groups, best practice research and surveys);
Weekly Steering Committee meeting developing and refining project recommendations;
Campus-wide general survey with more than 3,000 respondents;
Financial analysis of South Dakota BOR institutions and regional enrollment competitors; and
Vetting process with key student organization stakeholders.
Thoughtfully developed initial recommendations from the Work Groups means that there is some
similarity between the initial project recommendations and the final recommended plan, these plans,
however, are not identical. Based on numeric and text commentary obtained from the campus-wide
survey, and Steering Committee discussion three Work Group project recommendations were not
included in the final Steering Committee recommendation.
The Bike Share program rated the lowest in terms of a “Strongly Agree/Agree” score and
correspondingly had the top “Strongly/Somewhat Disagree” score. The Bike-Share program also
frequently drew negative comments in the commentary section of the campus-wide survey. A similar
program, “Bum-A-Bike”, had been implemented three years ago and was not sustained.
The Bus Circulator route on campus also scored below the mean in terms of support for the projects and
was the third most unpopular project following the Multi-Cultural Center and the Bike-Share program as
shown in ABLE 7. Discussions in the Steering Committee noted that the closure of several interior streets
made the Bus Circulator project essentially a campus perimeter route that would not meet expectations.
The campus-wide survey demonstrated clear support for the Stadium itself and the operation of the
Stadium through additional GAF support. The Steering Committee echoed support for the Stadium
itself but had only mixed support for additional GAF funding for the Stadium. Concerns emerged
regarding explicit descriptions of how the additional GAF would be deployed in the overall maintenance
and repair expenses of the Stadium. Additional concerns were articulated in the comment section of
the campus-wide survey where the Stadium was one of only two projects to have more negative
comments than positive comments. Thus, while the Steering Committee recognized the need to
maintain and upgrade the stadium this support was not selected as a priority project at this time.
All recommended projects utilize the cost estimate provided in the original Work Group reports. The
lone exception is the Bus Route to Campus project, reduced from its original $2.00 to $1.40 essentially
75% of the $1.88 appropriated by the successful University of Wisconsin Stevens Point program.
28
Based on the evidence gathered through these survey, focus group and vetting efforts, the Steering
Committee recommends adoption of the GAF Strategic Plan FY16 – FY20 summarized in Table 15 below
by the Students’ Association and submission for approval to the University Activity Fee and Budget
Committee, and subsequent submission to the President and Board of Regents.
Table 15: GAF STRATEGIC PRIORITY PROJECTS FY16 –FY20
Plan Element Proposed Rate Implementation GAF Funds
Career Development and Club Sports 0.40$ FY16 110,000$
Wellness Center 3.50$ FY17 962,000$
Career Development, Multi-Cultural Center, Student Org. Offices, Student Services, and VBR 3.97$ FY18 1,091,750$
Bus Route Off-Campus to On-Campus Locations 1.40$ FY19 385,000$
29
APPENDICES
The following supporting documents and materials are available in an electronic format by accessing the
URL noted below.
URL = Insert web address when link becomes available
APPENDIX A: COST OF ATTENDANCE TABLES FOR BOR AND SELECTED REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS
APPENDIX B: STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDAS AND MINUTES
APPENDIX C: ENVIRONMENT SCANS
APPENDIX D: CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND STUDENT SERVICES WORK GROUP REPORT
APPENDIX E: MULTI-CULTURAL CENTER AND UNION WORK GROUP REPORT
APPENDIX F: STADIUM WORK GROUP REPORT
APPENDIX G: TRANSPORTATION WORK GROUP REPORT
APPENDIX H: WELLNESS CENTER WORK GROUP REPORT
APPENDIX I: CAMPUS-WIDE SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND RESULTS
APPENDIX J: ENROLLMENT COMPETITOR TUTION AND FEE RATES
APPENDIX K: STUDENT ORGANIZATION VETTING NOTES
1
GENERAL ACTIVITY FEE STRATEGIC PLAN FY16-FY20
PRIORITY PROJECT SUMMARY
SOUTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS’ ASSOCIATION
December 2014
The Students’ Association, in collaboration with a number of other leading student organizations and
key faculty and staff, has identified five priority projects for General Activity Fee (GAF) funding during
the five-year planning cycle from FY16-FY20. Broadly described, these priority projects consist of the
following:
1) Career Development personnel and services Phase I (e.g. college-specific liaisons, FY16).
2) Club sports allocation (e.g. additional demand from more clubs and playoff travel, FY16).
3) Wellness Center expansion (e.g. multi-purpose and racquetball courts, expanded track, FY17).
4) Union expansion (e.g. Multi-Cultural Center, Student Org. Offices, Volstorff Ballroom, FY18).
5) Career Development personnel and services Phase II (e.g. more college-specific liaisons, FY18).
6) Student services allocation (e.g. training and software expenses, FY18).
7) Bus route to campus from off-campus (requires City of Brookings participationFY19).
The priority project list was developed by a GAF Steering Committee and Work Groups that reported to
the Steering Committee. These priority projects emerged from a semester-long planning process
completed during fall 2014. This two stage planning effort included in its first stage an environmental
scan for best practices at selected peer institutions, project-specific surveys, and focus groups. The
second stage of the planning process was a campus-wide survey which that vetted the entire list of
potential GAF projects with all students taking at least one credit on the Brookings main campus in FY14.
The survey was sent to 11,731 students and complete responses were received from 3,056 students for
a response rate exceeding 26%. As the sampling frame included all students who took at least one class
on the Brookings main campus and the number of respondents tops 3,000, thus there is high confidence
that results obtained from the 3,056 respondents are generalizable to the entire student population.
The campus-wide survey instrument asked respondents to rate each potential GAF-funded project on a
five-point Likert scale, (1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Somewhat Disagree, 3=Neutral, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly
Agree). Each response to this Likert scale was tabulated and given a corresponding value of “1” in
totaling results. This approach yielded a Strongly Agree/Agree mean of 1,656 out of 3,056 respondents
typically supporting any given project. Three of the five recommended priority projects (Career
Development, Wellness Center and a bus route to campus) received Strongly Agree/Agree scores a
minimum of 100 points above the mean.
The projects comprising the Union expansion scored slightly below the mean, however, the Work
Groups and the Steering Committees deliberations considered the components of the expansion
compelling in terms of the student experience (e.g. an expanded Multi-Cultural Center). The club sport
and student service allocations were of such nominal amounts (e.g. estimated at $0.17 per credit hour)
that vetting these fees in the Work Groups and Steering Committee was deemed sufficient review for
inclusion in the overall recommendation.
Three projects initially recommended by the Work Groups were excluded from the final recommended
project list based primarily on results of the campus-wide survey. The bike share program and bus
circulator route both scored a minimum 300 points below the mean for the Strongly Agree/Agree
2
response. Another factor considered by the Steering Committee in this discussion was the commentary
provided by respondents in the text-based portion of the campus-wide survey. In this comment section
of the campus-wide survey only two potential projects, the bus circulator route and maintenance and
repair contributions for the stadium received a majority of negative comments.
However, it was also noted that the stadium scored well above the mean in the Strongly Agree/Agree
rankings and was indeed the fourth highest ranking project. This mixed result was interpreted as
support for the stadium concept but reluctance to participate in the operating costs of the facility
beyond that portion of GAF which is already allocated to Athletics.
A brief cost analysis regarding how increased GAF rates would impact SDSUs competitive position was
undertaken relative to how other BOR institutions and selected regional enrollment competitors were
priced. In conducting this analysis actual rates for FY15 were obtained for each institution and inflated
at an annual rate of 3% while SDSU’s rates were allowed to float at the rate estimated to accomplish the
given GAF-funded projects. The potential of a tuition freeze for FY16 was also incorporated into
projections. It was concluded that even if all projects were implemented SDSU would essentially
maintain its relative competitive position within SDBOR institutions, typically ranking third behind Mines
and USD for resident and non-resident rates. Only in the case of Minnesota reciprocity rates does SDSU
emerge as the most costly by a relatively modest margin of $176 annually, or about 1% of the annual
cost of attendance.
This cost analysis also examined SDSU’s market position related to regional enrollment competitors.
Again the actual costs were obtained for FY15 and 3% inflation was computed as a constant until FY20.
The results against seven regional enrollment competitors showed that SDSU remained more cost
effective than nearby public institutions in Minnesota, Iowa and North Dakota and was only more
expensive than institutions at a greater distance in Nebraska and Wyoming. Even allowing for those
instances when SDSU’s costs exceed a near-by competitor resident rates, this differential is never more
than $134 annually.
As a final validation, more than 360 students from 14 student organizations discussed the projects as
recommended by the Steering Committee. The vetting process showed broad-based support for the
projects as identified with the participants expressed preferences to advance the timeline of major
construction projects.
The priority projects as identified in the table below were approved by SA, and subsequently approved
unanimously by UAFBC. Indicated project allocations are understood to be “best estimates” and not
guarantees that the priority projects come be completed for the forecasted allocation. Further it
understood that any fee, or associated project would require approval through established BOR
procedures.
Plan Element Implementation Estimated Rate GAF Rate
Career Development and Club Sports FY16 0.40$ 28.40$
Wellness Center FY17 3.50$ 31.90$
Career Development, Multi-Cultural Center, Student Org. Offices, Student Services and VBR FY18 3.97$ 35.87$
Bus Route to Campus from City Locations FY19 1.40$ 37.27$
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:ID 2015-0015,Version:1
Introduction of new Department Directors.
Summary:
The Council has requested an introduction of new Department Directors whenever we have such
changes, so at this Council meeting, we will have two new Department Directors to introduce:
1) Janet Coplan is the new Liquor Store manager and started in October. She and her family have
moved to Brookings from Watertown where she was the manager of a private off-sale liquor store.
2) Matt Bartley is the new Street Superintendent and officially starts on January 20. Matt is from
Brookings and is an SDSU graduate and has extensive experience in public works and construction
management. Both positions replace previous department heads who retired.
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:ID 2015-0016,Version:1
Presentation by the Brookings Economic Development Corporation (BEDC) on the 2013 Visioning
Charrette Final Report.
Summary:
During 2013, the Brookings Economic Development Corporation (BEDC) spearheaded a community
visioning charrette which involved 115 participants in a day-long process and over 1,000 survey
respondents from other community members to provide input for future planning and projects.
The final report was completed earlier this year and is attached. With the upcoming City Council
strategic planning session, the contents of this document should prove valuable to augment our
planning exercise. For this reason, BEDC Director Al Heuton will provide some highlights of the
report.
Attachments:
Final report; 2013 Brookings Area Visioning Charrette
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
2013 Brookings Area Visioning Charrette
TABLE OF CONTENTS2013 Brookings Area Visioning Charrette
2013 Brookings Area Visioning Charrette
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION ONE
2013 Brookings Charrette - A Vision Summary
Background
Charrette Introduction
Human Talent - A Key To Brookings’ Future
Human Talent - A Growing Issue
The Brookings Challenge
The Importance of Vision
Brookings Economic Scenarios
The Brookings Brand
Visions from the 2013 Charrette
SECTION TWO
2013 Brookings Area Visioning Charrette - Results & Implementation
Introduction
Community Engagement
Leadership
Campus/Community Relationship
Economic Environment
Social Environment
Physical Environment
ATTACHMENTS
Brookings County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
Summary of 2007 Charrette Process and Projects
2013 Community Survey
Human Talent Research & The Rise of the Great Plains
National Migration Data
Manufacturing Workforce Strategy
Brookings Economic Scenarios from 2007 Charrette
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 6
Page 6
Page 6
Page 7
Page 7
Page 2
Page 4
Page 6
Page 8
Page 10
Page 12
Page 14
Attachment 1
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
2013 Brookings Charrette – A Vision Summary
Background
Brookings Economic Development Corporation’s mission is – “To build an economy that supports the community’s
vision of a quality place to live, work and play.”
The Brookings Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, as first developed in 2006, consists of five primary
vision components and simply stated goals to suggest a desired pathway to the future. These vision components
also represent community core values:
1. Smart & Balanced Growth - Attain a population level that represents a sustainable critical mass (approximately
30,000 for Brookings and 45,000 for Brookings County).
2. Economic Prosperity - Increase household wealth, business and industry profits, and community revenue.
3. Competitive Business Environment - Assemble the resources and amenities that will allow businesses to
flourish.
4. High Quality Community - Create an environment and amenities that establish the community as a “people
destination”.
5. High Performance Community
a. Develop Brookings as a model in all aspects of “community”.
b. Advance organization and leadership collaboration.
c. Create a global awareness of the Brookings Area.
(The Brookings Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy summary is included as Attachment 1).
As stated in BEDC’s mission, community vision is an essential component of our effort. In 2006/2007 BEDC initiated
an effort to engage the community in a process that would not only provide guidance for our efforts, but create a
vision of a future community with broad based public and institutional support. This continuing process, and its’
outcomes, are described on the following pages.
Note: Brookings development strategy has been, and will continue to be, amended to reflect new and changing desires of the
community. The terms “community” and “Brookings” in this discussion assumes a “Brookings Area” context.
Page 1
Charrette Introduction
A charrette is an intensive planning session where citizens, designers, and others collaborate on a vision for
development of the community’s future. It provides a forum for ideas and offers the unique advantage of giving
immediate feedback to the designers and the participants. More importantly, a charrette allows everyone who
participates to be a mutual author of the plan.
Brookings conducted its first visioning charrette in 2007. The process included a community survey and a day-long,
facilitated discussion attended by 120 community participants. The discussion resulted in the creation of three
economic scenarios and numerous ideas related to the topic of community design. The charrette process provided a
basis of support and development concepts for the first three components of the community’s Comprehensive
Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) – Smart & Balanced Growth, Economic Prosperity, and Competitive
Business Environment. Over 70 ideas/projects were identified to be considered and acted upon by the community.
Over 80% of these ideas/projects were acted upon or completed over a six year time-frame. (A summary of the 2007
charrette process and projects can be found in Attachment 2).
This process was repeated in 2013 and consisted of a community survey and day-long charrette. Over 1,000
community residents responded to the survey providing valuable input for future planning and projects. In addition,
115 residents donated their time and expertise during the charrette. The 2007 charrette involved a strong economic
development agenda. Since Brookings development strategy remains valid, the 2013 charrette introduced six topics
to further explore the final two CEDS components - High Quality Community and High Performance Community.
These discussions are relevant to solving a primary issue of long term consequence for the community – access to
human talent. The 2013 charrette was organized and conducted to concentrate discussion on several topics as they
relate to creating a quality location for people. Following are the six discussion topics introduced in the charrette:
1. Community Leadership
2. Campus/Community Relationship
3. Community Engagement
4. Social Environment
5. Economic Environment
6. Physical Environment
(The community survey results are provided in Attachment 3).
Page 2
Human Talent – A Key to Brookings’ Future
Before delving into the outcomes of the 2013 charrette it is useful to provide additional context for the selection of
the six discussion topics as they relate to the future of the community. This discussion will also establish the
magnitude of the human talent issue and provide insight into baselines that should be considered as tactical
discussions take place over the next several years. The following discussion is provided in an abbreviated format and
based upon research conducted by Brookings Economic Development Corporation and Praxis Strategy Group, our
2007 and 2013 charrette facilitator. (More detailed information is provided in Attachment 4).
The Brookings Opportunity
Research Commercialization
In 2006 BEDC staff attended a National Business Incubation Association conference. A presenter at the conference
discussed the future of business incubation indicating that new business starts will be closely tied to the research
being conducted by academia, government and the private sector. The six key research sectors mentioned were:
Global energy and clean energy solutions
Improved health and longevity
Maximizing agricultural productivity
Providing abundant clean water globally
Making powerful information technology available everywhere
Enabling the development of space
The Rise of the Great Plains
The Rise of the Great Plains: Regional Opportunity in the 21st Century,” by Joel Kotkin, Praxis Strategy Group & the
Texas Tech University Center for Geospatial Technology, discusses the resurgence taking place among the Great
Plains of North America. Key factors to this resurgence include:
The increasing importance of energy resources - natural gas, oil, wind and biomass.
An economic base constructed around agriculture - the demand for food and fiber in developing countries
continues to increase.
The emergence of urban hubs and rural hotspots - Brookings is located in a corridor between two the
fastest growing metropolitan areas in the country, Sioux Falls and Fargo.
Robust industrial development - due in part to lower costs, cheap energy and better business climates in
the Great Plains region.
The evolving North American Brain Belt - the region boasted better educational scores than most coastal
communities and is home to rapidly growing technology corridors.
One need not look very deep to recognize the strong linkages that have developed at SDSU and in Brookings related
to these topic areas. Opportunities abound within the vertical clusters of these industries – and they are growing,
quickly! Brookings must improve its strategic position, locally and regionally, to take full advantage of these
opportunities.
Page 3
2012-Q4 Total MFG
14-18 1,487 51
19-21 2,652 319
22-24 2,882 519
25-34 7,987 1,731
35-44 6,488 1,382
45-54 7,474 1,624
55-64 6,083 1,071
65-99 2,103 214
Total 37,156 6,911
Total Laborshed - Workforce by Age
Human Talent – A Growing Issue
Access to human talent has become, and will increasingly represent, one of the most important factors, if not the
most important factor, that will either assist or inhibit Brookings efforts to achieve its community and economic
visions. This issue is of critical importance to the community in general, our businesses and industries, and SDSU.
The marketplace is extremely competitive and general demographic trends are working against us.
The magnitude of the issue can be simply stated. An analysis conducted by the South Dakota Department of Labor
suggests the over 49,000 new workers will be needed in the next 10 years to supply labor to South Dakota
businesses and industries. A review of U.S. Census Bureau Quarterly Workforce Indicators suggests that over 8,000
Brookings labor-shed (Brookings County and adjoining counties) workers are either currently at retirement age, or
will reach retirement age within the next ten years. Nearly 1,300 of these are employed within our primary, or base,
manufacturing industries.
In Brookings County alone the numbers are staggering (3,300 total
Brookings County workers will reach retirement age in ten years.
Nearly 700 of these workers are employed in manufacturing and
nearly 1,000 in education. Although this data also includes part-time
and seasonal employees, we can assume that in the older age groups
a majority are represented by full-time employees.
Opportunities for growth and low levels of unemployment further compound the issue. The Brookings area is
expected to outpace both South Dakota and the Nation in employment growth for another decade according to data
provided by Praxis Strategy group.
Employment Change 2000-2013 & Projected Employment Change to 2023 for Brookings, South Dakota and the USA
Page 4
Labor Supply and the Demographics of Migrants
As a general rule, Brookings is very fortunate with respect to its access to a future labor supply. Within the commute
distance of Brookings (approximately 45 miles) nearly 1,000 students (potential employees) will graduate from high
school each year for the next several years. In addition, and although some duplicate counting occurs with high
school graduates, over 2,000 new students (potential employees) move to Brookings each year to attend SDSU.
A dilemma for Brookings is the ability of the community to retain this somewhat captive audience. Several factors
influence retention but two of the most prominent include: community size, which loosely translates to community
amenities and social interaction opportunities; and an apparent disconnect between education, or degrees granted,
and the job opportunities available, coupled with competitive wages in some instances.
Research compiled by Praxis Strategy Group provides data regarding employment trends, wages, job growth, STEM
job growth, and industry location quotients. This data compares Brookings to thirteen peer communities that are
generally located in the Midwest and home to a university. Several of the peer communities are considered as
“stretch” peers, exhibiting certain characteristics Brookings strives to achieve.
Generally speaking, this information suggests that Brookings’ average annual earnings and median production wage
are somewhat low. However, the data is not adjusted for cost of living which may level the playing field to some
degree, provided a prospective employee can be convinced of the difference. A second table compares median
hourly earnings by occupation to the aggregate of these communities. In certain occupations Brookings is quite
competitive, while not so much in others, for example production and management occupations, respectively.
The topic of wages leads to the discussion regarding the demographics of migrants. Just who is moving and why?
National migration data compiled by Praxis Strategy Group reveals the following (a detailed report is included as
Attachment 5):
The migrating population is dominated by people in their 20’s followed by people in their 30’s.
American migration is largely intra-regional. Nearly two-thirds of moves occur in the same county while just 13%
crossed state lines.
Americans are most likely to move across state lines in their college/post-college ages.
Americans with advanced degrees are more likely to move across state lines.
The prospect of finding a job appears to be a major driver of migration.
Of the migrants who do cross county lines in their move, 40% remain within 50 miles of their past residence and
25% move more than 500 miles. The 65 -74 year olds age group migrates at a much lower percentage but across
longer distances.
Blue collar occupations tend to move more frequently within 50 miles of home, while professional and business
service occupations are twice as likely to move longer distances.
The distance of moves is impacted by household income.
In 2013, Americans who moved, moved for the following reasons:
o 50% moved for housing-related reasons.
o 30% moved for family reasons.
o 20% moved for employment-related factors.
The 30-45 year old age group is the most likely to move between counties for employment-related reasons.
Page 5
Note: Specific strategies related to the workforce recruitment challenge are being developed in a separate workforce strategy
document. (Praxis Strategy Group has provided a few key strategy topics related to manufacturing workforce that are included
in Attachment 6). These ideas will be incorporated into the larger workforce strategy document.
The Brookings Challenge
Brookings is most certainly facing a human talent issue that will continue for the foreseeable future. A primary
challenge for the community will entail the creation of a “place” with the social, physical, and economic amenities
capable of effectively competing in this new human talent marketplace. The ensuing vision discussion is intended
to begin setting the stage for future action in this important endeavor.
The Importance of Vision
Community visioning is the process of developing consensus about what future the community wants, and then
deciding what is necessary to achieve that vision. A vision statement captures what community members most value
about their community, and the shared image of what they want their community to become. It inspires community
members to work together to achieve the vision. A thoughtful vision statement is one of the elements needed to
form a forward looking strategic framework that provides councils or boards the long-term-comprehensive
perspective necessary to make rational and disciplined tactical/incremental decisions on community opportunities
and issues as they arise. Within the context of the Brookings discussion, creating a “place” conducive to the
retention and attraction of human talent must remain at the forefront.
Brookings Economic Scenarios - Visions from the 2007 Charrette
Six economic scenarios were initially discussed in the 2007 charrette. (The vision statements created for the six
scenarios are included as Attachment 7 and are worth reviewing as we continue to think about the future). The six
scenarios were reduced to three critical scenarios with shortened vision statements for ease of discussion.
1. Boomer Town - A full palette of “life amenities and learning” attracting a population tidal wave of active
seniors.
2. TechKnow Hotspot - A knowledge economy thriving around nationally recognized scholarship and scientific
advancements generated by South Dakota State University’s efforts to build economic advancement
through locally relevant resources.
3. Production Powerhouse - A robust epicenter of globally competitive manufacturing companies resulting
from high productivity, innovation and automation. The center of a new empire harnessing a rich
cornucopia of “green” resources to feed and fuel the world.
Page 6
The Brookings Brand
Brookings’ brand statement and brand credo, developed in 2009, provide a broad description of an overall
community vision and form a basis for thought and reflection to assist and guide proactive, positive change.
Brand Statement - For those interested in a supportive community with culture, recreation, and access to global
markets, Brookings, home to South Dakota State University, is a place where the vigorous exchange of new ideas
finds any size dream becoming reality.
Brand Credo - A dream is at once the most fragile of things and the most powerful. At the beginning of every great
story, you’ll find one. Dreams have provided the foundations for academic institutions. They have the potential to
create towns. To cross oceans. Even to cure diseases. The dreams that count are always grounded in a great idea.
Brookings is a unique place where innovative thinking is encouraged at every turn. It is not necessarily the scale or
grand scope of a dream, but the idea behind it that is revered. This decidedly progressive attitude helps explain why
Brookings has become such an ideal place to raise a family, start a business, or make a discovery.
True, we can offer clean air, sunshine and overall great quality of life. But just as important, this is a fertile place
where a good idea can take root and thrive. For in Brookings, there is always room for one more dream to grow.
Visions from the 2013 Charrette
Vision statements developed within the six discussion topics of the 2013 charrette provide additional insight and
guidance to the change process in Brookings. The following 2013 Brookings Area Visioning Charrette: Results &
Implementation report includes short descriptions indicating the importance of each charrette topic in the
community change process accompanied by a vision statement derived from discussion comments collected during
the charrette process. The primary goal of each topic is presented along with key objectives and suggested actions
pertaining to each objective.
Page 7
2013 Brookings Area Visioning Charrette
RESULTS & IMPLEMENTATION
INTRODUCTION
A charrette is an intensive planning session
where citizens, designers, and others
collaborate on a vision for development of
the community’s future. It provides a forum
for ideas and offers the unique advantage of
giving immediate feedback to the designers
and participants. More importantly, the
charrette allows everyone who participates
to be a mutual author of the plan.
2007 Charrette
Brookings conducted its first charrette in
2007. The process included a community
survey and a day-long, facilitated discussion
attended by 120 community participants.
The discussion resulted in the creation of
three economic scenarios and numerous
ideas related to the topic of community
design. Over 70 ideas and projects were
identified to be considered and acted upon
by the community. Over 80% of these ideas
and projects were acted upon or completed
over a six year time-frame.
2013 Charrette
This process was repeated in 2013 and
consisted of a community survey and day-
long charrette. Over 1,000 community
residents responded to the survey and
115 residents donated their time and
expertise during the charrette. Since the
2007 planning session involved a strong
economic development agenda, the 2013
charrette introduced six topics to further
explore High Quality Community and High
Performance Community, two of the five
vision components of the strategic economic
development plan for Brookings County.
These discussions are relevant to solving a
primary issue of long-term consequence for
the community, access to human talent.
A primary challenge for the community will
entail the creation of a “place” with social,
physical, and economic amenities capable
of effectively competing in the human talent
marketplace. The ensuing vision discussion
is intended to begin setting the stage for
further action in this important endeavor.
Discussion Topics & Findings
The 2013 charrette was organized and
conducted to concentrate discussion on
several topics as they relate to creating
a quality location for people. The six
discussion topics introduced in the charrette
included:
1. Community Leadership
2. Campus/Community Relationship
3. Community Engagement
4. Social Environment
5. Economic Environment
6. Physical Environment
Vision statements developed within the six
discussion topics of the 2013 charrette
provide additional insight and guidance
to the change process in Brookings. The
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 2 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
following report provides short descriptions
indicating the importance of each charrette
topic in the community change process
accompanied by a vision statement derived
from discussion comments collected during
the charrette process. The primary goal
of each topic is presented along with key
objectives and suggested actions pertaining
to each objective.
Implementation Guidelines
The actions provided are based on input
from charrette participants and are not
meant to be all-inclusive. Each organization
is asked to review the results of the charrette
and decide which specific objectives and/
or actions they would like to incorporate
into their own initiatives. In addition,
organizations should consider implementing
other actions not listed that would achieve
the given objectives. In order to prevent
duplication of efforts, Brookings Economic
Development Corporation will maintain
a master plan with the initiatives of each
organization and will request quarterly
status updates.
A community’s #1 indicator of economic
prosperity is attachment to place. The
collaborative efforts of our community’s
citizens in implementing this plan will help
our city continue to grow, attract new
residents, and maintain and enhance our
quality of life.
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 3 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
2013 CHARRETTE
KEY FINDING
Personally invite residents to
become engaged in all activities.
2013 Brookings Area Visioning Charrette - December 9, 2013
Community engagement involves the process of inciting a passion in people
to collaborate for the common good of the greater community. Community
decision making is generally thought to occur primarily in the public and quasi-
public realms. However, decision making within the private sector also has a
profound effect on the community. Well established lines of communication,
collective thought processes, and drawing upon the knowledge and expertise
within each broad community sector (public, quasi-public, private) are critical
to community success. Sustained community success requires a broad base of
“ownership” in the idea to be accomplished.
The community ecosystem of Brookings creates an attachment to “place” instilling
a sense of belonging, purpose and pride among its residents, resulting in strong
institutional and interpersonal bonds that continually strengthen the community. The
“community” is fully engaged in a collaborative process of learning and discovery;
creating bold visions, designing solutions and taking action for their common future.
VISION STATEMENT
COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 4 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
GOAL
Create and sustain discovery, communication and collaboration processes that engage all
sectors of the community in designing and constructing Brookings as the most desirable
regional location in which to live, work and play.
OBJECTIVES & ACTIONS
Ignite passion in the community’s residents.
Establish an idea harvesting process to solicit
suggestions and relay success derived from
suggestions.
• Frequently hold town hall meetings/public
forums on salient topics to solicit community
input.
• Televise all public meetings (county, school
board, hospital board, etc.).
• Invite SDSU students to become involved in
community building processes.
Implement processes to increase participation
in community building efforts.
• Develop a communications portal and central
calendar.
• Establish a process or events to welcome and
engage new residents.
• Educate front line employees to promote
community events and engagement
opportunities.
• Conduct community education programs or
events that expose people to the community
and its engagement opportunities.
• Create neighborhood events.
• Include civic engagement as a portion of
primary and secondary education class
structures.
• Provide additional paid time off, or other
incentives, to encourage employee
engagement.
Restructure and/or create new and varied
opportunities for people to become engaged.
• Create shorter term task or project oriented
opportunities to allow more individuals to
become involved.
• Redefine the role or model of civic
organizations to encourage more participation
by new and/or younger residents.
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 5 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
Leadership is about “the practices leaders use to transform values
into actions, visions into realities, obstacles into innovations,
separateness into solidarity and risk into rewards” (The Leadership
Challenge). Leadership comes in many forms, from high profile
elected officials or business leaders to behind the scenes individuals.
Regardless of the position, leaders bring ideas and people together
and make things happen. There is one constant in the life of a
community - “change”. Effective leadership is required to produce
positive change.
VISION STATEMENT
LEADERSHIP
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 6 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
A clearly articulated, community derived vision provides the basis and strategic focus
to guide future action. Community leaders energize people to work for the common
good of the community, creating a climate in which challenging opportunities are
turned into remarkable successes. Brookings is committed to mentoring future leaders
by organizing, inspiring, training, and equipping people to become the best and to
accomplish and reach goals they might have thought as unattainable.
Generate a continuous supply of prepared community leaders functioning as individuals or
members of public, quasi-public, non-profit, or civic institutions to affect positive change
desired by the community. Develop and support leadership training programs in which long-
term community vision, strategic progress, strong community connections, high levels of
collaboration, and servant leadership are promoted as the staples of effective leadership.
Establish a leadership mentoring process
and a supportive community culture that
encourages interested individuals to consider
assuming leadership roles.
• Continue to mentor Leadership Brookings
participants.
• Use Leadership Brookings graduates as new
class mentors.
• Establish a mentor pool around a variety of
topics.
Engage rising stars from a variety of
backgrounds or interests in the leadership
education and mentoring process to create
new energy and passion within key
community institutions.
Develop and provide a leadership training
workshop intended to reinforce the principles
of leadership and governance in community
institutions (public, quasi-public, non-profit).
Identify community need and opportunity
areas around which targeted leadership
might be created and implemented on a
project by project basis.
Incorporate community leadership education
within internship programs and opportunities
at key community institutions.
Engage the K-16 educational systems in
leadership programming to ensure leadership
skills and traits are developed at an early
age, and to solicit involvement of younger
individuals in the community leadership
process.
• Create additional connections between
student associations and public bodies.
• Establish a student leadership program.
GOAL
OBJECTIVES & ACTIONS
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 7 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
The campus/community relationship is the dynamic between two distinct
but interrelated communities; how they integrate, interact, and interface
on a daily, weekly, or yearly basis; not simply as institutions, but as social,
physical, and economic environments. South Dakota State University and
Brookings are co-dependent. Each is a critical component of the other’s
success. SDSU is Brookings’ largest employer, a key local industry, and a
primary supplier of new knowledge and human talent. As an institution,
SDSU is engaged locally, regionally, and globally. Brookings is a supplier of
supporting resources to SDSU and is in a unique position to be a primary
consumer, and benefactor, of SDSU’s output.
CAMPUS/COMMUNITY
RELATIONSHIP
VISION STATEMENT
A mutually adopted process enables the healthy exchange of ideas, knowledge,
and resources allowing for the creation and acceptance of individual and
collective visions. Strategically aligned master plans guide decision making
and action across social, physical, and economic environments generating
new opportunity and value for Brookings and South Dakota State University.
Effective collaboration and the sharing of resources advance and elevate success.
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 8 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
Utilize, to our advantage, the unique opportunities presented by the location of South Dakota
State University in the Brookings community, and the community’s desire and willingness to
ensure the continued viability and growth of the university.
Establish a formal vision, master planning,
communication processes, and events that
invite and encourage cross participation by
the campus/community.
• Develop and conduct “action summits” on
salient topics with relevant parties to implement
change.
• Assist SDSU with their designation of a
Carnegie Engaged Institution.
• Elevate the purpose, structure, and content of
the Intergovernmental Conference.
Create partnership opportunities for colleges,
faculty, civic institutions, and the business
community to share knowledge and
resources that collectively enhance the
agendas of participating parties.
• Conduct idea exchanges, college/faculty
externships, and community design studio type
projects.
Increase opportunities for students to remain
in the community during all stages of their
higher education experience.
• Create additional student internship/externship
programs, on-campus business participation
and events, and career development and
opportunity awareness programs.
Pursue campus/community partnerships that
advance innovation and development
opportunities for SDSU and the Brookings
community.
• Involve SDSU (including students) as active
participants in community strategy and civic
discussions.
• Involve the community as active participants in
SDSU strategy and civic discussions.
Promote and encourage interaction and
connections by students, residents, and
businesses throughout all aspects of the
community.
• Hang welcome banners at key locations in the
community.
• Implement an apartment referral/rating system.
• Establish a central ticket hub in the community.
• Develop community participation opportunities
in Hobo Day.
Provide a variety of transportation resources
and infrastructure to allow ease of access
between the campus and the community.
• Explore the need for improvements in the
community’s multi-modal transportation system.
GOAL
OBJECTIVES & ACTIONS
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 9 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
Brookings is a truly unique place where innovative thinking is encouraged; where
ideas are revered, take root and thrive. High quality spaces, infrastructure,
supporting services, and networks encourage the creation and growth of clean,
progressive business and industry. The diversity of existing businesses and new
business opportunities provides career options that retain young professionals,
entice the relocation of young families to the community, and provide options for
the meaningful engagement of active adult retirees.
The economic environment is comprised of numerous factors that influence
an individual’s ability to advance his/her career or business. A business
friendly environment is one ingredient in the creation of sustainable, successful
businesses. Businesses create career opportunities. Aside from simply moving
into a new home, the number one reason people move is for a job. This
relocation process occurs at a variety of life stages which necessitates the
creation of diverse economic opportunities to effectively retain and recruit
human talent, the presence of which is becoming increasingly important to the
business retention and recruitment process.
VISION STATEMENT
ECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 10 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
Build upon Brookings’ sound economic base to increase economic diversity and wealth,
creating a variety of career opportunities for people of all ages and resulting in growth of the
community and county population.
Create a Brookings region talent and
innovation network to address the skills/
education gap and ensure a steady supply
of qualified workers for area business and
industry.
Deploy a systems approach to entrepreneur-
ship development to generate growth
opportunities internally.
Closely align economic development efforts
with “people focus” to ensure the availability
of human talent.
• Provide an affordable variety of available
housing.
• Create a central job opening clearinghouse
(one-stop-shop website).
• Create social opportunities for the 21-30 age
group to retain young adults.
• Expand upon the South Dakota Education
Campus workforce education system.
• Create agriculture internships/apprenticeships.
• Provide access to high levels of health care in
Brookings.
• Align industry start-ups and SDSU graduate
skills.
• Increase amenities and provide incentives to
fill key gaps.
Selectively develop and recruit businesses
that add new value and reinvest wealth in the
community.
• Build the workforce needed by higher wage
industries.
• Develop an economic environment that retains
highly educated and motivated people.
• Refine, better identify, and pursue clean and
advanced technology industries requiring
highly educated, skilled employees.
• Grow small and medium sized businesses
associated with research and SDSU.
• Provide a variety of career options meeting the
needs of individuals and two wage earner
families.
Provide high quality education and employee
mentoring systems to ensure the community’s
workforce is provided the opportunity to
advance their careers.
• Connect youth and young adults with business
and industry mentors to assist with career
development.
• Establish primary, secondary, and continuing
education career-focused programs.
Capitalize upon economic opportunities
presented by the location of SDSU in
Brookings.
• Improve the student retention/employment
processes deployed by local business and
industry.
• Create additional opportunities for student
internships.
• Expand efforts to commercialize SDSU
research.
GOAL
OBJECTIVES & ACTIONS
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 11 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
The Economic Environment objectives will be managed
by Brookings Economic Development Corporation.
The essence of Brookings inspires and rouses people to pursue their true
interests. Gathering spaces, events, activities, and networks provide avenues
for participation and communication encouraging residents to associate through
the sharing of experiences, resources, skills, and knowledge. The character of
these interactions molds, shapes, and enhances the lives of Brookings residents
creating new value for individuals, groups, and the community at large.
Human beings are social creatures. People desire a place they can call home,
where they can feel accepted and needed, creating a sense of belonging and strong
connections. The total population of Brookings is both a blessing and a curse
in this respect. The community’s size benefits an individual’s ability to become
actively engaged in the change process. Yet at the same time, the community’s
size may limit the range of interpersonal connection opportunities desired by some
individuals. A challenge for Brookings will be to create greater value within its
social environment and opportunities to offset this disadvantage.
VISION STATEMENT
SOCIAL
ENVIRONMENT
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 12 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
Create a social ecosystem comprised of physical features and organized activity appealing
to residents, existing and prospective, of all life-stages and cultural backgrounds.
Develop an awareness system to ensure
people are informed of social engagement
opportunities.
• Create an enhanced welcome packet/
relocation guide.
• Create a central calendar mobile app.
• Develop a central place for promotion of
events and things to do.
• Create a Brookings wellness website with
features to track personal efforts & incentives.
• Implement an event text/alert program.
Create a variety of indoor and outdoor
gathering spaces that provide life-stage and
intergenerational opportunities for residents to
connect.
• Build an indoor park tied to senior center and
library.
• Create multiple indoor/outdoor wellness
opportunities.
• Develop an outdoor town center gathering
space.
• Create an indoor botanical garden.
• Develop an indoor water park/pool (summer
in the winter concept).
Develop horizon expanding, routine
breaking events, activities, and entertainment
for all age groups.
• Hold weekly/monthly special community
events (such as movie at the stadium).
• Hold summer music/concert series.
Expand and promote the variety of
interest-based networks and organizations.
• Create a central artists’ collaborative fostering
a culture of creativity.
• Work on reviving service clubs.
GOAL
OBJECTIVES & ACTIONS
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 13 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
The high quality physical presence of Brookings strengthens community pride,
encourages private investment, and entices non-residents to desire Brookings as
a place to call home for their family or business. Natural and built features enable
unimpaired movement throughout the community, encourage social interaction and
connections, provide a rich diversity of experiences, and enhance quality of life.
The physical environment fully encompasses both the natural and built (man-
made) environment. The physical nature of the community undergoes constant
scrutiny from residents, visitors and guests. This evaluation begins outside the
community boundary and permeates throughout every corner of the community.
Image is extremely important in the process of retaining or attracting people
and businesses. In addition, good design promotes healthy living, reduces the
incidence of crime, and promotes energy efficiency and sustainability. Brookings
has a strong base to build upon and the opportunity to stand out from most
other communities.
VISION STATEMENT
PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 14 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
Design, preserve, and develop Brookings’ natural and built features to cause Brookings to
be recognized as a leading community exhibiting a sustainable physical environment of the
highest character.
Create distinct and diverse neighborhoods
utilizing varied subdivision designs,
neighborhood gateway entrances, and
community features such as parks and
pathways.
• Revitalize older neighborhoods.
• Implement adaptive reuse of buildings.
• Develop design guidelines.
• Address urban blight of housing and buildings.
• Provide a good balance of new and old
buildings, monuments, and signage.
• Implement architectural review and guidelines
for downtown.
• Develop space to allow creative expression.
• Bring downtown structures up to streetscape
design standards.
Create an efficient system of multi-modal
transportation networks.
• Work on 20th Street interchange.
• Complete bike trail system.
• Provide separated vehicular and pedestrian/
bicycle transportation systems to improve
public safety.
Create high quality primary transportation
corridors consisting of high quality
streetscapes, way-finding signage and clearly
differentiated decision-nodes.
• Develop amazing gateways (need a south
entrance gateway).
Establish walkable neighborhoods consisting
of residential and commercial land uses.
Incorporate sustainable design features in
residential, commercial and industrial
districts.
• Create street features that tie the community
together (thematic).
• Develop green space and gardens.
• Implement tree replacement projects.
GOAL
OBJECTIVES & ACTIONS
Charrette Results and Implementation Page 15 Brookings Economic Development Corporation
Brookings Economic Development Corporation
A Strategic
Economic Development Plan
for Brookings County
Desired Outcomes: Population Growth — Wealth Creation — Quality
5 Vision Components 15 Primary Goals 19 Key Initiatives
Smart and Balanced Growth
Informed decision-making and thoughtful
processes are the guide posts for future
growth and development.
Economic Prosperity
Create household, business and community
wealth.
Competitive Business Environment
Assemble the resources and amenities that
will allow businesses to flourish.
High Quality Community
Create an environment and amenities that
establish the community as a people
destination.
High Performance Community
Develop Brookings County and communities
as role models in all aspects of “community”.
1. Attain a sustainable critical mass of
population.
2. Achieve a sustainable rate of economic
growth.
3. Change by design—proactively determine
our future.
4. Develop a recession resistant economy.
5. Undertake a balanced approach to
economic development.
6. Collaborate regionally.
7. Provide high quality business location
alternatives.
8. Create advantage for businesses through
the provision of infrastructure, services,
and capital.
9. Organize industry networks around
cluster targets.
10. Create an aesthetically diverse physical
environment.
11. Create a human environment meeting the
demands of the targeted population.
12. Build an economic environment that sup-
ports employment alternatives in se-
lected industry clusters.
13. Advance organization and leadership
collaboration.
14. Engage the community.
15. Create a global awareness of Brookings.
Recruit SDSU students, families, empty-
nesters, and active retirees.
Create economic diversity within targeted
primary industries sectors.
Use diversity as an avenue to global
competitiveness.
Establish the Brookings area as an Active
Adult Retirement Community.
Establish Brookings as a TechKnow Hotspot.
Expand the county’s stature as a Production
Powerhouse.
Employ tactics to retain, expand and recruit
industry, and support entrepreneurs
Expand and promote Brookings County
development location choices.
Create a skilled workforce pipeline.
Engage the private sector to drive “business
advantage” investments.
Improve community gateways.
Provide affordable variety in housing.
Expand retail, dining, recreation and
entertainment opportunities.
Advance healthy living.
Create higher wage opportunities.
Use roundtables to establish high levels of
communication.
Introduce big impact ideas and initiatives to
engage the community in discussion.
Market Brookings County’s development
opportunities.
Invest strategically in the community’s future.
Brookings Area Visioning Charrette
Summary Results
Prepared for
The Brookings Economic Development Corporation
By
October 2007
2
Introduction
This is a report of the summary results of the Brookings Area Visioning Charrette held on October 11th, 2007.
One hundred twenty people or more convened at the Swiftel Center to discuss the future of the Brookings area
and how the city and region might move forward to build a more prosperous future while creating a highly
livable community for people of all ages.
The report includes the following items:
1. The initial economic scenario that each group or table was asked to consider and the steps that needed to be
taken to make that scenario happen in the future. Scenarios are stories about the future that can be used to
bring to life future possibilities. The charge for your discussion group today is to put into words the story for
the sector scenario that is in front of you.
2. The results of the economic scenario worksheets where each table elaborated on the scenario and then
identified the following:
o What do we have here in Brookings right now that we can build on to help make this scenario a
reality?
o What will we have to put in place and/or what new initiatives we will have to undertake to bring
this scenario to fruition here in the Brookings area?
o The single most important step that needs to be taken in the next two or three years to get on the
right track and make this scenario happen in Brookings?
3. The summary results of an online survey that was completed by over 400 people in the
Brookings area prior to the visioning charrette.
3
How does the community want to grow?
Community Vision Summaries
Manufacturing Powerhouse
Brookings has taken its standing as a robust epicenter of competitive manufacturing companies to the next level.
Companies of all sizes, across synergistic industry clusters are competing in global markets because of their high
productivity, innovation and automation. A skilled work force of management, design and engineering, production and
service personnel is adaptable and prepared to meet the challenges of extreme capitalism characterized by a constant drive
toward lower costs and higher quality. The Brookings area is infrastructure ready, capable of handling the facility and
service needs of startups as well as the area’s many expanding companies. The housing and daycare needs of personnel are
met effectively and affordably. Capital is readily available to meet the needs of businesses throughout the lifecycle.
Education and training is readily available due to excellent partnerships between business, SDSU, the region’s technical
schools and government.
Summarized
Robust epicenter of competitive manufacturing
Compete in global markets, innovate, automate
Skilled and educated labor force resulting from partnerships with business, SDSU, tech schools, and government
Infrastructure ready community
Available capital
Affordable and accessible housing and services (daycare)
What we have to build on now
SDSU
Existing businesses
Presence on I-29 for transportation & railroad
SDSU – provides skilled workforce
Nice amenities in town now – Boys and Girls Club, schools, pool, parks, ballparks, shopping
Local manufacturers are doing product development already which leads to more innovation, productivity and
stability
Current businesses
SDSU – research park
Leadership is forward thinking
Great work ethic
What we will have to put in place or initiate.
Tech school specialized in local industry
Support and develop SDSU as a research/teaching university
Housing and land development
Affordable housing for workforce and students
Marketing campaign to attract families, including minority families, to Brookings
Affordable, flexible daycare
Thoughtful zoning of industrial and residential
Infrastructure
o Water drainage, continued tech investment, traffic
Strengthen current businesses
4
Training and education for skilled workers
Partner with SETI and LATI
Attract young people to careers for technical manufacturing
Industry development in smaller communities
Present plan to companies to show them benefits and to gain support for committee members
Most important steps in next two to three years.
Infrastructure
Stop light at 6th street and 32nd Avenue
Pave 34th Avenue road from 6th street to 32nd street
Support research park and partnerships with local manufacturers
Continue focus on supporting current amenities and new amenities
Encourage growth of entrepreneurial companies that have the ability to innovate and possible support of corporate
satellite facilities
Utilize school land for student housing with private developers.
Develop industry target campaign
Attract workforce to support current strong manufacturing base and to grow more diverse manufacturing community
Entice people to stay through access to affordable housing. Study successful “college town” communities for
affordable housing activities and then implement in Brookings.
5
TechKnow Hotspot
SDSU is recognized nationally for scholarship and scientific advances in renewable energy, health, nutrition and astutely
targeted bioscience niches of global significance. The knowledge economy is thriving here and the applications of
technology and technical know-how are growing by leaps and bounds. Enrollment at SDSU has surpassed 13,000 as more
students, both domestic and international, come to the campus for an expanded number of majors. Many students find the
opportunity for learning and internships with local high-tech businesses – combined with small town life – all too alluring
to bypass. The new “lifestyle residential areas” and fine restaurants adjacent to the campus attract a growing number of
students, downshifting boomers, and retirees who relish the vibrancy of a university campus. Converting science into
business through technology transfer is now a science in Brookings with the Innovation Campus leading the charge. Just a
few short years ago it was growing crops and now it’s a highly wired, robust breeding ground for new ideas, innovations
and economic opportunities. A medley of new technology and light industrial companies have joined those that sprung up
in the early part of the century, attracted by the well-educated workforce and the region’s state-of-the-art business parks.
Fewer fingerprints and more brainwaves right here in Brookings.
Summarized
SDSU is nationally-recognized research university
13,000+ enrollment at SDSU
Expanded majors and collaboration with local high-tech businesses for internships
Mixed-use “lifestyle” areas attract students, YPs, boomers, and retirees
Innovation Campus leads technology transfer and research commercialization
New technology companies attracted to area by state-of-the-art business parks
Well-educated workforce
What we have to build on now.
SDSU
Alternative energy
Strong existing businesses
Innovation campus
Business incubator facilities
Technology business center
Enterprise institute and business development support
Health care facilities
A more focused leaders pool moving in the same direction and a strong entrepreneurial history
Existing research at SDSU and innovation campus to create businesses from research
Amenities – need to create attractive, intriguing amenities to offset things we can’t change
What we will have to put in place or initiate.
Expand SDSU majors
Timely expansion of infrastructure to meet growth opportunities
Tech transfer
Broadband – communication, Northern Tier Network
Transportation of power and more products
Housing for students and new workers
Entertainment
Attract new sources of money
Improved infrastructure – build on air service offer in Sioux Falls
Create space and new money to recruit SDSU researchers instead of just 100% teaching positions
Progress with community and university partnerships
6
Most important steps in next two to three years.
SDSU - Attract a widely diverse student body from all geographic areas
Alternative energy – identify political realities and build coalitions with other states
Strong existing businesses – retention through affordable and improved quality of life
Expand SDSU majors by identifying demand for jobs in the future, especially higher tier
Expansion of infrastructure – work with city and BMU to be more proactive to needs and identify new funding
sources
Tech Transfer - build a tech transfer program at SDSU
Attract resources for innovation
Local campaign
Grants
Tech business park
Infrastructure + land + dollars
Health care
Quality of life
Embracement by South Dakota’s political community and regional leaders that SDSU, specifically research, is the
key to a prosperous future in South Dakota
Lifestyle housing
7
Boomer Town
The population tidal wave of the boomer generation has hit the shores of Brookings. If 70 is indeed the new 50 then this is
the place to be because the full-range of amenities that active seniors are looking for is available here. SDSU is offering a
full palette of life long learning opportunities to this new crop of older than average students and there are plenty of indoor
recreational, arts and leisure opportunities during the winter that occupy the throngs of boomers that have found their way
to Brookings. Some from right next door, others from distant cities. Division 1 sports at the university, a community
wellness facility, and indoor arboretums make gardening - now America’s number one past time - possible year round.
Housing equipped for multiple-levels of assisted, independent living is readily available and specialized healthcare is
readily available to meet the needs of seniors of all ages. A state-of-the-art lifestyle area – a complex of elder-customized
facilities – puts the best of what Brookings has to offer within four-season walking distance. Downshifting is easy here,
with the full-range of part-time work situations available and getting around for work or play is easy with the new regional
bus system. The golden years are a goldmine for the numerous new restaurants and retail shops that have sprung up here
and there throughout the city and in the downtown.
Summarized
Life-long learning at SDSU
Indoor recreational, art, and leisure opportunities
Housing equipped for ageing population
Specialized healthcare
Part-time work opportunities
Pubic transportation
What we have to build on now.
Family housing in the $125,000 range
Innovation and research activity at university
Alternative fuels industry growing
SDSU
Leisure and cultural opportunities
Healthy living
What we will have to put in place or initiate.
Specialized medical services for the elderly
Upscale restaurants
Improved transportation with the city and throughout the area
Transportation infrastructure
Wider variety of future housing opportunities
Additional retail and restaurant facilities
Most important steps in next two to three years.
Health care advisory committee with regional focus
Regional transportation – regularly schedule bus service for rural residents and city
More communication between SDSU and BEDC
Update city comprehensive plan to address zoning, land use and transportation issues
Develop funding strategies
8
Pleasure Zone
What happens in Brookings – well you know the rest. A downtown-wide historical restoration project in the early 2000’s
sparked a citywide renaissance. Today, a rich variety of restaurants cater to the tastes and preferences of people from
throughout the region. Some of the area’s highest quality farm products – both crops and livestock – are featured at the
weekly farmers market and several of Brookings finest eating establishments. Not famished anymore – then visit some of
the most distinctive retail shops found within 500 miles. Local art, Native American crafts and artifacts, locally produced
food, boutique clothing and global exports – they are all available here and easy to find due to the City’s new, thematic
signage. Attractive gateways, entrances to the City, now greet even the most discriminating shoppers and adventurous
gastronomists (that’s people that like to eat). It’s easy to find your way around now too with the thematic street way finding
and electronic kiosk system the City put in place. Not into shopping or eating – or just exhausted from one or both – then
take in Brookings new lineup of entertainment venues. The new Imax theatre, a children’s museum and the Shakespearean
play at the university await you. Or, if you are athletically inclined, visit the new community sports center or take a trek on
the 20-mile rurban bikeway. Then there’s always gardening to do – with your new orchid variety or prize tomatoes - at the
City’s indoor community arboretum.
Summarized
Variety of restaurants, art galleries, and niche shopping in city
Attractive community gateways, thematic signage, and electronic kiosk system provide information and invite
visitors to explore the city
Entertainment venues—Imax, children’s museum, theatre at SDSU
Indoor and outdoor year-round recreational opportunities
Historical renovation downtown
What we have to build on now.
Variety of retail and entertainment
Old time charm and streetscape
Environmentally positive
University
Swiftel center
Parks Department
SDSU
Rural and Native American heritage
Hwy 14 – I29 Corridor and Rail
Variety
o Food, recreation, housing, entertainment, culture
Community aesthetics (Brookings is now known as an attractive city)
Entertainment for families and singles
What we will have to put in place or initiate.
Initiate reuse of vacant properties – buildings and land
o Increase property tax on vacant buildings
Promote family centered lifestyle through farmers market expansion
Attract regional or national businesses
Communication system
Financial planning for sustainability
Niche planning
Regional promotion
Master planning with “thoughtful” code enforcement, zoning – aesthetics in storefronts
Retail recruitment and niche big box
9
$ available to get development going or improvement of current development
Community involvement
o Older generation needs to recruit and mentor younger people
City planner
Affordable housing
Most important steps in next two to three years.
Remove economic barriers (# of liquor licenses)
Create a plan & show the value, i.e. communicate the benefits
– become known as green city
Increase property tax on vacant buildings
Marketing campaign
Chamber needs a retail development program
Communication with university to create better relationship and to package university as part of community
Move forward with efforts to educate public about need to expand internet capabilities with Swiftel
More communication to bridge gaps in Brookings so that everyone gets along
Heritage package – market areas historical attributes through regional marketing
Collaborative effort between city and SDSU
Expansion of corridors into city to get the traffic patterns to spread out retail development
Expand city boundaries through annexation
Master plan development by funding consultant with public input and buy-in
Retail niche – identifying niches and incentive plans
More variety – need more liquor licenses and extended hours
Aesthetics – enforce existing ordinances
Entertainment – wireless accessibility to existing entertainment
Community involvement – get younger people involved – market to them
City planner – hire one!
Affordable housing – implementation of a housing authority
10
BioEnergy Empire
When the first European settlers came to eastern South Dakota they came determined and fully expecting to build a new
Territorial Empire. Today, the Brookings region is the center of a new empire – one that harnesses a rich cornucopia of
agricultural products to feed and fuel the world. Biofuels, biolubricants, advancement in bioprocessing technologies are all
being invented, field-tested and produced in volume right here in the region. A whole host of high value products (HVPs)
for food, fiber and health uses are also emanating from here due to the flourishing collaborations between university
researchers, agriculturists, and advanced producer service providers in marketing, finance and logistics. Precision
agriculture stands side by side with specialty agriculture, which produces high-value specialty consumer products.
Agriculture was the first industry to spur technology in history. Brookings is taking this legacy to the next level serving as
the center for agro-energy in the world.
Summarized
Biofuels, biolubricants, and advanced bioprocessing technologies being invented
High value products for food, fiber, and health being created
Collaboration between SDSU, agriculturalists, and producer service providers
Precision agriculture and specialty agriculture create high-value specialty consumer products
Change scenario to BioEnergy Empire
Emphasize entrepreneurship and innovation
Link ag research to health industry
“Growing Greatness”
What we have to build on now.
Good business climate
o Tax structure and government structure
o Regional attitude
o Financial infrastructure
Transportation
o Railroad, interstates, highways
Quality of life
o Health care
o Quality schools
Energy resources
o Conservation, land base and land productivity, wind, water, manure
o Low cost
Intellectual capital
University system
o Students
Community leadership
International connections already in place
Natural resources
Community is competitively sized
What we will have to put in place or initiate.
Cooperation with other states on political level to encourage federal mandates for value-added process and energy
transportation
Build and recruit labor force
Infrastructure related to housing, affordable housing and restaurants to enhance the quality of life
Organize public/private leadership in community-City/county/legislators should work together
Increase investment in university research
11
Coordinate marketing efforts
Forward Sioux Falls business model
Most important steps in next two to three years.
Implement the leadership and political will & attitude (through networking) to mandate the use of resources and
implement the research which further processes bio-products for higher value-added consumer products.
Coordinate existing groups and organizations into a focused effort
o Prioritize our vision for this scenario
o Fundraising for research
o Marketing program
12
Transportable Brookings
Connectivity via transportation and travel are more important than ever, even as Internet 3 further shrinks the global
economy and society. Brookings is infrastructure ready in all facets of the transportation sector providing ready access for
shipping of out-going goods and incoming supplies to the many manufacturing and agriculture companies in the area.
Business and professional travel is seamless here with multiple flights providing daily jet service to destinations east and
west. For the leisure, university and business traveler alike the new state-of-the-art airport terminal serves as a convenient
launching pad to all corners of the world. In the city the major thoroughfares provide for optimum flow of traffic and easy
access to I-29. The recent inaugural running of the supertrain from Winnipeg to Sioux Falls, now means that a trip to
Microsoft in Fargo is one hour; a trip to Winnipeg’s bioscience industrial park is just under two hours. A roundtrip from
the SuperStation on the Innovation Campus to the BSL facility in downtown Winnipeg costs just $225. Breakfast is
optional.
Summarized
Access for shipping incoming and outgoing goods
Jet service for business and professional travel
New airport terminal
Improved inner-city transportation thoroughfares provide optimum flow of traffic
Easy access to I-29
Supertrain from Winnipeg to Sioux Falls (improved inter- and intrastate travel)
What we have to build on now.
I-29 access options:
o 32nd Street South could be enhanced
o 20th Street South – current right of way – no off ramps
Highway 14 bypass – Western avenue – Expansion access airport
Air traffic – SDSU/business
What we will have to put in place or initiate.
Endorse funding for traffic study (campus + local parking and commuting)
Transportation board development
Revamp 2010 vision plan – revisit and plan to another 10 year horizon
Most important steps in next two to three years.
Develop comprehensive traffic study and transportation plan for region, to include local flow as well as I-29 access.
Understand SDSU and business air traffic needs.
Brookings Area Community Survey
Brookings Economic Development Corporation 1
Summary and Participation
The Brookings Area Community Survey was available online and in printed format at the BEDC office from 10/29/13
through 11/12/13. Responses received totaled 1,076, including 22 printed responses and 1,054 electronic responses. A
large majority of the participants live within Brookings city limits (75.9%), while 12.5% live in neighboring communities
and 11.6% live in rural areas. Participants indicated their current stage in life and results were tabulated for each group.
Please choose the option that best describes your current stage of life:
The Early-Mid Career, No
Children and the Young Family
with Children age categories
received the most responses
and accounted for 49.6% of
the total.
Answer Options % #
Young Adult/Student 6.7% 71
Early-Mid Career, No Children 20.8% 222
Young Family with Children 28.8% 307
Adult (Single or Married) with Older Dependent Children 15.2% 162
Mid-Late Career, No Children or Empty Nester 19.2% 205
Retiree 9.2% 98
answered question 1065
Please choose the option that best describes your current education level?
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Did not graduate high school 0.5% 5 1.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 3.1%
High school diploma or equivalency 5.7% 61 7.0% 1.4% 1.6% 6.8% 11.3% 14.3%
Some college or technical school, no degree 13.6% 145 42.3% 6.3% 10.1% 14.3% 17.2% 10.2%
Associate's degree or other certification, training 12.4% 132 1.4% 13.1% 13.4% 11.2% 14.2% 14.3%
Bachelor's degree 44.1% 471 36.6% 60.4% 52.8% 36.0% 31.4% 25.5%
Graduate or professional degree 23.8% 254 11.3% 18.9% 22.1% 31.7% 25.5% 32.7%
answered question 1068 71 222 307 161 204 98
Note: “Bachelor’s degree” or “Graduate or professional degree” accounted for 67.9% of the total responses.
Job Availability
What type of job opportunity is most important to you? (Please select one)
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree General Labor 1.8% 18 1.5% 2.4% 0.4% 2.0% 2.0% 2.2%
Skilled Trades 6.0% 60 5.9% 9.0% 4.6% 6.0% 6.6% 2.2%
Retail 0.9% 9 1.5% 1.0% 0.7% 0.7% 1.5% 0.0%
Office 10.1% 102 8.8% 11.4% 7.1% 6.7% 20.3% 2.2%
Manager/Administrator 15.8% 159 20.6% 11.0% 19.8% 24.2% 15.2% 0.0%
Professional 37.7% 380 33.8% 43.8% 44.5% 38.9% 32.5% 14.0%
Science/Technology 12.0% 121 20.6% 15.2% 15.2% 10.7% 6.6% 3.2%
Medical 3.4% 34 2.9% 3.3% 4.2% 6.0% 2.0% 0.0%
Does Not Apply 12.3% 124 4.4% 2.9% 3.5% 4.7% 13.2% 76.3%
answered question 1007 68 210 283 149 197 93
Brookings Area Community Survey
Brookings Economic Development Corporation 2
Do you feel Brookings has job opportunities available in the category you selected as most important?
Answer Options % # Yes No Unsure
General Labor 1.8% 18 10 55.5% 6 33.3% 2 11.1%
Skilled Trades 6.0% 58 39 67.2% 9 15.5% 10 17.2%
Retail 0.9% 9 4 44.4% 4 44.4% 1 11.1%
Office 10.1% 101 54 53.5% 21 20.8% 26 25.7%
Manager/Administrator 15.8% 159 76 47.8% 52 32.7% 31 19.5%
Professional 37.7% 377 230 61.0% 90 23.9% 57 15.1%
Science/Technology 12.0% 121 75 62.0% 26 21.5% 20 16.5%
Medical 3.4% 34 16 47.1% 11 32.4% 7 20.6%
Does Not Apply 12.3% 95 39 41.1% 11 11.6% 45 47.4%
Note: Age category break-down of participants indicating Brookings did have job opportunities ranged from 54% with
the young family and adult (single or married) with older dependent children to 62% with the mid-late career, empty
nesters. The age group with highest percentage indicating Brookings did not have enough job opportunities was the
young family group at 28%.
Activities
Rank in order of importance the arts and entertainment options which you are most interested in attending. (Rank from
1 to 5 with 1 being the most important and 5 being the least important), The lower the rating, the more important the
activity.
Answer Options Rating
Average Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree The two older age groups
revealed the biggest
difference from the
average rating of the
entire population,
selecting theater as their
number one option.
Band/Music Concerts 2.50 1.89 2.10 2.43 2.55 2.97 2.92
Festivals 2.60 2.38 2.37 2.41 2.71 2.81 3.30
Theater Performances 2.87 3.21 2.95 3.14 2.76 2.56 2.40
Museums/Galleries 3.30 3.65 3.60 3.18 3.22 3.25 2.94
Cultural Events 3.73 3.86 3.98 3.84 3.77 3.41 3.43
What level of spectator sports are the most important to you? (Select all that apply)
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree College Level Sports 75.5% 625 93.1% 83.2% 65.4% 72.1% 75.8% 84.0%
High School Level Sports 37.8% 313 29.3% 23.6% 45.7% 55.0% 32.9% 28.0%
Youth Sports 31.6% 262 13.8% 10.6% 59.8% 35.7% 14.1% 22.7%
Sports Clubs (hockey, skating, rodeo) 30.8% 255 43.1% 36.6% 31.9% 33.3% 24.8% 12.0%
Other (please specify) 107 5 22 17 15 33 14
answered question 828 58 161 254 129 149 75
Note: Professional sports was mentioned the most as a write-in option, with 27 responses.
Brookings Area Community Survey
Brookings Economic Development Corporation 3
What sports and recreational activities do you like to PARTICIPATE in? (Select all that apply)
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree
“Other” responses mentioned
multiple times included:
Equestrian/Rodeo – 9
Tennis – 8
Fitness/Wellness Center – 6
Dog Park/Pet Friendly Activity – 6
Bowling – 4
Auto Racing, Dirt Track – 4
Hiking – 4
Inline/Roller Skating – 3
Basketball – 3
Softball – 2
Archery/Trap – 2
Soccer – 2
Hockey – 2
Racquetball – 2
Swimming - 2
Walking/Running 72.8% 701 64.1% 70.3% 71.5% 71.9% 77.2% 79.8%
Parks 67.0% 645 60.9% 60.4% 75.9% 59.6% 72.0% 58.3%
Camping 49.4% 476 56.3% 53.5% 58.8% 52.1% 37.6% 27.4%
Cycling 43.1% 415 45.3% 40.1% 42.3% 47.9% 46.6% 34.5%
Hunting/Fishing 42.2% 406 46.9% 44.6% 46.7% 47.3% 32.3% 31.0%
Water Sports 34.9% 336 40.6% 38.1% 41.2% 34.2% 28.0% 19.0%
Golf 34.3% 330 39.1% 34.7% 38.3% 33.6% 29.6% 28.6%
Winter Sports 25.4% 245 37.5% 29.2% 28.8% 23.3% 19.0% 14.3%
League Sports 17.3% 167 34.4% 26.7% 23.0% 11.6% 3.2% 4.8%
Other (please specify) 68 6 15 15 3 20 8
answered question 963 64 202 274 146 189 84
What cultural and educational activities do you like to PARTICIPATE in? (playing in a community band,
participating in art class, etc. Select all that apply)
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Festivals 59.5% 439 60.0% 61.0% 62.2% 57.4% 63.9% 42.1%
Educational Opportunities/Lectures 56.4% 416 62.0% 49.3% 53.7% 59.1% 58.5% 63.2%
Band/Music Concerts 39.3% 290 46.0% 50.0% 42.3% 40.9% 28.6% 25.0%
Cultural Events 37.0% 273 32.0% 31.5% 34.8% 36.5% 42.2% 46.1%
Art 32.0% 236 38.0% 32.9% 34.8% 25.2% 32.7% 27.6%
Theater 25.9% 191 32.0% 22.6% 23.9% 27.8% 27.2% 25.0%
answered question 738 50 146 201 115 147 76
Brookings Area Community Survey
Brookings Economic Development Corporation 4
Retail/Shopping/Dining Options
If you choose to shop outside of Brookings, please indicate the reasons why in order of importance from 1
being the most important to 5 being the least important.
Answer Options Rating
Average Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Variety of Stores 2.07 1.67 1.86 1.99 2.18 2.33 2.29
Product Availability 2.78 2.97 2.82 2.79 2.75 2.68 2.76
Product Choice/Options 2.89 3.02 3.01 2.79 2.79 2.91 2.99
Price/Affordability 3.31 3.45 3.39 3.32 3.21 3.21 3.36
Overall Shopping Experience (day
trip to include dining, other activities) 3.95 3.89 3.91 4.09 4.07 3.88 3.61
answered question 974
What types of stores would you like to see that Brookings does not have? (841 responses)
Big Box/Discount/Super Store – 834 Top Responses: Target – 537, Shopko – 109, Costco – 24
Clothing/Shoes – 430 Top Responses: Kohl’s – 143, TJ Maxx – 21, Herberger’s – 20
Grocery Store/Whole/Organic Foods – 130
Home Improvement/Hardware/Furniture/Decor – 109 Top Responses: Mendards – 39, Bed Bath & Beyond - 14
Outdoor/Sporting Goods - 98 Top Responses: Scheels – 24, Cabelas – 23
Office Supplies/Electronics/Appliances – 60
Health & Beauty - 34
Other: Hobby/Arts & Crafts – 59, Mall or Outlet – 45, Bookstore – 23, Fabric/Sewing - 22
If you choose to dine outside of Brookings, please indicate the reasons why in order of
importance from 1 being the most important to 4 being the least important.
Answer Options Rating
Average Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Restaurant Type/Variety 1.42 1.26 1.34 1.34 1.41 1.57 1.68
Quality 2.46 2.54 2.41 2.47 2.51 2.46 2.48
Price/Affordability 3.05 3.00 3.16 3.07 3.01 3.02 2.89
Dining Atmosphere 3.07 3.20 3.09 3.11 3.07 2.95 2.95
answered question 953
What types of dining options would you like to see that Brookings does not have? (725 responses)
General Comments
- Approximately 60 people mentioned wanting more variety, something other than chains or fast food.
- There were 40 people who felt the existing selections in Brookings were enough and no more dining choices
were needed.
- Other general comments heard multiple times included the need for dining in different areas of town.
Brookings Area Community Survey
Brookings Economic Development Corporation 5
Fast Food/Casual/Family Dining – 642 Top Responses: Taco Bell – 88, Panera Bread – 50, Wendy’s 47
Ethnic – 465 Top Responses: HuHot – 46, Thai – 30, Chinese – 20, Mexican – 20
Italian – 217 Top Responses: Olive Garden – 107, Johnny Carinos - 28
Sports Bar/American - 222 Top Responses: Texas Roadhouse – 40, Ruby Tuesday – 20, Chili’s - 20
Steak – 107 Top Responses: Outback – 23, Minerva’s - 20
Seafood – 105 Top Responses: Red Lobster – 61
Other: Upscale/Fine Dining – 56, Healthy /Gluten Free/Organic/Vegan –38, Supper Club – 22,
Unique/Specialized/Gourmet – 14, Homestyle – 10
Desired Community Features
At your current stage in life, if you were considering moving to a different community, rank in order of importance the
reasons you would choose that community from 1 to 12 with 1 being the most important an d 12 being the least
important.
Answer Options Rating
Average Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Job Availability 3.53 2.00 2.09 2.20 3.02 5.22 9.50
Cost of Living/Affordability (housing, taxes, utilities) 4.53 4.25 4.35 4.70 4.61 4.31 4.84
Proximity to Family 4.85 4.72 5.19 4.89 5.21 4.28 4.59
Safety of Community 5.04 5.69 5.55 4.31 4.91 5.29 5.24
Educational System 6.56 7.15 7.25 4.01 6.39 8.87 7.93
Healthcare Availability 6.64 7.91 7.86 6.74 6.74 5.63 4.55
Things To Do (sports/recreation/entertainment/culture) 7.00 6.06 6.15 7.84 7.39 6.96 6.47
Climate 7.38 8.54 7.60 8.53 6.81 6.12 6.03
Overall Physical Quality (landscaping, design, public art) 7.83 7.87 7.71 8.44 7.81 7.61 6.61
Variety of Retail Options (shopping, dining) 7.89 8.12 7.66 8.41 8.03 7.65 6.79
Location (near mountains, ocean, etc) 7.91 7.61 7.79 8.59 7.82 7.27 8.00
Social Activities (religious, clubs, civic organizations, etc) 8.83 8.09 8.87 9.27 9.24 8.76 7.47
Rank in order of importance the features you would consider when choosing a house or neighborhood. (Rank from 1 to
9 with 1 being the most important and 9 being the least important)
Answer Options Rating
Average Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Cost/Affordability 1.70 1.45 1.44 1.85 1.75 1.69 1.89
Overall Physical Appearance of Neighborhood 3.39 4.33 3.18 3.80 3.35 3.03 2.69
Friendliness 4.16 3.94 4.30 4.38 4.16 3.91 4.00
Location Near Job 4.67 3.40 3.88 4.94 4.61 4.65 6.76
Family-Oriented 4.80 5.64 5.63 3.28 4.74 5.56 5.47
Location Near Retail Opportunities 5.88 5.97 5.78 6.69 5.95 5.19 4.75
Location Near Educational System (schools, campus) 6.22 6.37 6.55 4.85 6.10 7.55 6.91
Diversity (age or ethnic) 6.92 6.64 7.05 7.50 6.96 6.56 5.74
Location Near Golf Course, Recreational Opportunities 7.28 7.25 7.22 7.70 7.39 6.85 6.79
Brookings Area Community Survey
Brookings Economic Development Corporation 6
Which physical community features are most important to you? (Rank in order of importance with 1
being the most important and 7 being the least important)
Answer Options Rating
Average Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Nicely landscaped streets 3.00 3.11 3.12 3.31 2.79 2.81 2.41
High quality neighborhood parks 3.31 3.87 3.67 2.51 3.54 3.38 3.98
Bike and walking paths 3.44 3.54 3.11 3.35 3.56 3.51 4.09
Neighborhood design 3.64 3.56 3.86 3.71 3.41 3.62 3.44
Clearly marked navigation/street signs 3.81 3.19 3.52 3.92 4.18 3.83 3.86
Historic preservation of buildings 4.79 4.94 4.61 5.00 4.75 4.75 4.72
Community entrance
landscaping/signage 6.02 5.79 6.12 6.22 5.79 6.07 5.55
answered question 955 63 201 269 142 189 86
Referring back to the physical community feature that you have selected as most important, how does that
feature in Brookings rate?
Answer Options
# Very
Good Good Ave Poor Very
Poor Total
Clearly marked navigation/street signs 208 14.5% 46.4% 29.5% 7.3% 2.4% 207
Nicely landscaped streets 195 20.6% 46.9% 24.7% 6.2% 1.6% 194
Bike and walking paths 193 19.8% 41.2% 29.7% 8.9% 0.5% 192
High quality neighborhood parks 156 22.4% 44.2% 29.5% 3.9% 0.0% 156
Neighborhood design 110 8.3% 38.5% 39.5% 12.8% 0.9% 109
Historic preservation of buildings 65 10.8% 47.7% 30.8% 9.2% 1.5% 65
Community entrance landscaping/signage 24 41.7% 45.8% 12.5% 0% 0% 24
answered question 951
Campus/Community Relationship
How strong is the Campus/Community relationship in Brookings?
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Extremely Strong 12.0% 115 10.9% 10.1% 11.4% 10.5% 15.3% 13.6%
Quite Strong 38.9% 373 46.9% 36.7% 42.3% 35.7% 34.2% 44.3%
Moderately Strong 35.0% 336 26.6% 38.2% 38.2% 39.9% 30.0% 28.4%
Slightly Strong 9.5% 91 12.5% 9.5% 5.5% 9.8% 13.2% 9.1%
Not At All Strong 4.7% 45 3.1% 5.5% 2.6% 4.2% 7.4% 4.5%
answered question 960 64 199 272 143 190 88
Brookings Area Community Survey
Brookings Economic Development Corporation 7
What are the SDSU services/activities that help you feel a connection between the campus and community? Select all
that apply.
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Athletic Offerings 74.8% 668 75.0% 71.6% 79.8% 77.4% 72.8% 68.2%
Performing Arts 65.6% 586 41.7% 60.1% 61.5% 69.2% 78.7% 75.3%
Student Employment Opportunities
(internships, workstudy, etc) 44.7% 399 70.0% 49.2% 45.1% 40.6% 42.6% 25.9%
Cultural Offerings 41.0% 366 18.3% 30.6% 36.6% 41.4% 56.2% 62.4%
Library Services 13.9% 124 10.0% 10.9% 9.7% 15.0% 18.3% 24.7%
Student Involvement and Leadership
Opportunities (Greek life, student organizations) 13.1% 117 26.7% 15.3% 14.0% 6.8% 12.4% 8.2%
Technology Services and/or Assistance 9.4% 84 5.0% 6.6% 7.0% 15.8% 11.2% 10.6%
Faculty Consultation 8.1% 72 8.3% 6.0% 5.4% 11.3% 8.3% 10.6%
Other (please specify) 69 3 6 19 8 20 12
answered question 893 60 183 257 133 169 85
“Other” responses mentioned multiple times included: Wellness Center – 18, Preschool/Kindergarten – 5, Church – 3,
Employment – 2, Lectures/Guest Speakers – 2, Student Teaching/Presence in Schools - 2
What changes can be made to improve the Campus/Community relationship in Brookings? (351 responses)
Top Responses #
Need for more events & activities (on campus and off) that involve campus and community (service programs,
block parties, internships, mentoring, tutoring, lectures, classes, cultural events, etc)
101
Concerns about student housing: quality, inspections, zoning, rental prices 77
Parking/Accessibility/Traffic/BATA availability /Campus Navigation 74
Better awareness, communication of events, opportunities for involvement between campus & community 64
Concerns about student behavior and lack of respect, need for increased police presence and law enforcing 33
Concerns about city catering to campus and students too much, college needs to give back to community 32
Leadership/Engagement/Social Connections
How connected do you feel with other residents of the Brookings community who are your same age?
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Extremely Connected 7.0% 67 9.5% 4.6% 4.8% 5.0% 5.9% 22.5%
Moderately Connected 30.5% 291 36.5% 19.3% 27.2% 32.6% 38.5% 41.6%
Slightly Connected 25.9% 247 12.7% 28.9% 31.3% 27.7% 20.9% 21.3%
Neither Connected or Disconnected 18.7% 178 15.9% 18.3% 20.6% 14.9% 24.6% 9.0%
Slightly Disconnected 7.6% 72 11.1% 12.7% 8.1% 7.8% 3.7% 0.0%
Moderately Disconnected 6.0% 57 9.5% 9.1% 5.9% 5.7% 3.2% 3.4%
Extremely Disconnected 4.3% 41 4.8% 7.1% 2.2% 6.4% 3.2% 2.2%
answered question 953 63 197 272 141 187 89
Brookings Area Community Survey
Brookings Economic Development Corporation 8
How important is it for you to be involved in:
Answer Options Extremely
Important
Very
Important
Moderately
Important
Slightly
Important
Not At All
Important
Response
Count
Government 45 4.8% 146 15.6% 317 33.8% 227 24.2% 203 21.6% 938
Civic Organizations 34 3.6% 180 19.1% 311 33.0% 250 26.6% 166 17.6% 941
Boards/Committees 45 4.8% 146 15.6% 307 32.8% 259 27.7% 179 19.1% 936
Clubs 40 4.3% 139 14.9% 309 33.0% 275 29.3% 173 18.5% 936
answered question 944
Note: When divided into age categories, the young adult/student group’s responses differed from the total responses
by selecting “not at all important” under Government as their highest percentage at 31.7% along with “slightly
important” for Clubs (36.5%) and Boards/Committees (31.7%). Likewise, the early/mid career no children group had
their highest percentages under “slightly important” for boards/committees (29.6%) and clubs (30.1%). The mid/late
career or empty nester group chose “slightly important” for boards/committees (28%) and “not at all important” for
clubs (27.7%) as their highest percentage.
Overall, how effective is the leadership in Brookings?
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Very effective 14.6% 137 7.9% 8.3% 9.7% 12.4% 22.6% 33.0%
Somewhat effective 53.2% 500 60.3% 47.7% 58.2% 54.7% 52.7% 46.6%
Neither Effective or Ineffective 18.4% 173 23.8% 26.4% 17.9% 19.7% 14.0% 6.8%
Somewhat ineffective 9.7% 91 4.8% 11.9% 11.6% 6.6% 8.1% 10.2%
Very ineffective 4.0% 38 3.2% 5.7% 2.6% 6.6% 2.7% 3.4%
answered question 939 63 193 268 137 186 88
Overall Community Satisfaction
How proud are you to live in Brookings?
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Extremely proud 20.1% 190 7.9% 13.3% 18.1% 15.9% 28.1% 38.6%
Quite proud 38.3% 362 41.3% 37.2% 41.1% 39.9% 35.7% 35.2%
Moderately proud 26.4% 249 27.0% 26.5% 28.9% 27.5% 24.9% 19.3%
Slightly proud 10.4% 98 15.9% 14.3% 8.9% 11.6% 8.1% 4.5%
Not at all proud 4.8% 45 7.9% 8.7% 3.0% 5.1% 3.2% 2.3%
answered question 944 63 196 270 138 185 88
Brookings Area Community Survey
Brookings Economic Development Corporation 9
Overall, how satisfied are you with your experience of living in Brookings?
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Extremely Satisfied 24.7% 234 19.0% 12.6% 23.4% 21.7% 34.1% 43.8%
Moderately Satisfied 46.0% 435 44.4% 48.5% 47.6% 47.1% 43.8% 39.3%
Slightly Satisfied 12.2% 115 19.0% 12.6% 13.8% 12.3% 9.7% 6.7%
Neither Satisfied or Dissatisfied 7.2% 68 9.5% 10.6% 5.9% 8.0% 5.4% 4.5%
Slightly Dissatisfied 5.7% 54 4.8% 9.1% 5.6% 5.8% 3.8% 3.4%
Moderately Dissatisfied 2.7% 26 1.6% 4.5% 3.7% 0.7% 2.2% 1.1%
Extremely Dissatisfied 1.5% 14 1.6% 2.0% 0.0% 4.3% 1.1% 1.1%
answered question 946 63 197 269 138 185 89
How promising is the future of Brookings?
Answer Options % # Young Adult-Student Early-Mid Career No Children Young Family w Children Adult w Older Dependent Children Mid-Late Career Empty Nester Retiree Extremely promising 23.8% 226 23.8% 14.2% 26.9% 21.6% 29.7% 27.0%
Very promising 42.6% 404 30.2% 42.6% 43.5% 44.6% 38.9% 53.9%
Moderately promising 25.0% 237 31.7% 31.0% 24.4% 23.0% 24.3% 12.4%
Slightly promising 7.1% 67 12.7% 10.2% 4.4% 7.9% 6.5% 4.5%
Not at all promising 1.5% 14 1.6% 2.0% 0.7% 2.9% 0.5% 2.2%
answered question 948 63 197 271 139 185 89
What changes would most improve Brookings for you and/or your family? (661 responses)
Top Responses #
More Retail/Shopping/Grocery/Dining (Target – 35) 260
Roads/Streets/Traffic/Navigation/Access/Sidewalks 151
Housing/Zoning/Affordable Housing/Student Housing/Rental Rates 120
More Activities/Entertainment/Concerts/Events 70
Improvement of Parks 58
More Family-Friendly (Housing/Activities/Entertainment/ Childcare) 58
Concerns about Education/Schools 54
More Jobs/Job Diversity/Better Pay 52
Leadership/Council/City Monopoly/City Spending/Decision Makers Concerns 47
Expanded/Improved Walking or Biking Trails 46
Cost of Living/Taxes/Ticket Prices/Gas Prices 43
Brookings Area Community Survey
Brookings Economic Development Corporation 10
What do you like least about Brookings? (675 responses)
Top Responses #
Lack of Retail/Shopping/Dining Options 183
Streets/Roads/Traffic/Layout 94
Housing Costs/Property Taxes/Rental Prices/Zoning/Rundown Houses & Neighborhoods 88
City Government/Leadership/Spending/Politics/Select few or wealthy have the say 74
Winter/Weather/Climate 48
Too Small: not enough services/things to do/entertainment options/indoor options 42
Unfriendly/Too Exclusive/Close-minded/No Social Opportunities 41
Snow Removal 36
Lack of Jobs/Low Wages 30
Police/Crime/Vandalism/Code Enforcement 28
SDSU/SDSU Students/College Parties/Too Many Bars/Drinking Concerns 28
City-Owned Monopolies/Liquor Store/Liquor License Issues 27
Gas Prices 27
What do you like most about Brookings? (680 responses)
Top Responses #
Small Town/Community Feel/ Family Friendly/Midwest Values/Quality of Life 196
Safe/Secure/Quiet/Peaceful 126
Friendly/Welcoming /Neighbors/Neighborhoods 119
Lots of Events/Amenities/Big Town Atmosphere/Things To Do/Sports 112
SDSU/SDSU Athletics/SDSU Events/Students/Support of SDSU/Campus-Community 104
The People 97
Aesthetics/Trees/Scenery/Landscaping/Design/Lighting/Signs/Historic Preservation 92
Clean/Neat/Well-Kept/Nice 80
Education/School System/Youth Programs 70
Parks/Nature Park/McCrory Gardens 53
Biking/Walking Trails 43
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Human Talent Research 1
Brookings Visioning Charrette
Summary Results and Recommendations
Prepared for:
Brookings Economic Development Corporation
Delore Zimmerman, Ph.D.
Mark Schill
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Human Talent Research 2
Introduction
The Brookings Visioning Charrette was held in December 2013 to bring together a
cross-section of people in the community to engage in discussing ideas about the
future and ways to achieve the community’s vision of a quality place to live, work and
play.
Since the last Visioning Charrette in 2007 the Brookings area has experienced six
years of positive change. Of the 70 topics and objectives addressed in the 2007
charrette 83% are now either completed or underway.
Employment in Brookings County faltered somewhat during the great recession, but
the region is growing again, particularly in 2013. Unemployment remains very low
(2.7% in November 2013) and many open jobs go unfilled. The Brookings area is
expected to outpace both South Dakota and the Nation in employment growth for
another decade. In part, this growth stems from the larger scale resurgence now
underway in North America’s Great Plains.
Employment Change 2000-2013 & Projected Employment Change to 2023 for
Brookings, South Dakota and the USA
Brookings • South Dakota • USA
The Visioning Charrette began with participants engaged in small group, age/lifestyle
specific discussions about three general dimensions of their vision of an ideal
Brookings including the 1) social, 2) physical and 3) economic environment.
Following that three areas of particular relevance to the situation in the Brookings
area were discussed including 1) leadership, 2) engagement in the community and 3)
campus/community relationships. A series of afternoon sessions involved
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Human Talent Research 3
participants in discussing their observations from the morning and then identifying
priority action steps that can take Brookings to the next level.
Participants were asked to focus and frame their thinking, where appropriate, on two
of the five specific components of the Brookings Area Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy. These vision components and their goals include:
High Quality Community
Goal: Create an environment and amenities that establish the community as a
‘people destination’, to include:
Create an aesthetically diverse physical environment.
Create a human environment meeting the demands of the targeted population.
Build an economic environment that supports employment alternatives in
selected industry clusters.
High Performance Community
Goals:
Develop Brookings County and communities as role models in all aspects of
“community”.
Advance organization and leadership collaboration.
Engage the community.
Create a global awareness of Brookings.
A synopsis of the complete results of the morning visioning sessions and the
afternoon strategy/action sessions – recorded and summarized by the Brookings
Area Development Corporation – are included as Attachment 1.
Praxis Strategy Group Recommendations
Our recommendations are focused on two inter-related strategy areas that are
critical: talent and brand.
Home to SDSU, the region is a talent producer. The region may produce excess
talent in many occupations, yet many employers lack the skilled workers they need.
The BEDC workforce survey reports that over 900 positions need to be filled in the
next three years; of these, over half (472) are in production and assembly
occupations.
Occupational pay is a critical driver of worker decisions to switch jobs, obtain more
training, or relocate for work. The following table lists hourly pay for major occupation
groups in Brookings County across the spectrum from entry level (10th percentile
earnings), to the median, to the high-level workers in each group (90th percentile
earnings).
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Human Talent Research 4
As might be expected, food preparation and personal care occupations tend pay less
than occupations requiring advanced degrees, such as architecture and engineering
or health care practitioners.
Brookings Hourly Pay
Occupation Group
Pct 10
Hourly
Earnings
Pct 25
Hourly
Earnings
Median
Hourly
Earnings
Pct 75
Hourly
Earnings
Pct 90
Hourly
Earnings
Management $16.21 $18.96 $23.23 $28.53 $33.45
Business and Financial Operations $18.61 $21.17 $25.18 $31.09 $37.49
Computer and Mathematical $18.11 $20.60 $23.89 $28.06 $32.59
Architecture and Engineering $21.75 $24.67 $29.00 $35.01 $41.89
Life, Physical, and Social Science $15.39 $17.88 $21.07 $25.23 $30.38
Community and Social Service $12.96 $14.86 $17.84 $21.63 $25.90
Legal $24.32 $26.94 $31.62 $35.60 $39.35
Education, Training, and Library $16.31 $19.06 $22.83 $28.39 $37.10
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and
Media $12.18 $13.66 $16.04 $19.86 $24.58
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $20.57 $23.49 $27.62 $32.04 $41.04
Healthcare Support $8.26 $9.35 $10.59 $11.97 $13.75
Protective Service $13.22 $15.62 $17.90 $20.34 $22.50
Food Preparation and Serving Related $7.83 $8.31 $9.06 $9.89 $10.93
Building and Grounds Cleaning and
Maintenance $8.46 $9.46 $10.68 $12.13 $14.24
Personal Care and Service $8.59 $9.45 $10.48 $11.86 $13.71
Sales and Related $10.53 $12.07 $14.26 $17.54 $22.94
Office and Administrative Support $9.81 $10.98 $12.63 $14.99 $17.27
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry $9.98 $11.06 $12.34 $13.76 $15.52
Construction and Extraction $12.12 $13.71 $15.91 $18.30 $20.91
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair $14.14 $16.12 $18.81 $21.75 $25.13
Production $12.17 $13.48 $15.38 $17.60 $19.70
Transportation and Material Moving $10.73 $12.10 $14.00 $16.63 $20.16
Military $10.41 $15.93 $18.70 $19.81 $34.90
Total $12.23 $13.90 $16.20 $19.20 $23.07
However, hourly pay by itself does not offer a complete the complete picture. How
does pay in Brookings compare to other cities across the Great Plains. Do Brookings
employers pay competitive-enough wages to make moving to town attractive? The
next table compares wages in Brookings County to pay the regional average at each
pay level. The regional average includes average pay aggregated from nine
surrounding states from Minnesota to Montana to Colorado to Iowa. Each cell in the
table contains the ratio of pay in Brookings to pay in the greater region. A value of
100% means that pay for that occupation is equal to pay across the region.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Human Talent Research 5
Pay ratios are useful to inform policy decisions about workforce shortages. For
instance, protective service workers are well-paid in Brookings, with the median
worker making 128% of the regional wage. However, pay for management
occupations Is very low, at just 70% of the regional median. Pay in Brookings also
lags for business workers and computer- and math-related occupations. Local
employers facing troubles finding qualified employees for business and finance,
management, and information technology work should first raise their pay before
enacting more aggressive measures.
Brookings Pay Ratio
Occupation Group
Pct 10
Hourly
Earning
s
Pct 25
Hourly
Earning
s
Median
Hourly
Earning
s
Pct 75
Hourly
Earning
s
Pct 90
Hourly
Earning
s
Management 74.0% 72.3% 69.9% 68.5% 65.3%
Business and Financial Operations 87.7% 86.2% 86.1% 83.5% 82.3%
Computer and Mathematical 92.6% 87.3% 83.8% 81.0% 77.8%
Architecture and Engineering 98.7% 95.5% 92.7% 89.1% 88.3%
Life, Physical, and Social Science 108.5% 103.4% 101.4% 99.7% 101.4%
Community and Social Service 93.7% 92.2% 90.7% 88.4% 84.3%
Legal 95.6% 92.9% 87.9% 84.7% 76.0%
Education, Training, and Library 111.0% 109.6% 107.3% 104.6% 106.6%
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and
Media 94.3% 90.0% 88.5% 87.5% 87.8%
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical 96.5% 92.3% 92.0% 90.1% 98.5%
Healthcare Support 94.5% 93.0% 92.7% 90.4% 89.1%
Protective Service 135.8% 131.2% 128.3% 124.1% 124.5%
Food Preparation and Serving Related 102.0% 102.1% 103.1% 102.2% 100.8%
Building and Grounds Cleaning and
Maintenance 112.0% 113.0% 112.9% 111.7% 110.3%
Personal Care and Service 99.8% 98.4% 98.8% 99.1% 98.7%
Sales and Related 101.4% 95.9% 89.4% 86.1% 84.3%
Office and Administrative Support 97.4% 93.9% 91.9% 90.0% 89.8%
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry 135.7% 129.3% 130.9% 120.2% 117.1%
Construction and Extraction 105.2% 102.8% 100.3% 98.2% 98.6%
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair 97.6% 94.9% 93.0% 92.2% 92.6%
Production 113.9% 114.1% 111.3% 108.0% 107.6%
Transportation and Material Moving 101.4% 99.6% 98.2% 99.3% 101.3%
Military 103.8% 93.5% 92.9% 94.8% 82.6%
Total 97.0% 94.1% 91.8% 89.5% 89.0%
Baseline is a 9-state region surrounding SD
Source: QCEW Employees, Non-QCEW Employees & Self-Employed - EMSI 2013.4 Class of Worker
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Human Talent Research 6
Pay in other occupations paints a different picture. Pay is very competitive for
production occupations (typically those critical to manufacturing), particularly at the
entry level. Competitive wages coupled with many open jobs is a sign of a true labor
force shortage. Recent workforce surveys project the need for production workers to
continue.
Wages for production work are creeping up in Brookings in response to the shortage,
yet a job paying $12-20 per hour may not be enough to entice a worker from another
city to relocate. Brookings will need to enact varying tactics to fill the gap, including
skills training, continued pay increases, and target worker recruiting.
Lamentations by recent college graduates of low pay for entry-level jobs or the
inability to find work is a sign that many wish to stay in Brookings. Recent graduates
are flooding the labor market. In the globalized economy of the future, talent
production is a competitive advantage. Young people move to Brookings for an
education, then migrate elsewhere. As this talent spreads across the world, its loose
ties back to Brookings remain, strengthening the region’s global economic footprint.
Migration could solve the region’s labor shortage. Skilled workers are increasingly
sophisticated consumers of place, yet most migration is intra-regional. About 60% of
migrants relocate within the same county. Research suggests that when people
move for reasons related to amenities and aesthetics – such as housing, schools,
arts, or parks – they tend to stay within to the same region. It’s the prospect of
employment that drives workers to move to a new region. People follow jobs.
Brookings is situated between two of the best performing small metropolitan areas in
America: Fargo and Sioux Falls. Many communities in the region offer similar
qualities and amenities, causing the appearance of competition. Population growth
may need to come from outside a broader geographic radius. Communities across
the upper Great Plains should avoid competing for local residents and use the
prospect of jobs to entice workers from across the country.
Local talent policy is a complex equation with no simple solution. This makes a multi-
faceted approach to talent policy critical:
Brookings should showcase its unique attributes and amenities to residents
within the region, but the pitch to workers from other areas of the country
should focus on jobs.
People follow jobs, and employment is the primary force causing SDSU
graduates to stay in the community.
Fewer workers may be willing to relocate for middle-skill, middle wage
occupations. Relocation decisions for these workers might be more influenced
by cost of living and housing.
Skills training is critical to help workers already living in the area fill
increasingly technical positions.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Human Talent Research 7
Bolstering the Brookings Brand
Recent years have witnessed a strong revival in higher-paid blue-collar industries in
the United States. This blue-collar resurgence seems likely to be more than a merely
cyclical phenomenon. The U.S. edge in energy and manufacturing, increasingly
linked, has sparked major new investments by both domestic and foreign producers.
Other factors are sparking this revival including rising wages in China as well as
sometimes unpredictable business conditions that are leading some U.S. companies
to move some production to America from China.
For Brookings this trend holds both promise and peril. More domestic manufacturing
means more business for local companies; on the other hand, more manufacturing
means more competition for skilled manufacturing talent.
The Brookings Area Community Survey provides some potent indicators of what
makes Brookings a highly desirable community; it also points to the factors that may
keep people from choosing Brookings as a home.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Human Talent Research 8
High Desirability Factors
Small Town/Community Feel/Family Friendly/Midwest Values/Quality of Life
Safe/Secure/Quiet/Peaceful
Friendly/Welcoming/Neighbors/Neighborhoods
Lots of Events/Amenities/Big Town Atmosphere/Things to Do/Sports
SDSU/SDSU Athletics and Events
Low Desirability Factors
Lack of Retail/Shopping Dining Options
Streets/Roads/Traffic
A proactive recruiting strategy aimed at filling the looming gap in production workers
should be targeted at second and tier cities in areas of declining manufacturing
activity, namely in the industrial mid-West, aka as the Rust Belt. Some specific
tactics for implementing this strategy include:
1. Identifying regions fitting this profile where Brookings based companies are
already doing business with a supplier or customer. Once identified, carry out
very focused promotions and advertising using local conventional media or
social media.
2. Organizing and conducting specialized training courses in Brookings that will
appeal to workers from outside the region. While they are there for the training
Brookings can make them aware of the opportunities, lifestyle and amenities
that are available.
The
Resurgence
of
the
Great
Plains
One
of
the
least
anticipated
developments
in
the
global
geography
of
the
21st-‐century
is
the
resurgence
of
the
Great
Plains
of
North
America.
For
much
of
the
past
century
the
Great
Plains
–
a
vast
area
that
constitutes
the
largest
part
of
the
North
American
continent
–
has
been
caricatured
as
a
“great
mistake.”
Yet
in
the
next
few
decades
the
Plains
States
and
Prairie
Provinces
could
well
prove
a
critical
asset
for
the
entire
continent.
Indeed
during
the
recent
global
economic
crisis
and
even
before,
the
Plains
and
Prairie
region
–
stretching
from
the
edge
of
the
Arctic
in
Canada
to
northern
Mexico
–
has
been
experiencing
a
largely
unheralded
economic
and
social
revival.
Key
Factors
for
the
Resurgence
1.
The
importance
of
energy
resources
is
increasing,
notably
natural
gas,
oil
and
uranium,
all
likely
to
experience
growing
demand.
The
region
also
has
ample
wind
resources
–
leading
some
to
label
it
“the
Saudi
Arabia
of
wind”
–
and
it
is
home
to
major
biomass
energy
potential.
2.
Agriculture
has
long
provided
the
region’s
economic
base.
As
demand,
particularly
from
developing
countries,
increases,
the
market
for
food
and
fiber
seems
destined
to
continue
its
rather
powerful
upward
trend.
3.
An
archipelago
of
urban
hubs
and
rural
hotspots
is
emerging.
States
such
as
North
and
South
Dakota,
Oklahoma
and
the
Province
of
Manitoba
are
all
reversing
their
historical
patterns
of
out
migration.
Growing
immigration
from
abroad
has
contributed
to
an
improving
and
diversifying
demographic
profile.
The
region
is
urbanizing,
and
some
small
and
medium‐sized
cities
enjoy
the
fastest
job
growth
on
the
continent.
4.
Industrial
development
has
been
far
more
robust
in
the
Plains
states
and
provinces
than
in
other
regions.
Lower
costs,
cheaper
energy
and
better
business
climate
all
are
contributing
to
this
shift.
This
transition
of
jobs
and
industries
also
extends
to
fields
such
as
travel,
insurance
and
finance,
all
of
which
have
grown
in
the
region.
5.
The
Plains
is
increasingly
evolving
into
North
America’s
“Brain
Belt”.
The
region
has
long
boosted
better
education
scores
than
most
coastal
communities.
Plains
states
have
a
high
percentage
of
college-‐educated
people
under
34
among
the
states.
There
is
also
rapid
growth
of
technology
corridors,
including
around
Winnipeg,
the
Red
River
Valley,
Sioux
Falls
and
in
parts
of
the
Texas
prairie.
BROOKINGS
ON
THE
PLAINS
Thriving
in
the
21st
Century
R
From
The
Rise
of
the
Great
Plains:
Regional
Opportunity
in
the
21st
Century,”
by
Joel
Kotkin,
Praxis
Strategy
Group
&
the
Texas
Tech
University
Center
for
Geospatial
Technology.
The Demographics of Migration
Mark Schill, Praxis Strategy Group
Mark@praxissg.com, 701-775-3354
Who Moves
This analysis was prepared on behalf of the Brookings, South Dakota Economic Development Corporation.
Brookings is facing a workforce shortage of middle-skilled manufacturing workers. This analysis offers a frame to
enact policy to recruit workers from other regions. All data referenced in this report is sourced from the Current
Population Survey via the U.S. Census Bureau and covers the 2012-2013 time period.
U.S. Census data from the Current Population Survey paints a picture of mobility across the nation. In the most
recent year (2012‐2013) 35.9 million Americans relocated, accounting for 11.7% of the total population. The
migrating population is dominated by people in their 20s, more than 10 million movers or 29% of the total
migrating population. Thirty‐to‐forty year olds accounted for another six million movers, but migration tails off
steadily as Americans age.
Accounting for nearly one third of all migrants, 20‐to‐30 year old are also the most likely to move in a given year.
Nearly one quarter of that age 20‐24 relocated last year, followed by 23.2% of 25‐29 year olds. Like the total
number of migrants, migration rates tail off as we age. Not surprisingly, young children under age five are the
third most likely to migrate age group, a sign that having a child triggers a life stage shift and relocation.
The aging of the huge Baby Boom generation will cause the ranks of seniors to grow in the short term, but –
contrary to many media reports – seniors tend to age in placei. The Current Population Survey data shows
seniors with some of the lowest migration rates of any age group.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation National Migration Data, Page 1
Where Do They Go?
Somewhat surprisingly, American migration is largely intra‐regional. People tend to stay in the same general
vicinity of where they began. Of all movers last year, nearly two‐thirds stayed within the same county while just
13% crossed state lines.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation National Migration Data, Page 2
Americans are most likely to move across state lines during their “college” and post‐college ages, particularly
the late 20s. Americans in their 30s are the second most likely to make a big move, but less than 2.5% of
Americans
in their 30s moved across state lines last year. Young children share a similar migration rate to the 30‐40
age group.
Seasoned professionals age 40‐60 are by far the least likely to relocate to a different state. However,
retirement appears to spur longer‐distance moves, but still less than 2% of seniors relocated across state lines
last year.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation National Migration Data, Page 3
Americans with advanced degrees are more likely to relocate across state lines. Individuals with at least a
bachelor’s degree switched states at twice the rate as those older than 25 with no high school diploma. More
education is your best ticket out of town. Those without a degree stand to be subject to the whim of the
economy where they currently reside. Even considering the higher migration rates of those with a degree, only
about 2% of degree holders moved to a new state last year.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation National Migration Data, Page 4
The prospect of finding a job appears to be major driver of migration. Nearly one fifth of unemployed Americans
moved last year, and the unemployed switched states at nearly twice the rate of those currently holding a job.
However, the flow of unemployed workers migrating was just 13% that of employed workers, and just 354,000
unemployed moved across state lines last year.
Total
Movers
(000)
Relocation
Rate
Total
Changing
States (000)
Changing
States
Total 16+ years
Employed (civilian)
Unemployed
Armed Forces
Not in labor force
27,591 11.2% 3,777 1.5%
16,950 11.9% 2,078 1.5%
2,291 18.9% 354 2.9%
259 28.1% 111 12.1%
8,091 8.9% 1,234 1.4%
Of the migrants who do cross county lines in their move – roughly one third of all migrants – 40% remain within
50 miles of their past residence and one quarter move more than 500 miles, as shown in the following table.
These patterns tend to hold for all age groups except 65‐74 year olds, who are much more likely to migrate
across longer distances.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation National Migration Data, Page 5
2,401
603
1,763
1,699
2,711
1,902
377
275
42.6% 18.7% 14.2% 24.4%
40.8% 23.4% 13.9% 21.9%
41.6% 22.3% 12.8% 23.3%
39.6% 18.9% 16.7% 24.8%
41.3% 20.0% 12.9% 25.8%
37.5% 23.2% 15.2% 24.1%
28.4% 27.1% 13.5% 31.3%
37.8% 25.1% 13.1% 24.0%
633
1,969
1,911
1,640
811
4,767
37.0% 25.9% 17.9% 19.4%
40.9% 24.1% 14.4% 20.5%
45.0% 17.7% 13.0% 24.3%
36.5% 18.6% 14.4% 30.5%
26.9% 23.7% 15.8% 33.7%
42.1% 20.6% 13.7% 23.7%
The pattern of long distance migration varies more by education level. Individuals with advanced degrees are
much more likely to migrate across longer distances. Those with professional or graduate degrees are more
likely to move 500 miles than to remain within 50 miles of home. This is a clear indication that the job market is
national for this small group of workers.
Table: Distance of Move for Inter‐county Migrants by Age and Education
Total
Less
than 50
miles
50 to
199
miles
200 to
499
miles
500
miles or
more
Total Inter‐county Movers 11,731 40.2% 21.0% 14.2% 24.7%
By Age
Under 16 years
16 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 44 years
45 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75+ years
By Education
Not a high school graduate
High school graduate
Some college or AA degree
Bachelor's degree
Prof. or graduate degree
Persons age 1‐24
The next table depicts distance of move for intercounty movers by income, occupation, and industry. Higher
income households are more likely to move across long distances, while more lower‐income households stay
within 200 miles.
This pattern holds true when considered by occupation as well. White collar workers stay within 50 miles at about
the same rate as other occupations, but are also the most likely to move long distances. Blue collar occupations –
particularly construction, installation and maintenance, and also production workers – stay within 50 miles much
more often and are less likely to relocate across long distances. Other lower‐paying occupations, such as service and
office workers, follow similar patterns as the blue collar occupations.
These occupation trends translate to industries. For example workers in professional and business services industries
are about twice as likely to migrate long distances than workers in construction and manufacturing. Migrants who are
currently employed are generally more likely to remain within 50 miles than the average inter‐ county migrant. Forty
percent of inter‐county migrant move less than 50 miles, but that average is driven down by the lower share of the
unemployed (33%) making short‐distance moves.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation National Migration Data, Page 6
578
930
969
876
1,010
778
650
826
642
2,073
35.3% 27.2% 15.7% 21.8%
41.1% 27.3%
27.2%
14.5% 17.1%
40.8% 13.8% 18.2%
40.3% 20.4% 13.4% 26.0%
43.3% 16.9% 15.0% 24.8%
37.4%
37.4%
22.6% 14.3% 25.7%
18.0% 14.8% 29.7%
44.7% 18.8% 9.6% 27.0%
41.7% 18.4% 13.6% 26.3%
36.3% 20.3% 15.3% 28.1%
827
1,352
1,069
582
648
63
267
202
284
256
3,780
40.9%
40.8%
18.9% 14.4% 25.9%
20.3% 12.4% 26.6%
45.5% 25.4%
25.4%
13.6% 15.5%
39.0% 12.0% 23.5%
47.7% 18.2% 7.6% 26.7%
28.6% 19.0% 34.9% 17.5%
52.8% 18.7% 12.4% 15.7%
53.0% 11.9% 21.8% 13.4%
48.2% 25.7% 10.6% 15.5%
42.6% 26.6% 13.3% 17.6%
33.7% 21.6% 16.1% 28.7%
92
62
344
552
743
208
137
377
698
1,212
670
264
192
22.8% 25.0% 35.9% 16.3%
32.3% 25.8% 22.6% 19.4%
47.4% 23.3% 13.7% 15.4%
46.2% 26.6% 11.4% 15.8%
39.2% 24.8% 10.1% 25.8%
41.8% 19.7% 11.1% 27.4%
46.7% 11.7% 14.6% 27.0%
46.4% 16.4% 13.8% 23.3%
42.6% 16.2% 11.0% 30.1%
43.6% 21.9% 13.5% 21.0%
46.9% 25.5% 8.7% 18.8%
47.7% 18.2% 18.2% 15.9%
42.2% 15.1% 19.3% 24.0%
3,780 33.7% 21.6% 16.1% 28.7%
Table: Distance of Move for Inter‐county Migrants by Income, Occupation, and Industry
Total
Less
than 50
miles
50 to
199
miles
200 to
499
miles
500
miles or
more
Total Inter‐county Movers Age 16+ 9,330 39.6% 21.5% 14.1% 24.7%
By Household Income in 2012
Under $10,000 or loss
$10,000 to $19,999
$20,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $69,999
$70,000 to $84,999
$85,000 to $99,999
$100,000 and over
By Major Occupation
Management, business, and financial
Professional
Service
Sales
Office and administrative support
Farming, fishing, and forestry
Construction and extraction
Installation, maintenance, and repair
Production
Transportation and material moving
Not employed civilian
By Major Industry
Agricultural, forestry, fishing, and hunting
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale and retail trade
Transportation and utilities
Information
Financial activities
Professional and business services
Educational and health services
Leisure and hospitality
Other services
Public administration
Not employed civilian
Brookings Economic Development Corporation National Migration Data, Page 7
8,328
1,948
5,416
4,915
8,288
5,443
935
645
30.8% 17.3% 50.6% 1.4%
34.5% 14.6% 46.8% 4.1%
31.3% 19.5% 45.7% 3.5%
31.0% 23.6% 42.5% 2.8%
27.6% 22.7% 48.3% 1.4%
29.6% 17.8% 50.4% 2.3%
29.9% 12.6% 52.8% 4.5%
36.3% 11.2% 46.0% 6.7%
2,579
5,776
5,639
4,188
2,045
15,692
29.2% 14.7% 54.2% 1.9%
32.0% 16.3% 49.2% 2.4%
2.3% 32.7% 17.2% 47.8%
25.8% 28.3% 43.2% 2.7%
20.2% 35.2% 42.8% 1.9%
31.4% 17.7% 48.4% 2.4%
Reasons for Moving
Nearly half of the 36 million Americans who moved last year did so for a housing‐related reason. Another 30%
moved for family reasons and about one fifth relocated due to factors related to employment. The age groups of
25‐29 and 30‐44 were the most likely to relocate for employment reasons.
Workers who have completed higher education degrees – particularly post‐graduate – are much more likely to
relocate for employment‐related reasons than the average migrant.
Table: Reason for Move by Age and Education
Number of
Movers
(000) Family Employment Housing Other
All Movers 35,918 30.3% 19.4% 48.0% 2.3%
By Age
Under 16 years
16 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 44 years
45 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75+ years
By Education
Not a high school graduate
High school graduate
Some college or AA degree
Bachelor's degree
Prof. or graduate degree
Persons age 1‐24
However for the purposes of attracting workers into a region in order to grow the workforce, the reasons spurring
inter‐county migration carry more importance. The 30‐45 year old age group is the most likely to move between
counties for employment‐related reasons, with 40% of moves driven by work. Seniors are most likely to switch
counties for family‐related reasons, perhaps providing an opportunity for a community like Brookings to reach out to
retirees with a family connection to the university or local industry.
In terms of education, the highly‐educated are by far the most likely to relocate for employment‐related
reasons.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation National Migration Data, Page 8
2,401
603
1,763
1,699
2,711
1,902
377
275
32.1% 33.9% 32.4% 1.6%
33.5% 29.9% 32.0% 4.5%
4.5% 27.2% 36.5% 31.8%
30.9% 38.9% 26.3% 4.0%
26.1% 40.5% 31.9% 1.5%
33.8% 31.0% 32.4% 2.8%
43.0% 19.1% 34.0% 4.0%
54.9% 10.9% 26.2% 8.0%
633
1,969
1,911
1,640
811
4,767
35.2% 27.0% 34.3%
34.2%
3.5%
36.1% 26.6% 3.1%
35.7% 28.8% 32.8% 2.7%
25.9% 44.8% 26.4% 3.0%
18.1% 58.1% 22.1% 1.6%
30.5% 34.3% 32.1% 3.0%
Table: Reason for Inter‐county Move by Age and Education
Number of
Movers
(000) Family Employment Housing Other
All Movers 11,731 31.0% 34.8% 31.2% 2.9%
By Age
Under 16 years
16 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 29 years
30 to 44 years
45 to 64 years
65 to 74 years
75+ years
By Education
Not a high school graduate
High school graduate
Some college or AA degree
Bachelor's degree
Prof. or graduate degree
Persons age 1‐24
The final table breaks down reasons for inter‐county relocation by income, occupation, and industry. Higher income
households are the most likely to relocate for employment‐related reasons and family is a less frequent driver for
these households. Housing tops the list for the lowest income households.
Aside from farm production workers, professionals managers, and finance workers top the list as the most likely to
relocate for employment. Production workers cross county lines for work‐related reasons about one third of the
time.
Employment‐related migration is the most common in natural resource‐based industries, but is also relatively
frequent cause of moves for professional services industries, government, manufacturing, and finance.
Manufacturing workers do not appear to be reticent to cross county lines for work, yet the higher frequency of
work‐related moves for high‐income households and the lower rates of moves for production workers suggest that
moves may be occurring for higher paying, higher skilled manufacturing positions.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation National Migration Data, Page 9
578
930
969
876
1,010
778
650
826
642
2,073
34.6% 27.0% 32.7% 5.7%
33.2% 25.1% 37.5% 4.1%
31.9% 32.7% 32.2% 3.3%
37.8% 30.9% 28.9% 2.4%
34.6% 32.3% 31.9% 1.3%
33.4% 35.5% 26.1% 5.1%
5.1% 25.2% 38.5% 31.2%
24.7% 41.9% 30.8% 2.7%
31.9% 38.5% 26.5% 3.0%
26.0% 41.1% 30.2% 2.7%
827
1,352
1,069
582
648
63
267
202
284
256
3,780
22.9% 44.9% 30.8% 1.3%
24.3% 50.9% 22.6% 2.2%
33.9% 29.4% 32.5% 4.2%
30.2% 36.8% 28.0% 5.0%
37.2% 34.4% 25.8% 2.6%
14.3% 63.5% 22.2% ‐
23.6% 34.8% 39.7% 1.5%
25.7% 31.2% 42.1% 0.5%
32.0% 33.5% 32.0% 2.5%
28.5% 35.2% 35.2% 1.6%
34.0% 28.7% 33.3% 4.1%
92
62
344
552
743
208
137
377
698
1,212
670
264
192
13.0% 67.4% 19.6% ‐
‐ 25.8% 50.0% 24.2%
23.8% 32.8% 42.2% 1.2%
26.4% 42.4% 27.9% 3.3%
33.1% 35.4% 28.4% 3.1%
26.4% 41.8% 29.8% 1.9%
24.1% 39.4% 34.3% 2.9%
32.4% 42.2% 23.6% 1.9%
1.9% 29.5% 43.8% 24.9%
24.8% 41.7% 31.0% 2.5%
34.5%
34.5%
30.9% 28.5% 6.1%
32.6% 32.2% 0.8%
24.0% 43.8% 31.3% 1.0%
3,780 34.0% 28.7% 33.3% 4.1%
Table: Reason for Move for Inter‐county Migrants by Income, Occupation, and Industry
Total Family-
related
reason
Employment-
related
reason
Housing-
related
reason
Other
reason
Total Inter‐county Movers Age 16+ 9,330 30.8% 35.1% 30.9% 3.3%
By Household Income in 2012
Under $10,000 or loss
$10,000 to $19,999
$20,000 to $29,999
$30,000 to $39,999
$40,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $59,999
$60,000 to $69,999
$70,000 to $84,999
$85,000 to $99,999
$100,000 and over
By Major Occupation
Management, business, and financial
Professional
Service
Sales
Office and administrative support
Farming, fishing, and forestry
Construction and extraction
Installation, maintenance, and repair
Production
Transportation and material moving
Not employed civilian
By Major Industry
Agricultural, forestry, fishing, & hunting
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale and retail trade
Transportation and utilities
Information
Financial activities
Professional and business services
Educational and health services
Leisure and hospitality
Other services
Public administration
Not employed civilian
Brookings Economic Development Corporation National Migration Data, Page 10
Manufacturing Workforce Strategy:
Closing the Manufacturing Talent Gap in Brookings
The Wall Street Journal reports that 2013 saw the biggest increase in new manufacturing orders in more than
two‐and‐a‐half years, while The Manufacturing Institute reports that almost 600,000 jobs have been added to
the industry during the same timeframe. This growth has the industry thinking of expansion and innovation. It
has also highlighted a trend that threatens to undo plans for future growth: a severe shortage of manufacturing
talent. Moreover, with a smaller talent pool, there is more competition for the best talent available.
Technological advancements within the industry have increased need for a highly skilled workforce, compounded
by the lack of students coming through the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) pipeline and the
problem seem to grow larger over time. The skills needed are often highly specialized ‐ some so new that they
didn't exist just a few years ago – reflective of the pace of innovation in today's economy.
In the face of this gap, industry leaders across the nation and in Brookings must also contend with aging
workforces, negative perceptions of the industry, and a lack of up‐and‐coming workers with the interest or
training they need for available positions.ii A recent survey conducted by the Fabricators & Manufacturers
Association, 52 percent of U.S. teenagers have little or no interest in a manufacturing career; respondents said
they thought manufacturing was a declining field with unprofessional, dead‐end jobs, dirty factories and
frequent layoffs. Public school systems frequently emphasize traditional, four‐year college degrees rather than
specialty skills training. Many Americans think that manufacturing jobs are good jobs but for “someone else.”
The New Manufacturing Workforce
The manufacturing landscape has changed, so it is only logical that the recruiting techniques need to change
accordingly. In the good old days of manufacturing, recruiters would look to local high schools when going after
new employees. If the graduates weren’t attending college or joining the military, they were good candidates for
manufacturing positions.iii
Spherion’s 2013 Emerging Workforce Study reports that manufacturing employees are among the most loyal
and hardest working, and tend to have more traditional mindsets at work. But the study also reveals that these
workers have a relatively high dissatisfaction with both training and career development opportunities and
growth potential offered by today’s employers.
According to the Spherion study the recession has birthed a new type of business model and caused a
resurgence of an emergent worker mentality, one that focuses on a free agency‐style employment. In this kind
of flex‐centric environment non‐metro communities like Brookings may be at a disadvantage in attracting
workers due to the perceived (perhaps real) limited range of job opportunities when compared to larger cities.
On the other hand a recent study by the Families and Work Institute found that 85 percent of the manufacturing
employees surveyed reported that having the flexibility needed to manage work and personal life would be
“extremely” or “very” important when considering a new job.iv This increasing demand for workplace flexibility
is a trend that crosses genders and spans generations – with women, men, Gen Y, and Baby Boomers desiring
more flexibility to balance their work and personal lives.
There is no universal lure or program that attracts everyone. But creating alignment behind companies’
compensation and perks and the community’s quality of life and amenities can be effective.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Manufacturing Workforce Strategy, Page 1
Target the Right People
Jeff Turner, writing for manufacturing.net, says the ideal manufacturing worker has a “gearhead” mentality for
mechanics; that is a curiosity for problem solving, multitasking and making things work better. A true
“gearhead,” according to Turner, loves the thrill of mechanics both on and off the job, and car shows are a great
place to engage with these individuals in a more casual element.
Women represent manufacturing’s largest pool of untapped talent.v Overall, the women surveyed by Deloitte in
a national survey are pleased with the quality of jobs in manufacturing with over 75 percent agreeing that a
manufacturing career is interesting and rewarding. Participants highlighted compensation (37 percent) and
opportunities for challenging assignments (34 percent) as the top reasons to stay in the industry. Based largely
on these attributes, over half of the women surveyed agreed that if they were starting their careers today, they
would choose to pursue a job in manufacturing.
However, only one of five respondents (20 percent) believes that manufacturing currently does a good job of
presenting itself to women candidates. The sentiment is even stronger among women with bachelor’s and
master’s degrees. This finding implies that manufacturing careers are being overlooked by the well‐educated
talent pool that is necessary to drive product innovation and competitiveness.
Business Strategies for Recruitment and Attraction
Rather than relying solely on searching through a shallow pool of talent at the back end of vocational or
undergraduate school, companies can start attracting and engaging potential employees from a different angle.
Social Media
o Today’s job‐seekers are using social media to look for employment. If a company
doesn’t have a social media presence or isn’t using it as a recruiting platform, it is
missing out on reaching and engaging potential talent.
o A company’s online reputation is highly influential in employees’ willingness to join an
employer and their ongoing satisfaction and loyalty. The Spherion study reports that
nearly half (47%) of workers strongly agree/agree that “When considering new
employment, a company’s online reputation will be equally important as the offer I am
given.” This is particularly true for Generation Y workers, with 55% strongly
agreeing/agreeing.
o Manufacturing organizations should not only be posting positions online — via job
posting sites, the corporate website, and social media channels such as LinkedIn — they
should be promoting their workplace culture and company identity. Virtual communities
via Facebook or Twitter, are both channels that can be used to get the word out.
Business – Education Partnerships
o Successful companies in today's STEM‐focused industries must once again foster close
working relationships with educational institutions, sharing vision and collaborating to
create programs designed and equipped to train the workforce of the future, for the
future. These go well beyond on‐campus recruiting days to developing custom
curricula, integrating working experience with schooling, and identifying and developing
promising candidates early in their academic careers.
Internship and apprenticeship programs to reach, train and engage with people
earlier in their careers.
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Manufacturing Workforce Strategy, Page 2
Academies and/or public charter school partnerships between school districts,
community and technical colleges and manufacturing companies where students
learn industry‐specific skills and enjoy post‐secondary opportunities.
Use networks of existing employees when looking to fill open positions
o Ask your employees for assistance and offer them an incentive for bringing in qualified
talent. Existing employees know the requirements for the positions and can pass on
that information to qualified candidates. This will make the recruiter’s job easier since
the candidates are qualified and not just submitting resumes to posted job openings.
“Results‐driven” culture
o Manufacturers should consider shifting from a “presence‐driven” culture to a “results‐
driven” culture. Many leading companies recognize and reward individuals and teams
who drive results, regardless of when and where work is being done. These companies
are providing support for this cultural shift by training managers on techniques for
leading and evaluating the performance of virtual teams. Research shows that that
when manufacturing employers offer more workplace flexibility, job satisfaction, job
engagement, physical health status, mental health status, and the likelihood of
remaining with one’s current employer are significantly higher.
Regional Recruitment: Strategies to Attract & Retain Newcomers
In Crookston, Minnesota, a community with a lot in common with Brookings, a 2010 study indicated that there
were a number of factors that were important in the newcomer decision to move. vi
To find a less congested place to live (77%)
A better environment for raising children (75%)
To find better quality local schools (69%)
To find a safer place to live (69%)
To lower the cost of housing (66%)
To find a simpler pace of life (66%)
To find more outdoor recreational activities (63%)
To be closer to relatives (62%)
To live in a desirable natural environment (60%)
To lower the cost of living (53%)
The Crookston region newcomers utilized a variety of sources of information when making their decision to
move.
Family (53%)
Internet (36%)
Friends and acquaintances (32%)
Current community resident (25%)
Employer or co‐workers (25%)
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Manufacturing Workforce Strategy, Page 3
Crookston’s Getting On the Map Strategies for Potential Recruits
Strategy: Provide avenues for potential newcomers to learn more about the region. This strategy can provide
a big challenge as the infrastructure is not entirely in place. Recruitment is not about tourism, it’s about
supporting those that are at a life‐changing point in their life – pulling up roots and moving them to the
prairie‐ waters part of the state. New residents are looking for information about jobs, businesses for sale,
available properties, and opportunities for children to be involved in school.
Strategy: Provide a resource that allows potential newcomers to establish a personal connection to the
region. The movement of newcomers to the region over the past twenty years has occurred without a
concerted effort by those in the region to attract or recruit them. This effort is described as a one‐stop‐shop
whereby interested parties can identify their skills, interests, and motivations while the regional recruitment
collaborative can provide them with a type of “matching service” based on their profile.
Strategy: Engage with real estate agents and property owners to track motivations and interests of
newcomers. These housing agents are on the front lines of potential newcomer connections and can track the
“pulse” of new migrants to the region. The benefits of this engagement serve the interests of both the regional
recruitment team as well as the agents themselves.
Branding Community and Company
The Brookings Area Community Survey provides some potent indicators of what makes Brookings a highly
desirable community; many of these parallel those important factors identified in the Crookston
recruitment and attraction study.
Small Town/Community Feel/Family Friendly/Midwest Values/Quality of Life
Safe/Secure/Quiet/Peaceful
Friendly/Welcoming/Neighbors/Neighborhoods
Lots of Events/Amenities/Big Town Atmosphere/Things to Do/Sports
SDSU/SDSU Athletics and Events
Spherion’s Emerging Workforce Study finds that the new workforce has been shown to have a much stronger
desire for corporate mission and values. Employers who have a clear mission and follow‐through on that
mission have higher levels of satisfied workers, better employee retention and a greater number of employee
referrals – all vastly increasing corporate productivity. How this emphasis on mission and values translates for
workers into choosing and staying at a company and a community is not entirely certain. Nonetheless, it
seems apparent that a clear mission and values (i.e. a brand) for both a company and a community will create
a competitive advantage for places where the two are clear and aligned.
i Frey, William. “Baby Boomers and the New Demographics of America’s Seniors,” Journal of the American Society of Aging.
http://www.frey‐demographer.org/reports/R‐2010‐1_Gens_34_3_p_28_37.pdf
ii Jeff Turner. “Recruit And Retain: Strategies To Close The Manufacturing Talent Gap.” manufacturing.net 2/05/2014
iii Michelle Benjamin. “Recruiting and Filling Manufacturing Jobs Require New Tactics” industry market trends. February
19th, 2014
iv Families and Work Institute, 2008 National Study of the Changing Workforce, Workplace Flexibility in Manufacturing
Companies, 2011.
v Deloitte: Manufacturing Institute. Untapped resource How manufacturers can attract, retain, and advance talented women. 2013
vi Ben Winchester, Regional Recruitment: Strategies to Attract and Retain Newcomers. The EDA Center at the University of Minnesota, Crookston. 2010
Brookings Economic Development Corporation Manufacturing Workforce Strategy, Page 4
Brookings Economic Scenarios from 2007 Charrette
Manufacturing Powerhouse
Brookings has taken its standing as a robust epicenter of competitive manufacturing companies to the next level.
Companies of all sizes, across synergistic industry clusters are competing in global markets because of their high
productivity, innovation and automation. A skilled work force of management, design and engineering, production and
service personnel is adaptable and prepared to meet the challenges of extreme capitalism characterized by a constant drive
toward lower costs and higher quality. The Brookings area is infrastructure ready, capable of handling the facility and
service needs of startups as well as the area’s many expanding companies. The housing and daycare needs of personnel are
met effectively and affordably. Capital is readily available to meet the needs of businesses throughout the lifecycle.
Education and training is readily available due to excellent partnerships between business, SDSU, the region’s technical
schools and government.
Summarized
Robust epicenter of competitive manufacturing
Compete in global markets, innovate, automate
Skilled and educated labor force resulting from partnerships with business, SDSU, tech schools, and government
Infrastructure ready community
Available capital
Affordable and accessible housing and services (daycare)
TechKnow Hotspot
SDSU is recognized nationally for scholarship and scientific advances in renewable energy, health, nutrition and astutely
targeted bioscience niches of global significance. The knowledge economy is thriving here and the applications of
technology and technical know-how are growing by leaps and bounds. Enrollment at SDSU has surpassed 13,000 as more
students, both domestic and international, come to the campus for an expanded number of majors. Many students find the
opportunity for learning and internships with local high-tech businesses – combined with small town life – all too alluring
to bypass. The new “lifestyle residential areas” and fine restaurants adjacent to the campus attract a growing number of
students, downshifting boomers, and retirees who relish the vibrancy of a university campus. Converting science into
business through technology transfer is now a science in Brookings with the Innovation Campus leading the charge. Just a
few short years ago it was growing crops and now it’s a highly wired, robust breeding ground for new ideas, innovations
and economic opportunities. A medley of new technology and light industrial companies have joined those that sprung up
in the early part of the century, attracted by the well-educated workforce and the region’s state-of-the-art business parks.
Fewer fingerprints and more brainwaves right here in Brookings.
Summarized
SDSU is nationally-recognized research university
13,000+ enrollment at SDSU
Expanded majors and collaboration with local high-tech businesses for internships
Mixed-use “lifestyle” areas attract students, YPs, boomers, and retirees
Innovation Campus leads technology transfer and research commercialization
New technology companies attracted to area by state-of-the-art business parks
Well-educated workforce
Boomer Town
The population tidal wave of the boomer generation has hit the shores of Brookings. If 70 is indeed the new 50 then this is
the place to be because the full-range of amenities that active seniors are looking for is available here. SDSU is offering a
full palette of life long learning opportunities to this new crop of older than average students and there are plenty of indoor
recreational, arts and leisure opportunities during the winter that occupy the throngs of boomers that have found their way
to Brookings. Some from right next door, others from distant cities. Division 1 sports at the university, a community
wellness facility, and indoor arboretums make gardening - now America’s number one past time - possible year round.
Housing equipped for multiple-levels of assisted, independent living is readily available and specialized healthcare is
readily available to meet the needs of seniors of all ages. A state-of-the-art lifestyle area – a complex of elder-customized
facilities – puts the best of what Brookings has to offer within four-season walking distance. Downshifting is easy here,
with the full-range of part-time work situations available and getting around for work or play is easy with the new regional
bus system. The golden years are a goldmine for the numerous new restaurants and retail shops that have sprung up here
and there throughout the city and in the downtown.
Summarized
Life-long learning at SDSU
Indoor recreational, art, and leisure opportunities
Housing equipped for ageing population
Specialized healthcare
Part-time work opportunities
Pubic transportation
Pleasure Zone
What happens in Brookings – well you know the rest. A downtown-wide historical restoration project in the early 2000’s
sparked a citywide renaissance. Today, a rich variety of restaurants cater to the tastes and preferences of people from
throughout the region. Some of the area’s highest quality farm products – both crops and livestock – are featured at the
weekly farmers market and several of Brookings finest eating establishments. Not famished anymore – then visit some of
the most distinctive retail shops found within 500 miles. Local art, Native American crafts and artifacts, locally produced
food, boutique clothing and global exports – they are all available here and easy to find due to the City’s new, thematic
signage. Attractive gateways, entrances to the City, now greet even the most discriminating shoppers and adventurous
gastronomists (that’s people that like to eat). It’s easy to find your way around now too with the thematic street way finding
and electronic kiosk system the City put in place. Not into shopping or eating – or just exhausted from one or both – then
take in Brookings new lineup of entertainment venues. The new Imax theatre, a children’s museum and the Shakespearean
play at the university await you. Or, if you are athletically inclined, visit the new community sports center or take a trek on
the 20-mile rurban bikeway. Then there’s always gardening to do – with your new orchid variety or prize tomatoes - at the
City’s indoor community arboretum.
Summarized
Variety of restaurants, art galleries, and niche shopping in city
Attractive community gateways, thematic signage, and electronic kiosk system provide information and invite
visitors to explore the city
Entertainment venues—Imax, children’s museum, theatre at SDSU
Indoor and outdoor year-round recreational opportunities
Historical renovation downtown
BioEnergy Empire
When the first European settlers came to eastern South Dakota they came determined and fully expecting to build a new
Territorial Empire. Today, the Brookings region is the center of a new empire – one that harnesses a rich cornucopia of
agricultural products to feed and fuel the world. Biofuels, biolubricants, advancement in bioprocessing technologies are all
being invented, field-tested and produced in volume right here in the region. A whole host of high value products (HVPs)
for food, fiber and health uses are also emanating from here due to the flourishing collaborations between university
researchers, agriculturists, and advanced producer service providers in marketing, finance and logistics. Precision
agriculture stands side by side with specialty agriculture, which produces high-value specialty consumer products.
Agriculture was the first industry to spur technology in history. Brookings is taking this legacy to the next level serving as
the center for agro-energy in the world.
Summarized
Biofuels, biolubricants, and advanced bioprocessing technologies being invented
High value products for food, fiber, and health being created
Collaboration between SDSU, agriculturalists, and producer service providers
Precision agriculture and specialty agriculture create high-value specialty consumer products
Change scenario to BioEnergy Empire
Emphasize entrepreneurship and innovation
Link ag research to health industry
“Growing Greatness”
Transportable Brookings
Connectivity via transportation and travel are more important than ever, even as Internet 3 further shrinks the global
economy and society. Brookings is infrastructure ready in all facets of the transportation sector providing ready access for
shipping of out-going goods and incoming supplies to the many manufacturing and agriculture companies in the area.
Business and professional travel is seamless here with multiple flights providing daily jet service to destinations east and
west. For the leisure, university and business traveler alike the new state-of-the-art airport terminal serves as a convenient
launching pad to all corners of the world. In the city the major thoroughfares provide for optimum flow of traffic and easy
access to I-29. The recent inaugural running of the supertrain from Winnipeg to Sioux Falls, now means that a trip to
Microsoft in Fargo is one hour; a trip to Winnipeg’s bioscience industrial park is just under two hours. A roundtrip from
the SuperStation on the Innovation Campus to the BSL facility in downtown Winnipeg costs just $225. Breakfast is
optional.
Summarized
Access for shipping incoming and outgoing goods
Jet service for business and professional travel
New airport terminal
Improved inner-city transportation thoroughfares provide optimum flow of traffic
Easy access to I-29
Supertrain from Winnipeg to Sioux Falls (improved inter- and intrastate travel)
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:RES 15-002,Version:1
Action on Resolution 15-002, a Resolution authorizing Change Order No. 1 (Final) for 2014-07STI
Asphalt Concrete Freight on Board Project; Bowes Construction, Inc.
Summary:
This resolution will approve Change Order No. 1 (Final) for 2014-07STI Asphalt Concrete Freight on
Board Project.
Background:
This project is the annual street maintenance project that provides the asphalt patching material that
the Street Department picks up at the plant to repair patches throughout the City. This project has
been completed and is ready to be closed out. This resolution will adjust the plan quantities to as-
built quantities, for an increase of $20,491.47 to the contract. The increase was due to the Street
Department staff patching a number of streets with their own equipment and crew which was a cost
savings to the overlay project. There is no change to the contract completion date. The change
order is summarized below:
Original Contract Price:$62,520.00
Change from Previously Approved Change Orders:$0.00
Contract Price Prior to this Change Order:$62,520.00
Increase of this Change Order (No. 1 Final):$20,491.47
Contract Price incorporating this Change Order:$83,011.47
Fiscal Impact:
There will be an increase of $20,491.47 to the contract.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the change order.
Attachments:
Resolution
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Resolution No. 15-002
A Resolution Authorizing Change Order No. 1 (Final), for
2014-07STI Freight On Board Project; Bowes Construction Inc.
Be It Resolved by the City Council that the following change order be allowed for 2014-
07STI Freight on Board Project:
Construction Change Order Number 1 Final
Adjust estimated bid quantities to “as-built” quantities for a total increase of $20,491.47
to close out the project.
Passed and approved this 13th day of January, 2015.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:RES 15-004,Version:1
Action on Resolution 15-004, a Resolution awarding a contract for a 75 foot Quint Fire Apparatus for
the Fire Department.
Summary:
Resolution seeking approval of and awarding bid to Allegiant Emergency Services, Inc. for a Toyne
Quint Fire Apparatus with Spartan Chassis and 75 foot ladder.
Fiscal Impact:
This was budgeted for in the 2015 Capital Improvement Plan in the amount of $700,000.00.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval.
Attachments:
Resolution
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Resolution No. 15-004
Resolution Awarding Bids on 75 foot Quint Fire Apparatus
Whereas, the City of Brookings held a bid letting at 1:30 pm on Tuesday, December 16,
2014; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings has received the following bids for a 75 foot Quint Fire
Apparatus:
Allegiant Emergency Services, Inc. Bid of $698,592.00 with Deduct of $10,000.00 for
Trade-in of 1992 Spartan Aerial, plus Deduct of $15,322.00 for 75% Pre-payment at
Time of Contract Signing. Final Bid of $673,270.00.
Now Therefore, Be It Resolved that the bid of $673,270.00 of Allegiant Emergency
Services, Inc. be accepted.
Passed and approved this 13th day of January, 2015.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
__________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:ORD 15-001,Version:1
Introduction and First Reading of Ordinance 15-001, an Ordinance on a petition to rezone Lot 11,
Block 10, Moriarty Fourth Addition from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1C District.
Proposal: Rezone one large lot to a higher density, single-family residential district
Background: This area was zoned for low and high density residential development in 2002. Lot
areas vary in size considerably not only due to the different zoning districts but also due to the
developers desire to create a mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhood. Lot areas range in size
from 6,000 to 17,480 square feet. Minimum lot area regulations are 6,000 square feet in the R-3
District and 10,000 square feet in the R-1B District.
Specifics: Lot 11 is currently the largest single-family residential lot in the immediate neighborhood.
It is bordered by three streets on the north end of Block 10. The shape of Block 10 is somewhat
unique. The lot contains 17,480 square feet of area. The R-1B District regulations prevent the lot
from being split since 20,000 square feet would be needed to establish two buildable lots with 10,000
square feet each. The developer is proposing to rezone Lot 11 to the Residence R-1C District. This
would preserve the single-family dwelling use but would also allow the owner to replat the lot into two
lots that would meet the minimum R-1C District area regulations for square footage. The resulting
lots, proposed as lots 11A and 11B, would contain 9,302 and 8,178 square feet of area, respectively.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission voted 7 yes and 0 no to recommend approval of the rezoning request as
presented.
Attachments:
Ordinance
Rezoning Notice
Planning Commission Minutes
Rezone Map
Aerial Map
Residence R-1C Regulations
Location Map
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Ordinance No. 15-001
An Ordinance to change the Zoning within the City of Brookings
Be It Ordained by the City of Brookings, South Dakota:
Section 1. That the real estate situated in the City of Brookings, County of Brookings,
State of South Dakota, described as follows, to-wit:
Lot 11, Block 10, Moriarty Fourth Addition
be and the same is hereby rezoned and reclassified from a Residence R-1B District to a
Residence R-1C District
In accordance with Section 94-7 of Article I of Ordinance 17-13 of the Code of
Ordinances of Brookings, South Dakota, as said districts are more fully set forth and
described in Articles III and IV, Chapter 94 of Ordinance No. 17-13 of the City of
Brookings, South Dakota.
Section 2. The permitted use of the property heretofore described be and the same is
hereby altered and changed in accordance herewith pursuant to said Ordinance No. 17-
13 of the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Section 3. All sections and ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.
First Reading:January 13, 2015
Second Reading and Adoption:
Published:
CITY OF BROOKINGS
________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
C:\Users\GRANIC~1\AppData\Local\Temp\BCL Technologies\easyPDF 7\@BCL@70059826\@BCL@70059826.doc
If you require assistance, alternative formats and/or accessible locations consistent with the Americans with Disabilities
Act, please contact the City ADA Coordinator at 692-6281 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
Published ______ time(s) at an approximate cost of $ _____________.
NOTICE OF HEARING
UPON PETITION TO REZONE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That Paul E. Moriarty has submitted a petition to
rezone the following described real estate in the City of Brookings, in Brookings County,
South Dakota:
Lot 11, Block 10, Moriarty Fourth Addition from a Residence R-1B District to a
Residence R-1C District.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN That said request will be acted on by the City
Planning Commission at 5:30 PM on Tuesday, December 2, 2014, in the Chambers Room
on the third floor of the Brookings City & County Government Center at 520 Third Street,
Brookings, South Dakota. Any action taken by the City Planning Commission is a
recommendation to the City Council.
Any person interested may appear and be heard in this matter.
Dated this 21st day of November, 2014.
____________________________
Dan Hanson
Planning & Zoning Administrator
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING – DECEMBER 2, 2014
MINUTES AND SUMMARY EXCERPT
Hearing and action on a petition to rezone Lot 11, Block 10, Moriarty Fourth
Addition from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1C District
OFFICIAL MINUTES
Paul Moriarty has submitted a petition to rezone Lot 11, Block 10, Moriarty Fourth
Addition from a Residence R-1B District to a Residence R-1C District.
(Gregg/Heuton) Motion to approve the rezoning as presented. All present voted aye.
MOTION CARRIED.
OFFICIAL SUMMARY
Hanson stated that the area was zoned for low and high density residential uses in
2002. Lot areas ranged from 6,000 to 17, 840 square feet. Lot 11 was a large lot in
the R-1B District. However, it was not large enough to be split into two lots that met the
minimum lot area requirements. The proposed R-1C District would allow the lot to be
split so a single-family dwelling could be constructed on each lot. The new lots would
be approximately 8,000 and 9,000 square feet in area.
Paul Moriarty, owner of the property, was available to answer questions. Pierce asked
what the lot sizes were for the two adjacent lots to the south. Moriarty was not sure.
Hanson, replied that the lots had about 11,000 square feet of area.
Dan Carter, Brian Ahlers, and Travis Mosley, all neighborhood residents, supported the
rezoning provided the lot, or proposed two lots, could only be used for single-family
dwellings. Hanson noted that the R-1C and R-1B Districts only allowed a single-family
dwelling by right. DeKraai remarked that the decision on the rezoning pertained to lot
11 and the future replatting of the lot was another issue. Fargen supported the rezoning
since the allowed uses and density would be compatible with the neighborhood.
Sec. 94-125.5 RESIDENCE R-1C SINGLE-FAMILY
(a) Intent.This district is intended to provide for areas of residential use with a gross
density of approximately six dwelling units per acre or less. The district permits single-
family dwellings and supportive community facilities such as parks, playgrounds, schools,
and churches.
(b) Scope of Regulations. The regulations set forth in this section or set forth elsewhere in
this title, when referred to in this section, are the district regulations of the Residence R-1C
Single-Family District.
(c) Permitted Uses.Single-family dwelling including accessory uses incidental thereto
such as private garages, parking areas, etc.
(d) Permitted Special Uses. A building or premises may be used for the following
purposes in conformance with conditions prescribed herein:
1. All permitted special uses and conditions as stated in Section 94-124(d) (R-1A).
2. Private school of general instruction.
a. One of the frontages of the premises shall abut upon an arterial or collector
street.
3. Family day care.
a. Restricted to 12 or less children at any one time.
(e) Conditional Uses.
1. Retirement or nursing home
2. Two family dwelling
3. Group home
4. Major home occupation
5. Public recreation facility
6. Bed and breakfast establishment
(f) Density, Area, Yard and Height Regulations.
The R-1C District regulations shall be as follows:
Per Min Min Min Min Min Max
Unit Lot Lot Front Side Rear Hgt
Density Area Width Yard Yard Yard
Sq.Ft.Sq.Ft.
Single-Family 7,500 7,500 50'25'7'25'35'
Two-Family 5,625 11,250 75'25'7'25'35'
Other Allowable Uses 10,000 75'25'10'25'35'
Density per family requirements shall not apply to dormitories, fraternities, sororities,
nursing homes or other similar group quarters where no cooking facilities are provided in
individual rooms
(g) Accessory Uses. Accessory uses and building permitted in the R-1C District are
buildings and uses customarily incidental to any of the permitted uses in the district.
(h) Parking Regulations. Parking, loading and stacking within the R-1C District shall be
in conformance with the regulations set forth in division 4 of article VI of this chapter
(i) Sign Regulations. Signs within the R-1C District shall be in conformance with the
regulations set forth in division 5 of article VI of this chapter
(j) Other Regulations. Development within the R-1C District shall be in conformance
with the regulations set forth in article II of this chapter
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:RES 15-006,Version:1
Public hearing and action on Resolution 15-006, a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign an
On-Off Sale Wine Operating Agreement for ERL, LLC, DBA The Depot, Kathy McClemans, Robb
McClemans and Elizabeth McClemans, owners, 921 20th St. So., Brookings, SD.
Summary:
Kathy McClemans, Robb McClemans and Elizabeth McClemans, owners, ERL, LLC, DBA The
Depot, 921 20th St. So., has applied for an On-Off Sale Wine Alcohol license. A public hearing and
action by the local governing body is required for all new alcohol licenses. Additionally, an Operating
Agreement is required for Wine Licenses. This Resolution allows the City Manager to enter into the
first five years of the 10-year agreement effective through 2020. This license would be effective
January 1, 2015 and subject to an annual renewal. If approved, the application would be forwarded to
the State Department of Revenue for final action and issuance of the license.
Background:
City Ordinances:
Listed below is Chapter 5, Article 2, Section 5-20 of the City Code of Ordinances pertaining to
Application Review Procedure. The City Council shall review all applications submitted to the City for
available On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Agreements and for On-Sale Malt Beverage and Wine
Licenses in accordance with SDCL 35-2 and in accordance with the following factors:
a) Type of business which applicant proposes to operate: On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage
Operating Agreements and On-Sale Malt Beverage and Wine Licenses may not be issued to
convenience grocery stores, gas stations, or other stores where groceries or gasoline are sold unless
it can be established that minors do not regularly frequent the establishment.
b) The manner in which the business is operated: On-Sale Alcoholic Beverage Operating
Agreements and On-Sale Malt Beverage and Wine Licenses may not be issued to establishments
which are operated in a manner which results in minors regularly frequenting the establishment.
c) The extent to which minors are employed in such a place of business: On-Sale Alcoholic
Beverage Operating Agreements and On-Sale Malt Beverage and Wine Licenses may not be issued
to convenience grocery stores, gas stations, or other stores where groceries or gasoline are sold and
which regularly employ minors.
d) The adequacy of the police facilities to properly police the proposed location: The City
Council shall inquire of the Police Chief whether the Police Department can adequately police the
proposed location.
e) Other factors: The hours that business is conducted shall be considered by the City Council in its
review of applications for on-sale alcoholic beverage operating agreements and on-sale malt
beverage and wine licenses.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval.
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:RES 15-006,Version:1
Attachments:
Resolution
Hearing Notice
Operating Agreement
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Resolution No. 15-006
Italian Garden, MN LLC – Wine Operating Agreement
Be It Resolved by the City of Brookings, South Dakota, that the City Council hereby
approves a Lease Agreement for the Operating Liquor Management Agreement for
Wine between the City of Brookings and Kathy McClemans, Robb McClemans and
Elizabeth McClemans, owners, ERL, LLC, DBA The Depot, for the purpose of a liquor
manager to operate the On-Sale Establishment or business for and on behalf of the City
of Brookings at 921 20
th St. So.
Be It Further Resolved that the City Manager be authorized to execute the Agreement
on behalf of the City, which shall be for a period of five (5) years, with a renewal for
another five (5) years.
Passed and approved this 13th day of January, 2015.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
On-Off Sale Wine Operating Agreement – The Depot
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Brookings City Council in and for the City of
Brookings, South Dakota, on January 13, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. in the Brookings City &
County Government Center Chambers, 520 Third Street, will meet in regular session to
consider an application for an On-Off Sale Wine Operating Agreement for The Depot,
Kathy McClemans, Robb McClemans and Elizabeth McClemans-Novak, owners, 919
20th St. So., Brookings, South Dakota, legal description: Lot 7, Block 13, McClemans
Addition. At which time and place all persons interested will be given a full, fair and
complete hearing thereon.
Dated at Brookings, South Dakota, this 5th day of January, 2015.
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Published time(s) at an approximate cost $ .
On-Off Sale Wine Operating Agreement
ERL, LLC, DBA The Depot
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the City of Brookings, a
municipal corporation of the State of South Dakota, hereinafter referred to as the “City”
and ERL, LLC, DBA the Depot (Kathy McClemans, Robb McClemans, and Elizabeth
McClemans, owners) hereinafter referred to as “Manager.”
WITNESSETH;
WHEREAS, the City has been issued an on-sale alcoholic beverage license and is
engaged in the sale of alcoholic beverages, and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into an Operating Agreement on a limited basis
with the Manager for the purpose of operating an on-off sale establishment or business
for and on behalf of the City pursuant to law, and
WHEREAS, the Manager has offered to have facilities in which to operate said on-off
sale establishment solely upon the premises hereinafter described.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS:
I.
This Agreement is made and entered into on a limited basis between the parties hereto
allow the Manager to operate a retail on-off sale premises, pursuant to and in
accordance with all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement in accordance with all
State laws and City Ordinances now in effect and as may be enacted in the future.
II.
The Manager shall be individually responsible for all operating expenses of said on-off
sale establishment, including but not limited to utilities, taxes, insurance, and license
fees, if any.
The Manager shall furnish all equipment and fixtures necessary to operate the
establishment.
III.
The on-off sale establishment shall be located upon real estate in the City of Brookings,
South Dakota, described as:
Lot 7, Block 13, McClemans Addition
IV.
The Manager shall dispense only alcoholic beverages supplied by the Municipal Off-
Sale Establishment.
V.
This Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a period of five (5) years with the
Manager having the option and privilege of a five (5) year extension, subject to the
approval of the governing body of the City of Brookings.
VI.
Either the Manager or the City may terminate this Agreement without cause upon ninety
(90) days written notice served by either party upon the other. The City reserves the
right to immediately suspend or revoke this Agreement without ninety (90) days written
notice for alcohol related violations in accordance with the provisions of Resolution No.
25-88 or any amendments thereto or for any late payments for alcoholic beverages
supplied by the Municipal Off-Sale Establishment to be sold on the premises of
Manager.
VII.
The Manager shall receive as full compensation for its services rendered, the net profit
from the on-off sale establishment under its management, and the sole profit to be
derived by the City shall be the markup hereinafter set forth on alcoholic beverages
furnished by the municipality to the Manager for the purposes of resale on the premises
as above described.
VIII.
The Manager shall pay to the City for all alcoholic beverages sold by the City to the
Manager for resale on the above-described premises, the actual cost of distilled spirits
and wine supplied by the City, plus eleven percent (11%) in excess of such cost; the
Manager shall pay to the City for all malt beverages sold by the City to the Manager for
resale on the above-described premises, the actual cost of malt beverages, plus ten
percent (10%) in excess of such cost. The actual cost shall include cost price and
transportation charges. The markup percentages provided in this Agreement are
subject to change by the City of Brookings. In the event markup percentages are
changed by Ordinance, then the markup percentages provided by City Ordinance shall
supercede the markup percentages provided herein. The Manager further agrees that if
either of the markup percentages shall be increased at any time by the City, the
Manager shall pay the markup as so increased.
IX.
A complete and detailed record shall be maintained by the City of all alcoholic
beverages supplied to the on-sale Manager and such alcoholic beverages so supplied
shall be evidenced by prenumbered invoices prepared in triplicate showing the date,
quality, brand, size, and actual cost of such item, and such invoice shall bear the
signature of the authorized representative of the on-sale Manager or its authorized
representative. One copy thereof shall be retained by the Municipal off-sale
establishment, one copy shall be retained by the on-sale establishment, and one copy
shall be filed with the City Clerk. All copies shall be kept as permanent records and
made available for reference and audit purposes. The Manager also agrees to maintain
a complete record of all alcoholic beverages received from the City.
X.
In consideration of the covenants herein contained, the Manager agrees to pay the
CITY OF BROOKINGS, Three Hundred and Twenty-Five Hundred, and no/100 Dollars
($325.00), constituting the Annual License Fee on or by 1st day of June of each year
thereafter as long as this agreement shall remain in force and effect. The payment of
the Annual Renewal License Fee will not extend the term of this Operating Agreement
beyond the term provided therein. The Manager further agrees that if the annual fee
shall be increased at any time by the legislature, the Manager shall pay the amount of
any such increase.
XI.
The Manager agrees to keep the premises in a neat, clean and attractive appearance,
and Manager further agrees to operate said on-sale establishment only on such days
and at such hours as permitted by state law and city ordinances.
XII.
The Manager shall have the right to return, at any time, alcoholic beverages received
from the City and to receive in return any deposit made for such alcoholic beverages; in
the event of termination of the business, all unused alcoholic beverages, which may be
resold without discount may be returned to the City and the Manager shall be
reimbursed for the of such alcoholic beverages.
XIII.
The Manager agrees to abide by the credit policies of the City and acknowledges, by
execution of this Agreement, receipt of a copy of the credit policies of the City. The City
reserves the right to change or terminate its credit policies at any time, but shall be
required to provide written notice to Manager prior to the effective date of the change or
termination date of the credit policies.
XIV.
The Manager agrees to furnish the City upon demand, evidence of payment of the
following:
A. All salaries of on-off sale employees;
B. Social Security and withholding taxes on said employees;
C. Worker’s Compensation insurance premiums covering said employees;
D. Unemployment taxes on the payrolls of said employees;
E. General liability insurance protecting both the City and the Manager against
claims for injury or damages to persons or property, said policy to have general
liability limits of at least Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00) single
limit, and One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) aggregate, and a limitation of Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) for damage to property. The general liability
insurance limits are subject to change and Manager agrees to change limits of
insurance if required by the City;
F. Rent and utility bills;
G. Any and all miscellaneous expenses, including taxes.
XV.
The Manager agrees to observe all Federal and State laws and ordinances of the City
of Brookings.
XVI.
The City covenants and agrees to furnish the on-sale license to Manager pursuant to
the terms and conditions of this Operating Agreement and the terms and conditions of
the on-off sale license.
XVII.
The City shall have the right to make inspections and investigations of the premises
during the hours of operation, and make audits and examinations of the records of the
Manager relating to the on-off sale establishment.
XVIII.
It is further specifically understood and agreed that the waiver of the rights of the City
under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuous waiver, and any violation or
breach of the terms of this Agreement by the Manager shall constitute a separate and
distinct offense and grounds for immediate termination and revocation of this
Agreement.
XIV.
This agreement shall not be assignable to another person or location without the written
consent of the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement this 13th
day of January, 2015.
CITY OF BROOKINGS, South Dakota
A Municipal Corporation
By:
ATTEST:Jeffrey W. Weldon, City Manager
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
MANAGER
By:
By:
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:RES 15-005,Version:1
Action on Resolution 15-005, a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign the Wetland
Agreement between the South Dakota Department of Transportation and the City of Brookings.
Summary:
This resolution will authorize the City Manager to sign a Wetland Agreement between the South
Dakota Department of Transportation and the City of Brookings.
Background:
The South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT) will be constructing Project Number IM
0295(35) 127 PCN 022C, which is a segment of I-29 reconstruction in Brookings and Deuel counties.
The construction project will impact approximately .17 acres of existing jurisdictional wetlands, which
will require the mitigation of 0.25 acres of created or enhanced wetlands for wetland mitigation
purposes. The City has been negotiating with the SDDOT to allow the construction of the wetland
mitigation on the City’s wetland parcel located on 32nd Street South, east of Main Avenue South. The
SDDOT will pay for the design and construction of the wetland, obtain the proper permits, and
perform the monitoring of the wetland. The SDDOT will pay the City for the use of City property for
the wetland and the cost has not yet been determined. The current draft of the Wetland Agreement
is attached, which is being reviewed by the City Attorney and SDDOT legal department. The City
also will provide a wetland easement at a later date when the mitigation plan is completed.
Fiscal Impact:
There will be no fiscal responsibility to the City of Brookings for the construction or monitoring of the
newly constructed wetland.
Recommendation:
Recommend approval of the resolution.
Attachments:
Resolution
Draft Wetland Agreement
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
Resolution No. 15-005
A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign Wetland Agreement
between the South Dakota Department of Transportation and the
City of Brookings, South Dakota
Whereas, the South Dakota Department of Transportation will permanently impact
approximately 0.168 acres of existing jurisdictional wetlands in connection with Project
Number IM 0295(35)127 PCN 022C which will require approximately 0.252 acres of
created or enhanced wetlands for wetland mitigation purposes; and
Whereas, the City of Brookings is agreeable to allowing the construction of wetlands for
Project Number IM 0295(35)127 PCN 022C on the parcel of land owned by the City of
Brookings which is located in the North ½ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 11-T109N-R50
West of the P.M.; and
Whereas, the State of South Dakota will construct and monitor the wetlands on the City
parcel associated with Project Number IM 0295(35)127 PCN 022C.
Now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Manager of the City of Brookings is
authorized to sign the Wetland Agreement between the South Dakota Department of
Transportation and the City of Brookings, South Dakota.
Dated this 13th day of January, 2015.
CITY OF BROOKINGS
_________________________
Tim Reed, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Shari Thornes, City Clerk
Page 1 of 2 DOT Legal: ______
WETLAND AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
CITY OF BROOKINGS, SOUTH DAKOTA
This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the State of South Dakota, acting by and through
its Department of Transportation, referred to in this Agreement as the “STATE,” and the City of Brookings,
South Dakota, referred to in this Agreement as “CITY.”
1. BACKGROUND:
A. The STATE will permanently impacted 0.168 acres of existing jurisdictional wetlands in connection
with Project Number IM 0295(35)127 PCN 022C in Brookings County, South Dakota. This
permanent impact requires mitigation of 0.252 acres of created or enhanced wetlands (a 1.5:1 ratio)
for wetland mitigation purposes.
B. The STATE is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy ACT (NEPA) for federal
aid transportation projects regarding wetland mitigation.
C. The STATE will assure a wetland mitigation site will be maintained in its natural state to protect the
wetland against development for any purpose or in any manner.
D. The mitigation area has been located in an area currently being used to mitigate wetland impacts by
the CITY.
2. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES:
A. The CITY will allow the creation and enhancement of 0.252 acres of wetlands on the CITY’S
wetland mitigation property; the location of the mitigation site is identified in the draft mitigation plan.
B. The CITY will protect the mitigation area with the STATE Wetland Easement.
C. The CITY will manage the wetland mitigation area protected by the conservation easement to
ensure the mitigation site remains a wetland in perpetuity.
3. STATE RESPONSIBILITIES
A. The STATE will be the holder of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 23 and ensure
the CITY complies with all requirements of the permit.
B. The STATE will compensate the CITY for use of their Wetland Mitigation Property.
C. The STATE will monitor and assume full responsibility including all costs for materials, labor, and
equipment for any major corrective action required if the mitigation area does not meet the
performance standards stipulated in the 12 Components of Mitigation or satisfy the mitigation
conditions of the pending 404 permit authorizations. The monitoring period will not be less than five
years and will continue until such time as the mitigation area meets the performance standards
specified.
D. The STATE will address wetland mitigation failure as necessary to comply with federal regulations
Page 2 of 2 DOT Legal: ______
4. EMPLOYEE STATUS
Any officer, employee, or agent engaged in joint action under this Agreement will remain an employee
with his or her agency during participation in joint action under this Agreement. Each agency will
retain exclusive responsibility for its officers, agents, and employees while these officers, agents, and
employees are engaged in joint action under this Agreement, including but not limited to responsibility
for regular and overtime wages and salaries, unemployment benefits, workers’ compensation
coverage, health insurance, or other benefits, and liability coverage and indemnity, except as
otherwise specifically provided in this Agreement.
5. The CITY has designated its CITY MANAGER as CITY’S authorized representative and has
empowered the MANAGER with the authority to sign this Agreement on behalf of CITY. A copy of
CITY’S COUNCIL minutes or resolution authorizing the execution of this Agreement by the MANAGER
as CITY’S authorized representative is attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A.
By signature of their representatives below, each party certifies that approval of this Agreement by
ordinance, resolution, or other appropriate means has been obtained by that party’s governing body or
officer pursuant to SDCL § 1-24-3 and § 1-24-6.
State of South Dakota
City of Brookings, South Dakota Department of Transportation
By: By:
Its: CITY MANGER Its Program Manager,
Office of Administration
Date: Date:
Attest:Approved as to Form:
CITY Auditor/Clerk Special Assistant Attorney General
(CITY SEAL)
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:ID 2015-0014,Version:1
Brookings Municipal Utilities Quarterly Financial Report.
Summary:
Presentation by Steve Meyer, General Manager, and Laura Julius, Finance & Account Manager
Attachments:
Council Presentation
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
QUARTERLY
FINANCIAL
PRESENTATION
BMU / SWIFTEL
COMMUNICATIONS
January 13, 2015
Combining Balance Sheet
December 31, 2011, 2012, 2013 & September 30, 2014
Reported in Millions (0,000,000)
Total Funds
2011
Total Funds
2012
Total Funds
2013
Total Funds
9/30/14
Assets:$57.5 $59.9 $58.0 $62.1
Fixed Assets:
Cost $152.9 $156.5 $172.7 $186.9
Accumulated Depr.($82.9)($85.9)($90.6)($91.3)
Total Fixed Assets $70.0 $70.5 $82.1 $95.6
Total Assets $127.5 $130.5 $140.1 $157.7
Liabilities:$40.5 $38.5 $40.9 $52.8
Equity:$87.0 $92.0 $99.2 $104.9
Total Liabilities & Equity $127.5 $130.5 $140.1 $157.7
BMU Balance Sheets by Fund
September 30, 2014 Reported in Millions (0,000,000)
Electric
Fund
Telephone
Fund
Wastewater
Fund Water Fund Total Funds
Assets:$18.0 $30.3 $4.3 $9.5 $62.1
Fixed Assets:
Cost $50.0 $75.2 $47.3 $14.4 $186.9
Accumulated Depr.($17.9)($52.4)($14.7)($6.3)($91.3)
Total Fixed Assets $32.1 $22.8 $32.6 $8.1 $95.6
Total Assets $50.1 $53.1 $36.9 $17.6 $157.7
Liabilities:$12.5 $21.1 $18.4 $0.8 $52.8
Equity:$37.6 $32.0 $18.5 $16.8 $104.9
Total Liabilities & Equity $50.1 $53.1 $36.9 $17.6 $157.7
Combined Statement of Revenue and Expenses
December 31, 2011, 2012, 2013 & Budget 2014
Reported in Millions (0,000,000)
Total Funds
2011
Total Funds
2012
Total Funds
2013
Total Funds
Budget
2014
Total Revenue:$62.6 $64.8 $68.5 $69.2
Total Expenses:($54.0)($57.0)($59.2)($62.7)
Income Before Operating Transfers $8.6 $7.8 $9.3 $6.5
General Fund Transfer:($2.0)($2.0)($2.055)($2.1)
Net Income $6.6 $5.8 $7.2 $4.4
Combined Statement of Revenue and Expenses
September 30, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
Reported in Millions (0,000,000)
Total Funds
9/30/11
Total Funds
9/30/12
Total Funds
9/30/13
Total Funds
9/30/14
Total Revenue:$45.2 $48.3 $50.8 $52.9
Total Expenses:($40.1)($42.3)($44.6)($45.7)
Income Before Operating Transfers $5.1 $6.0 $6.2 $7.2
General Fund Transfer:($1.4)($1.5)($1.5)($1.5)
Net Income $3.7 $4.5 $4.7 $5.7
BMU Statement of Revenue and Expenses
September 30, 2014
Reported in Millions (0,000,000)
Electric
Fund
Telephone
Fund
Wastewater
Fund
Water
Fund
Total
Funds
Total Revenue:$19.1 $27.8 $2.9 $3.1 $52.9
Total Expenses:($16.1)($25.5)($2.2)($1.9)($45.7)
Income Before Operating
Transfers $3.0 $2.3 $0.7 $1.2 $7.2
General Fund Transfer:($1.3)($0.2)$0.0 $0.0 ($1.5)
Net Income $1.7 $2.1 $0.7 $1.2 $5.7
BMU Statement of Revenue and Expenses
Reported in Millions (0,000,000)
Actual YTD
9/30/14
Budget YTD
9/30/14
Annual Budget
2014
Total Revenue:$52.9 $51.5 $69.2
Total Expenses:($45.7)($46.8)($62.7)
Income Before Operating
Transfers $7.2 $4.7 $6.5
General Fund Transfer:($1.5)($1.5)($2.1)
Net Income $5.7 $3.2 $4.4
Questions
City of Brookings
Staff Report
Brookings City & County
Government Center, 520
Third Street
Brookings, SD 57006
(605) 692-6281 phone
(605) 692-6907 fax
File #:ID 2015-0032,Version:1
Executive Session, pursuant to SDCL 1-25-2, to discuss marketing or pricing strategies by a board or
commission of a business owned by the state or any of its political subdivisions, when public
discussion may be harmful to the competitive position of the business.
1-25-2. Executive or closed meetings--Purposes--Authorization--Misdemeanor.
Executive or closed meetings may be held for the sole purposes of:
1) Discussing the qualifications, competence, performance, character or fitness of any
public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee. The term “employee”
does not include any independent contractor;
2) Discussing the expulsion, suspension, discipline, assignment of or the
educational program of a student;
3) Consulting with legal counsel or reviewing communications from legal counsel about
proposed or pending litigation or contractual matters;
4) Preparing for contract negotiations or negotiating with employees or employee
representatives;
5) Discussing marketing or pricing strategies by a board or commission of a business
owned by the state or any of its political subdivisions, when public discussion may be
harmful to the competitive position of the business.
However, any official action concerning such matters shall be made at an open official meeting. An
executive or closed meeting shall be held only upon a majority vote of the members of such body
present and voting, and discussion during the closed meeting is restricted to the purpose specified in
the closure motion. Nothing in § 1-25-1 or this section may be construed to prevent an executive or
closed meeting if the federal or state Constitution or the federal or state statutes require or permit it.
A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
Source: SL 1965, ch 269; SL 1980, ch 24, § 10; SL 1987, ch 22, § 1.
City of Brookings Printed on 1/7/2015Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™