comprehensive economic development strategy

Comments

Transcription

comprehensive economic development strategy
COMPREHENSIVE
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGY
CENTRAL SOUTH DAKOTA ENHANCEMENT DISTRICT
PO Box 220 & 3431 Airport Road Suite #3
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
Final Report Prepared by
Marlene Knutson, Executive Director
Justin Otsea, Planner
Al Haugen, Planner
Submitted: December 2012
This report was prepared under an award from the Economic Development Administration.
This publication was prepared by the Central South Dakota Enhancement District. The
statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the view of the Economic Development Administration
Abstract
The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for the Central South Dakota
Enhancement District (CSDED) is a planning and project implementation process designed
to:
•
•
•
Foster a more stable and diversified economy throughout the region
Improve living conditions in our communities
Guide and coordinate economic development efforts within the region
The CEDS document:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Describes the problems, needs and resources of the region
Identifies the goals and objectives of the development program
Presents the strategies and action plans devised to achieve those goals
Outlines the standards for the evaluation of the program
Overall, the goal is to promote economic development (attract new jobs while retaining
existing jobs) as we preserve our quality of life.
The CSDED Board/CEDS Committee comprised of individuals representing many groups,
including, but not limited to business, industry, labor, civic organizations, and the education
community, as well as county and local government, continues to meet to discuss economic
development issues. The Committee will recommend additional or modified priorities and
action items as they update the CEDS strategies and priorities as needed.
Executive Summary
The Central South Dakota Enhancement District (CSDED) is comprised of seven counties in
the central portion of South Dakota—Haakon, Hughes, Hyde, Jackson, Jones, Stanley and
Sully. It is an area with very little manufacturing and depends on jobs in the government
sector and tourism/hospitality industry, as well as the ag production area. This is natural as
the area is home to Pierre (the state capital), it also includes the Missouri River and its
reservoirs, two national grasslands, and the eastern edge of the Badlands. Hunting, fishing,
and camping are a major draw, not to mention the state capitol building, Discovery Center,
and other tourism related businesses. All seven counties have vast amount of farm/ranch
production areas—either crop and or livestock. Livestock production is mainly geared
toward the cattle industry.
Key demographic/economic facts include:
• Loss of population in four of the seven counties
• A median age slightly higher than the state and nation
• A large amount of land is non-taxable government control—state, federal, and tribal
• The only county with a per capita income lower than the national average in the
district is Jackson County; which is approximately 62% of the national PCI
• Approximately 12% of the residents live in poverty
• Average non-farm wages lower than state averages, except in the hospitality area
• Average house values for the region substantially lower than the national average
• New home construction substantially hindered by the inability for the assessed value
to equal the cost of construction, except in the Pierre/Fort Pierre area.
• Lack of manufacturing
• Ag income dramatically affected by fluctuating prices and weather conditions
Key Goal:
The priority of the CSDED District, as determined by the Governing Body/CEDS
Committee is Economic Development and the Preservation of the Quality of Life.
A synopsis of the two key goals are given below with other goals and objectives discussed
in Chapter III of the document.
Goal: Assist in expanding economic opportunity through the development of the
region’s economic/natural resources.
Short-Term Actions: (Present to 3 years)
1. Help agriculture industry thrive through agri-tourism, diversification, and valueadded products.
2. Upgrade the communities’ infrastructure in order to promote economic development
and preserve the quality of life.
3. Enhance tourism development.
4. Support energy development alternatives.
5. Research the possibility of creating a district revolving loan fund.
Long-Term Actions: (4+ Years)
1. “Sell” the region as a whole to potential new businesses and entrepreneurs.
2. Determine possibility of establishing a business incubator center.
As laid out in the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, another priority set by
the CEDS Committee is addressing current infrastructure needs.
Goal:
Develop, expand, and upgrade local public infrastructure, programs and
facilities.
Short-Term Actions: (Present to 3 years)
1. Facilitate communication between government agencies at the local, state, and
federal levels.
2. Promote capital improvement planning and local fiscal responsibility for the future.
3. Educate community leaders on non-traditional financing programs such as taxincrement financing.
4. Continue the marketing of the Governor’s Housing units.
Long-Term Actions: (4+ Years)
1. Encourage communities to participate in community assessment and leadership
training programs in order that communities grow in a manner that is the desire of
the residents and to provide for future leaders.
2. Work with the SD Department of Transportation to identify road, airport, and rail
road projects that enhance economic development, as well as provide for public
safety.
3. When appropriate, encourage the sharing of public services and facilities (law
enforcement, fire equipment, regional jails, etc.) to maintain a fiscally responsible
atmosphere at the local level.
CENTRAL SOUTH DAKOTA ENHANCEMENT DISTRICT
COMPREHENSIVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY
Table of Contents
Chapter I Introduction & Region……………………………………………………………………….……… 1
Purpose……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………. 1
General Mission………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 1
A. Organization Structure……………………………………………………………………………………………… 1
1. Organizational Authority/History………………………………………………………………… 1
Figure I-1 SD Planning District Map………………………………………………………… 2
2. EDA Designation/History……………………………………………………………………………… 2
Figure I-2 CSDED Map……………………………………………………………………….…... 3
3. CSDED Board of Directors and CEDS Committee Members…………………………. 3
Table I-1 CSDED Governing Body Membership………………………………………. 4
Table I-2 CSDED CEDS Committee………………………………………………………….. 5
4. CSDED Management Structure……………………………………………………………………. 6
Figure I-3 CSDED Organization Structure……………………………………………….. 6
B. Regional Relationships……………………………..………………………………………………………………. 6
Figure I-4 Regional Relationship……………………………………………………………. 6
CHAPTER II The Region and Its Economy................................................................... 7
A. Geographic & Climatic Data.......................................................................................... 7
1. Land Area & Population Density....................................................................... 7
Table II-1 Basic Statistics…......................................................................... 7
Figure II-1 Population Density…................................................................ 7
2. Topography....................................................................................................... 8
Figure II-2 Prairie Photograph.................................................................... 8
Figure II-3 Major Waterways...................................................................... 8
3. Climate.............................................................................................................. 9
Figure II-4 Climate Map……………………........................................................ 9
4. Natural Disasters............................................................................................. 10
Figure II-5 (Disaster Frequency Map)....................................................... 10
5. Land Use Patterns........................................................................................... 10
B. Environment and Natural Resource Profile................................................................ 11
1. Endangered Species........................................................................................ 11
Figure II-6 Black Footed Ferret Reintroduction Map............................... 11
Table II-2 (Endangered Species List)......................................................... 12
2. Wilderness Areas............................................................................................. 13
3. Wild or Scenic Rivers....................................................................................... 13
4. National Grasslands......................................................................................... 13
Figure II-7 (Grasslands Map)…………………................................................ 13
5. Prime / Unique Agricultural Lands............................................................. 14
6. Recreation Areas......................................................................................... 14
Figure II-8 Recreational Areas Map..................................................... 14
7. Archeological, Historic, and Cultural Resources......................................... 15
Table II-3 Historic Places in the District……................................... 15-18
8. Superfund Sites........................................................................................... 18
9. Brownfield Sites.......................................................................................... 18
10. Hazardous Materials................................................................................. 18
11. Well-Head Protection Areas..................................................................... 18
12. Sole Source Drinking Water Aquifers....................................................... 19
13. Flood Plains............................................................................................... 19
C. Demographics and Socio Economic Characteristics............................................... 19
1. Population Characteristics.......................................................................... 19
Figure II-9 Population Estimates.......................................................... 19
Figure II-10 Community Locations....................................................... 20
Table II-4 Historic Population Data..................................................... 21
Table II-5 Population Projections......................................................... 21
Table II-6 Population Estimates…........................................................ 22
Figure II-11 CSDED Migration Data…………………………………………………. 23
Table II-7 CSDED Migration Data.…..................................................... 23
2. Age............................................................................................................... 24
Table II-8 Median Age……………........................................................... 24
Table II-9 Persons Age 17 and Younger.............................................. 25
Table II-10 Persons Age 65+…............................................................ 25
3. Minority Population.................................................................................... 25
Figure II-12 Reservation Lands............................................................ 26
4. Income........................................................................................................ 26
Table II-11 Per Capita Income Personal Income.................................. 27
Table II-12 BEA Per Capita Income……….............................................. 27
Table II-13 Median Household Income............................................... 28
5. Poverty........................................................................................................ 28
Table II-14 Persons in Poverty............................................................. 28
6. Education..................................................................................................... 29
Table II-15 Educational Attainment Percentages................................. 29
Table II-16 Educational Attainment Persons 25+………………................. 30
Table II-17 School District Stats............................................................ 30
Figure II-13 2004-2005 School Districts……………………………………………. 31
Figure II-14 2011-2012 School Districts……………………………………………. 31
D. Housing................................................................................................................... 32
1. Housing Values & New Construction Related Issues.................................. 32
Table II-18 Housing Units, 2000............................................................ 32
Table II-19 Housing Units Vacancy Rates………………………………………….. 32
Figure II-15 Age of Housing Units……………………………………………………… 33
Table II-20 Age of Housing Units……….................................................. 34
Table II-21 Housing Values, 2000........................................................ 34
Table II-22 Housing Values, 2010……………………………………………………. 35
Figure II-16 Housing Unit Values Estimates…………………………………….. 35
E. Infrastructure & Other Services.............................................................................. 36
1. Transportation Systems............................................................................... 36
Figure II-17 State & Federal Highways……………................................... 36
Table II-23 Highway Mileage............................................................... 36
Table II-24 County Road Surfaces........................................................ 37
Figure II-18 Rail Roads......................................................................... 37
Figure II-19 Airports……………................................................................ 38
2. Regional Utilities & Services....................................................................... 39
Figure II -20 Electrical Cooperatives.................................................... 39
Figure II -21 Rural Water Systems......................................................... 39
Figure II -22 Regional Landfills.............................................................. 40
Figure II-23 Natural Gas Access………………………………………………………… 40
3. Telecommunications/Technology................................................................. 41
Figure II-24 Telephone Providers…………............................................... 41
Figure II-25 High Speed Internet Availability…………………………………….. 41
4. Health & Social Services.............................................................................. 42
Figure II-26 Hospitals & Clinics………………............................................. 42
Figure II-27 Nursing Homes & Assisted Living Facilities........................ 43
Figure II-28 Regulated Daycare Providers............................................ 43
Table II-25 Women in the Workforce…………........................................ 44
F. Labor Force Characteristics / Business and Industry............................................... 44
1. Agriculture................................................................................................... 45
Table II-26 Farm Numbers & Size………………......................................... 45
Figure II-30 Disaster Declarations……………........................................... 46
Table II-27 Farm Net Income……………................................................... 46
2. Non-Ag Workforce Areas............................................................................. 47
Table II-28 Non-Farm Worker Numbers................................................ 48
Table II-29 Employment & Wage Data................................................. 49
Regional Economic Clusters…………………………………………………………………………. 49
Table II-31 CSDED Industry Clusters…………………………………………………. 52
3. Tourism / Hospitality Industry..................................................................... 53
Table II-32 Visitor Spending ……………................................................... 53
Table II-33 Taxable Sales………………....................................................... 54
4. Labor Force................................................................................................... 54
Table II-34 CSDED Labor Statistics……………............................................ 55
Table II-35 Percent Unemployed Statistics............................................ 55
G. Factors Affecting Economic Development & Performance...................................... 56
Table II-36 Local Development Corporations………................................. 56
Table II-37 Local Sales Tax Rates…………................................................. 57
H. Public Safety………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 59
I. Relationships of District to the State.......................................................................... 59
J. Opportunities & Challenges……………………………………………………………………………………. 60
CHAPTER III Regional Goals & Implementation Plan.................................................. 65
A. Regional Process........................................................................................................ 65
1. Survey/ Planning Meeting Results.................................................................. 65
B. Goals & Objectives & Strategies................................................................................. 71
C. CEDS Strategy Summary/Implementation Plan……….……………………………………………… 78
CHAPTER IV Evaluation Plan..................................................................................... 86
Appendix
A. Survey……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 87
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Chapter I
INTRODUCTION & ORGANIZATION
PURPOSE
The purpose of the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) is to
enhance regional cooperation in central South Dakota. The CEDS has four objectives:
• Describe the CSDED region in terms of its geographic, economic, and social
relationships.
• Identify regional development issues and priorities.
• Develop an implementation plan.
• Outline/refine an organizational structure that meets basic service demands and
fiscal realities.
GENERAL MISSION
Working together to improve the quality of life within our region.
CSDED members and staff strive to create wealth and lessen poverty from a ‘wholistic’
approach by promoting a favorable business environment, while attracting private capital
and jobs through capacity-building, infrastructure development, planning, research and
strategic initiatives.
A. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
1. Organizational Authority/History
Central South Dakota Enhancement District (CSDED) is a Planning and Development
District. Planning and Development Districts were authorized in South Dakota in 1970 by
executive order of Governor Frank Farrar to promote regional cooperation and
economical service delivery. Each individual district operates under its own separate
“Joint Exercise of Governmental Power” authorized by South Dakota codified Law l-24.
The CSDED Region is comprised of Haakon, Hyde, Hughes, Jackson, Jones, Stanley,
and Sully counties. The present planning district service boundaries are outlined in Figure
I-1. The organization is a voluntary venture and has no taxing authority or regulatory
power. The local governments pool their resources to provide planning, development and
coordination of services in the most efficient and effective manner possible. As
requested, and as staff time allows, surrounding counties, communities, and tribal entities
that do not belong to a planning district or simply need assistance are also provided
services on a fee-for-services basis.
1
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Figure I-1
2. EDA Designation/History
A planning district operated in the area from the mid 1970’s to 1983 when it was
organizationally disbanded. Some of the counties joined other planning districts and most
tribal governments employed their own development personnel, usually with support
from the Economic Development Administration. In 1999, efforts to organize a new
district in the region were underway. In May, 2000 a Comprehensive Economic
Development Strategy (CEDS) was prepared for the Region in order to establish a
designated district for the area. On December 6, 2006, the efforts were successful and
CSDED received designation from EDA as an Economic Development District that
included the counties of Haakon, Hughes, Hyde, Jones, Stanley, and Sully. As Jackson
County became a member of the CSDED in 2006, a request to include said county in the
EDA designation was approved in 2008 by EDA.
Currently, the county service area includes Haakon, Hyde, Hughes, Jackson, Jones,
Stanley, and Sully. District membership remained strong with 100 percent of the eligible
counties and 13 incorporated communities choosing to actively participate in the
organization in 2012. Thus, 20 entities of the 22 eligible to participate are doing so. The
two communities that chose not to pay membership dues are Cottonwood and Draper.
Each community is under 100 in population and their budgets are extremely limited due
to minimum assessed valuation and tax dollars received. In fact, one of those
communities has a population of 9, according to 2010 Census. Of the non-active
communities, one community is located in Jones County and one in Jackson County. A
five year CEDS was submitted in August, 2007 and this replaces the 2007 document.
2
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Figure I-2
3. CSDED Board of Directors and CEDS Committee Members
The Board of Directors of the CSDED serves as both the governing body for the district
and then realigns itself to constitute the CEDS Committee. Table I-1 lists the current
board members as the Governing Body. The CEDS committee includes representatives
from government, chamber of commerce, industry, labor, education, health, agriculture,
labor, workforce development, utilities, elderly, transportation, public safety, etc. Table I2 lists the CEDS Committee members and their affiliations.
3
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table I-1 CSDED Governing Body Membership
33 Total Board Members
Government Representatives = 60.6%
Government
Representative /General Address
1. Haakon County
2. Hughes County
3. Hyde County
4. Jackson County
5. Jones County
6. Stanley County
7. Sully County
8. Agar
9. Blunt
10. Highmore
11. Harrold
12. Midland
13. Murdo
14. Pierre
15. Ft. Pierre
16. Philip
17. Onida
18. Kadoka
19. Belvidere
20. Interior
Edward Briggs, Midland, SD
Bill Abernathy, Pierre, SD
Ron VanDenBerg, Highmore, SD
Ron Twiss, Interior, SD
Sam Seymour, Murdo, SD
Brian Scott, Ft Pierre, SD
Bev Zebroski, Onida, SD
Robert Joachim, Agar, SD
Joe O’Dell, Blunt, SD
Barry Alger, Highmore, SD
Dean Becker, Harrold, SD
Diana Baeze, Midland, SD
Krysti Barnes, Murdo, SD
Steve Harding, Pierre, SD
Sam Tidball, Fort Pierre, SD
Michael Vetter, Philip
Bob Porter, Onida
Harry Weller, Kadoka
Jo Rodgers
Allen Grimes
Position
County Commissioner
County Commissioner
County Commissioner
County Commissioner
County Commissioner
County Commissioner
County Commissioner
Town Board President
Town Board Member
City Council Member
Town Board President
Town Board President
Finance Officer, appointed
City Council Member
Mayor
Mayor
City Council Member
Mayor
Finance Officer, appointed
Town Board President
Non-Government Representatives = 36.4%
A. Private Sector Representatives
Name/General Address
Company/Enterprise
1. Kevin Hipple, Pierre, SD
2. David Neuharth
Position
Hipple Farm
3Y3 Ranch & Prairie
Paradise Hunts
3. Don Sieck, Onida, SD
Don’s Food Center
4. Ray Smith, Philip, SD
First National Bank
5. Jerry Kroetch, Philip, SD
Scotchman Industries
6. Marsha Davenport, Fort Pierre, SD-Fort Pierre Body Shop
7. Monte Anker, Murdo, SD
Anker Ranch
8. Troy Baloun, Highmore, SD
Baloun Ranch/The Grand Lodge
9. Ken Wilmarth, Kadoka, SD
H & H El Centro Best Western
10. Marileen Tilberg
Onida Watchman, Inc.
Owner
President
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Manager/Editor--Appt by Owner
B. Stake Holders
Name
Organization
Position
1. Dennis Booth, Ft Pierre, SD
2. Ron Woodburn, Pierre, SD
Ft. Pierre Chamber of Commerce
Capitol University Center
Executive Director
Director
Name/General Address
1.Vikki Day
Owner
Owner
At – Large Representative = 3%
Area of Interest
Disabled/Religion
Position
Disabled Parent
4
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table I - 2 CSDED CEDS Committee
1. Private Sector=54.5%
Name
1. Krysti Barnes
2. Ray Smith
3. Barry Alger
4. Don Sieck
5. Jerry Kroetch
6. Monte Anker
7. Troy Baloun
8. Kevin Hipple
9. Sam Seymour
10. Marileen Tilberg
11. Ron Twiss
12. David Neuharth
13. Bob Porter
14. Bev Zebroski
15. Kenneth Wilmarth
16. Marsha Davenport
17. Jo Rodgers
18. Edward Briggs
Company
AE Land Company
First National Bank
Alger Farms
Don’s Food Center
Scotchman Industries
Anker Ranch
Baloun Ranch/The Grand Lodge
Hipple Farm
Seymour Ranch
Onida Watchman
Twiss Ranch (minority rep.)
3Y3 Ranch & Prairie
Paradise Hunts
Porter Electric/Independent
Cordyn Ludwig Corporation
H & H El Centro Best Western/Restaurant
Fort Pierre Auto Body Shop
JR’s Bar and Grill
Briggs Ranch
Position
Owner
President
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Manager & Editor
Owner
Owner
Owner
President/Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
Owner
2. Representative of Other Economic Interests=45.5%
Name
Area of Interest
1. Brian Scott
2. Bill Abernathy
Local Government
Labor/Public Safety
Workforce
Local Government/Public Safety
Transportation
Religion/Disabled Individuals/
Social Services /Women/Gov’t
Local Government/Disabled
3. Ron VandenBerg
4. Vikki Day
5. Allen Grimes
6. Sam Tidball
7. Harry Weller
8. Ron Woodburn
Position
Stanley County/Farmer
State Law Enforcement/
Civil Service Commission
Commissioner/Fire Department
Retired County Highway Supt.
Hosanna Restoration Church/
Disabled Individuals/Mayor
Town Board President/Disabled
Individual
SD State Transportation Board
Teacher/Coach
9. Robert Joachim
Transportation
Education
Education/Workforce Development
Underemployed/Health
Government/Labor/Veterans
10. Dean Becker
Government/Laborer
11. Diana Baeza
Veterans, Government, Agriculture
Work Force
Local Government/Retired/Veteran /
Transportation
Local Government/Military/Veteran
Tourism/Economic Development/
Workforce Development
Local Government/Regional Water Supply Mayor of Philip/West River
Lyman Jones Rural Water System
12. Joe O’Dell
13. Steve Harding
14. Dennis Booth
15. Michael Vetter
5
Capitol University Center
Agar Board Member/Whitler
Farm Employee/American
Legion
Harrold Town Board
President/Electrician
Veteran, Town Board President
Ag Service Business Employee
Blunt Council Member
Veterans Organizations
SD Military & Veterans Affairs
Ft Pierre Chamber of Commerce
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
4. CSDED Management Structure
The management objectives of the CSDED are to:
1. Maintain minimal staff capacity
2. Build staff technical capabilities;
3. Continue stabilization of long-term office financing.
The District relies upon a variety of funding sources to support its staff and/or work plan,
including membership dues, grant and loan administration, service contracts, etc.
Figure I-3 CSDED Organizational Structure
B. REGIONAL RELATIONSHIPS
The staff and Governing Body members have established relationships with state and
federal agencies, such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), National
Park Service, FEMA, SD Governor’s Office of Economic Development, SD Department
of Environment and Natural Resources, SD Department of Transportation, SD Housing
Development Authority, SD Office of Emergency Management, Rural Development, as
well as, the other SD Planning Districts, to name a few. The Small Business
Development Center is located in the offices of the CSDED. This working partnership
helps new and expanding businesses with job creation. It is an excellent symbiotic
relationship as it enables the sharing of space and equipment. The District and its
relationship to the regional development community are illustrated in Figure I-4. The
relationships are diverse and multi-faceted.
Figure I-4 Regional Relationships
6
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Chapter II
THE REGION & ITS ECONOMY
A. GEOGRAPHIC & CLIMATIC DATA
1. Land Area and Population Density
The Central South Dakota Enhancement District (CSDED) area contains 8,923 square
miles with the majority of the counties having a population density of 1 to 2 persons per
square mile. Hughes County population sees a much higher density, primarily due to it
being the home to the State Capital and multiple federal government offices. See Table
II-1. Population in more detail will be discussed later.
Table II - 1 Basic Statistics
Square Miles
(Rounded)
2010
Population Total
County
Area*
1,937
1,827
Haakon
17,022
801
Hughes
1,420
866
Hyde
3,031
1,871
Jackson
1,006
971
Jones
2,966
1,517
Stanley
1,373
1,070
Sully
28,755
8,923
TOTAL
Land
Area
1,811
742
861
1,864
970
1,444
1,007
8,697
*Total Area includes surface area of water bodies
Source: US Census 2010 SF-1, GCT-PH1
Figure II - 1 Population Density
7
Population
Density per
square mile
of land area
1.1
23.0
1.7
1.6
1.0
2.1
1.4
3.3
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
2. Topography
Figure II - 2 Typical rolling hills prairie of the region.
The topography of the area ranges from flat to rolling hills, to small flat topped hills with
steep banked stream bottoms, to steep river breaks. The most significant physical feature
of the region is the Missouri River and the Oahe Reservoir. Major tributaries flowing into
the Missouri River system are the Cheyenne River and The Bad River. There are
approximately 1,230 miles of river shore frontage in the Oahe Reservoir with 23,137,000
acres of storage (including that which goes north to the North Dakota border). It should
be noted that the reservoir above the Oahe Dam is known as Lake Oahe. While the water
below the dam is known as Lake Sharpe. The Cheyenne River drainage basin is 11,952
square miles, while the Bad River drainage basin is 3,176 square miles. The other major
river in the area is the White River which has a total drainage area of approximately
10,200 square miles in both Nebraska and South Dakota. The White River drains into the
Missouri River/Lake Francis Case south of the District. There are numerous creeks and
streams that run throughout the region. See Figure II-3. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and South Dakota Geological Survey have compiled
extensive studies on soil and ground water characteristics.
Figure II - 3 Major Water Ways
8
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
3. CLIMATE
"Land of Infinite Variety"
The region has a “dry continental” four-seasons climate which includes wide annual
variations in temperature and precipitation. Temperatures can soar to over 115 degrees in
the summer to – 25 degrees in the winter, yet the average annual temperature is 45
degrees. Precipitation comes in the form of both rain and snow with the average
precipitation ranging from 18 to 20 inches for the counties east of the Missouri River to
16 to 18 inches in counties west of the river.
Figure II - 4 Climate Maps
9
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
The fact that the regional climate is subject to extremes makes it a factor in all aspects of
life and specifically any current or new human development. All development needs to
account for the location's prevailing winds, flood potential drainage, and soil conditions,
as well as potential natural disasters.
4. Natural Disasters
Central South Dakota can be a tenuous place to live and work under “normal” conditions.
Many natural disasters have taken a toll on the region over time.
* Tornadoes
* Severe Thunder Storms
* Hail & High Winds
* Blizzards
* Ice Storms
* Drought & Floods
Figure II - 5 Disaster Frequency Map
5. Land Use Patterns
Over 98% of the district's land use is in agriculture. The agriculture land is roughly half
ranchland and half cropland. Not all towns and cities of the area are zoned, with only
Onida, Philip, Kadoka, Fort Pierre and Pierre having a true land use plan. In addition,
Haakon and Jackson counties are also not zoned. The primary land use concerns are
Missouri River frontage uses, large scale confinement facilities (including fish farms),
and rural residential development. All of the three issues are currently undergoing new
land use changes and regulations to accommodate future potential development, as well
as immediate concerns.
10
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
B. ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE PROFILE
Within the CSDED Region are a number of environmental factors which must be
considered in development decisions.
1. Endangered Species
Table II-2 includes the designated species that may be encountered in the region. The US
Fish and Wildlife Service and South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks are part of any
environmental assessment’s contact protocol. It should be noted that portions of Jackson
County are included in the SD Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Conservation and Management
Plan area. The plan includes incentives for landowner participation in a program to
reintroduce the black-footed ferret to help control the prairie dog population.
Figure II - 6 Black Footed-Ferret Reintroduction Area
11
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table II-2 ENDANGERED SPECIES BY COUNTY LIST
(updated September 11, 2012)
STATE: SOUTH DAKOTA
T - Threatened
C-Candidate
E - Endangered
COUNTY
CH - Critical Habitat
GROUP
BIRD
HAAKON
INSECT
HUGHES
BIRD
FISH
HYDE
SPECIES
CERTAINTY OF OCCURRENCE
STATUS
CRANE, WHOOPING
KNOWN
E
PIPIT, SPRAGUE’S
POSSIBLE
C
PLOVER, PIPING
KNOWN
T, E
TERN, LEAST
KNOWN
E
BEETLE, AMERICAN
BURYING-2
POSSIBLE
E, XN
CRANE, WHOOPING
KNOWN
E
PLOVER, PIPING
KNOWN
T (CH)
TERN, LEAST
KNOWN
E
STURGEON, PALLID
KNOWN
E
CRANE, WHOOPING
KNOWN
E
TERN, LEAST
KNOWN
E
PLOVER, PIPING
KNOWN
T, E
FISH
STURGEON, PALLID
KNOWN
E
JACKSON
MAMMAL
STANLEY
PCH - Proposed Critical Habitat
BIRD
BIRD
JONES
XN - Proposed/Experimental Population
BIRD
BIRD
FISH
BIRD
SULLY
FISH
CRANE, WHOOPING
KNOWN
E
PIPIT, SPRAGUE’S
POSSIBLE
C
FERRET, BLACKFOOTED-3
KNOWN
E
CRANE, WHOOPING
KNOWN
E
PIPIT, SPRAGUE’S
POSSIBLE
C
CRANE, WHOOPING
KNOWN
E
PIPIT, SPRAGUE’S
POSSIBLE
C
PLOVER, PIPING
KNOWN
T (CH)
TERN, LEAST
KNOWN
E
STURGEON, PALLID
KNOWN
E
CRANE, WHOOPING
KNOWN
E
PLOVER, PIPING
KNOWN
T (CH)
TERN, LEAST
KNOWN
E
STURGEON, PALLID
KNOWN
E
Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service (2012) Endangered species program.
1-Bald Eagles have been removed from the list due to recovery.
2-The American Burying Beetle is presently known for only Gregory, Tripp and Todd counties. A comprehensive status survey has never
been completed for the American Burying Beetle in South Dakota. Until status surveys have been completed, the beetle could and may occur
in any county with suitable habitat. Suitable habitat is considered to be any site with significant humus or topsoil suitable for burying
carrion.
3-Block clearance is a strategy developed by the Service to determine the likelihood of black-footed ferret occurrence in a geographic area
and provide sufficient information to allow the Service to assess an area for the biological potential for contributing to recovery of the
ferret. The act of block clearing an area negates the need to conduct future ferret surveys to comply with section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act. The exception is for National Park Service lands and US Fish and Wildlife Service lands - ferrets are considered threatened in
those areas. Black-footed ferrets have been reintroduced in Badlands National Park, Buffalo Gap National Grasslands and Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe Reservation.
12
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
2. Wilderness Areas
There are no designated wilderness areas in the CSDED area under the Wilderness
Act. A portion of the Badland Wilderness Area is located just to the west of Jackson
County.
3. Wild or Scenic Rivers
While a portion of the Missouri River is listed under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, that
portion is not located in the CSDED area.
4. National Grasslands
The District has two National Grasslands managed by the National Forest Service within
its boundaries. The Fort Pierre National Grasslands encompasses over 116,000 acres,
with one-fourth being located in southeastern Stanley County. A small portion of the
591,000 acre Buffalo Gap National Grasslands is located in Jackson County next to the
Badlands National Park. The majority of this grassland is located in southwestern South
Dakota.
Figure II - 7 National Grasslands Map
13
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
5. Prime/Unique Agricultural Lands
There are some prime/unique farmland designations in Sully, Hughes, and Hyde counties
according to the American Farmland Trust. Exact locations are unknown; however prime
soils as well as unique conditions exist in land adjacent to the Missouri River in Hughes
and Hyde counties as well as top-rated irrigated agriculture lands in Sully County.
6. Recreation Areas
Parks at the state and local level are important to the economic system of the area as
camping, hunting, and fishing are popular activities, not only for the local residents, but
tourists as well. It is important to note that recreation areas are not evenly spread
throughout the district. Nearly all are state & federal recreation areas located on the
Missouri River, with the only exception being the Badlands National Park in western
Jackson County, and the national grasslands. Haakon and Hyde counties currently have
no public recreation areas other than parks operated by the cities themselves. As tourism
grows and becomes more prominent in the local economy, these areas will become more
valuable. In order to handle more visitors, there is a need to further develop facilities at
many of the recreation areas within the region.
Figure II-8 Major Recreational Areas Map
14
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
7. Archeological, Historic, and Cultural Resources
Within the CSDED area are a number of archeological, historic, prehistoric, and cultural
resources-See Table II-3. Access to the State Archeological Research Center information
is restricted to certain officials. It is a requirement of the State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) of South Dakota that a records search be conducted regarding each
project site that involves federal funding. A pedestrian ground survey of the proposed site
location may also be required by SHPO during an environmental review process. In the
event that construction uncovers items that might be of archeological, historical or
architectural interest, the SHPO must be immediately contacted.
County
Table II-3
CSDED Area National Register of Historic Places
Resource
Address
City
Date Listed
Haakon
Haakon
Bank of Midland
Building
Waddell Block
Main St.
Lot 1, Block 7
Midland
Philip
8/13/1986
2/24/2010
Hughes
Archeological Site
39HU189
Address Restricted
Macs Corner
2/23/1984
Hughes
Archeological Site
39HU201
Address Restricted
Pierre
2/23/1984
Hughes
Hughes
Archeological Site
39HU66
Arzberger Site
Address Restricted
Address Restricted
Canning
Pierre
2/23/1984
10/15/1966
Hughes
Hughes
Blackburn, Dr. William
and Elizabeth, House
Brink-Wagner House
219 S. Tyler Ave.
110 E. 4th St.
Pierre
Pierre
5/9/1997
4/26/1978
Hughes
Hughes
Cedar Islands
Archeological District
Central Block
Address Restricted
321--325 S. Pierre St.
Pierre
Pierre
8/14/1986
1/19/1989
Hughes
Chicago and North
Western Railroad Bridge
N of US 14/83 over
the Missouri R.
Pierre
11/19/1998
Hughes
Hughes
Crawford-Pettyjohn
House
Farr House
129 S. Washington St. Pierre
106 E. Wynoka St.
Pierre
9/22/1977
12/4/1980
Hughes
Hughes
Fort George Creek
Archeological District
Goodner, I. W., House
Address Restricted
216 E. Prospect Ave.
Pierre
Pierre
8/14/1986
3/23/1995
Hughes
Hughes
Hughes
Hughes
Graham, Mentor, House
Hansen, Peter, House
Harrold School
Hilger Block
U.S. 14
1123 E. Capitol St.
206 S. Nixon Ave.
361 S. Pierre
Blunt
Pierre
Harrold
Pierre
12/13/1976
2/10/1999
10/24/2003
5/31/2006
Hughes
Hipple, John E. and
Ruth, House
219 N. Highland
Pierre
6/6/2001
15
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Hughes
Horner--Hyde House
Pierre
12/20/1988
Pierre
2/10/1993
Hyde Buildings
Pringle House
Karcher Block
Karcher-Sahr House
McClure Site (39HU7)
100 W. Capitol Ave.
Capitol Ave. between
Grand and Euclid
Aves.
101 1/2, 105, 108
1/2, and 109 S. Pierre
St. and 105 1/2
Capitol Ave.
102 N. Jefferson Ave.
366 S. Pierre St.
222 E. Prospect St.
Address Restricted
Hughes
Hughes County
Courthouse
Hughes
Hughes
Hughes
Hughes
Hughes
Pierre
Pierre
Pierre
Pierre
Pierre
2/1/1983
12/15/2012
8/17/1993
9/22/1977
8/14/1986
Hughes
McDonald, Henry M.,
House
1906 E. Erskine
Pierre
10/19/1989
Hughes
McMillen, George,
House
111 E. Broadway
Pierre
8/18/1983
Hughes
Meade, Judge C. D.,
House
106 W. Prospect St.
Pierre
10/7/1977
Hughes
Medicine Creek
Archeological District
Address Restricted
Lower Brule
8/14/1986
Hughes
Methodist Episcopal
Church
Pierre
5/9/1997
Hughes
Hughes
Oahe Addition Historic
District
Oahe Chapel
117 Central Ave., N.
Roughly bounded by
N. Poplar, LaBarge
Ct., and 3rd and 4th
Sts.
NW of Pierre
Pierre
Pierre
6/2/2000
6/6/1980
Hughes
Old Fort Sully Site
(39HU52)
Address Restricted
Pierre
8/14/1986
Hughes
Hughes
Hughes
Pierre Hill Residential
Historic District
Pierre Masonic Lodge
Rowe House
Roughly bounded by
Huron Ave., Elizabeth
St., Euclid Ave. and
Broadway
201 W. Capitol Ave.
1118 E. Capitol
Pierre
Pierre
Pierre
2/23/1998
6/10/2009
2/9/2001
Hughes
Scurr, Kenneth R., House
121 S. Washington
Ave.
Pierre
8/5/1993
Hughes
Soldiers & Sailors World
War Memorial
Pierre
1/27/1983
Hughes
Hughes
Hughes
South Dakota State
Capitol
St. Charles Hotel
Stephens-Lucas House
Pierre
Pierre
Pierre
9/1/1976
5/7/1980
5/26/1977
Capitol Ave.
Bounded by
Broadway,
Washington, and
Capitol Aves.
207 E. Capitol Ave.
123 N. Nicollette
16
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Hughes
Upper Pierre Street
Commercial Historic
District Boundary
Increase
Roughly bounded by
E. Capitol Ave. and S.
Pierre St.
Pierre
10/30/2000
Hyde
Archeological Site No.
39HE331
Address Restricted
Holabird
8/6/1993
Hyde
Gerhart, Augustus and
Augusta, House
321 Iowa St.
Highmore
9/4/1997
Hyde
Hyde County
Courthouse
412 Commercial St.,
SE
Highmore
3/30/1978
Kadoka
8/13/1986
Midland
Wanblee
10/25/1990
6/11/1975
Jackson Jones, Tom, Ranch
Jackson Lip's Camp
South end of Kadoka
adjacent to Chicago,
Milwaukee, St. Paul,
and Pacific RR
5 1/2 mi. S of
Midland
Address Restricted
Minuteman Missile
Jackson National Historic Site
Off of I 90, N of Rapid
City
Rapid City
11/29/1999
Mt. Moriah Masonic
Jackson Lodge #155
Jackson Pearl Hotel
101 Main St. S
South Main
Kadoka
Kadoka
7/28/2004
6/14/2007
Jackson Prairie Homestead
N of Interior on U.S.
16A
Interior
1/11/1974
Jackson Triangle Ranch
On the S fork of the
Bad R., about 11
miles SW of Philip
Philip
6/3/1994
Jones
Capa Bridge
Local rd. over the Bad
R.
Murdo
12/9/1993
Jones
Freier Round Barn
2 mi. N and 2 mi. E of
Draper
Draper
12/14/1995
Jones
Immanuel Lutheran
Church
14 mi. N of I-90
Murdo
2/8/1988
Stanley
Antelope Creek Site
(39ST55)
Address Restricted
Fort Pierre
8/14/1986
Stanley
Stanley
Bloody Hand Site
(39ST230)
Breeden Village
Address Restricted
Address Restricted
Fort Pierre
Fort Pierre
8/14/1986
6/2/2003
Stanley
Carr, Jefferson Davis,
House
236 W. 2nd Ave.
Fort Pierre
3/5/1982
Stanley
Stanley
Stanley
Fort Pierre Chouteau
Site
Ft. Pierre II (39ST217)
La Verendrye Site
N of Fort Pierre
Address Restricted
Off U.S. 83
Fort Pierre
Ft. Pierre
Fort Pierre
4/3/1976
8/15/1988
8/7/1974
Chicago, Milwaukee,
and St. Paul Railroad
Jackson Depot
17
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Stanley
Stanley
Lower Antelope Creek
Site
Old Fort Pierre School
Address Restricted
2nd Ave. and 2nd St.
Fort Pierre
Fort Pierre
9/15/1982
11/25/1977
Stanley
Stockgrowers Bank
Building
Deadwood and Main
Sts.
Fort Pierre
11/11/1977
Stanley
Sumner, Gaylord, House
2nd and Wandel Sts.
Fort Pierre
12/21/1977
Stanley
United Church of Christ,
Congregational
2nd and Main St.
Fort Pierre
12/21/1977
Sully
Cooper Village
Archeological Site
Address Restricted
Onida
6/2/2003
Sully
Goosen, Jacob D., Barn
Roughly 0.6 mi. E of
Onida
Onida
2/3/1993
Snyder, L. E., House
Jct. of Cedar and
Sixth Sts.
Onida
8/5/1993
Sully
Sully
Sully County Courthouse Main and Ash Sts.
Onida
4/25/2001
Source: US NPS National Register of Historic Places (10-2011) nrhp.focus.nps.gov
8. Superfund Sites
There are currently no Superfund Sites located with the CSDED area.
9. Brownfield Sites
There are currently no open Brownfield Sites. There was a site in 2006 due to a fire at the
Crow Creek Tribal School Dormitory in Hyde County, but that incidence is considered
closed.
10. Hazardous Materials
The CSDED area has experienced numerous spills and leaking underground storage
tanks. The South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (SDDENR)
is notified of each spill and keeps a database of all occurrences. Each incident is tracked
from the time of notification of the spill until the incident is closed.
The Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) for each county has a list of all
facilities and users reporting quantities spilled above the threshold required for reporting.
The LEPC, County Emergency Management Directors, SDDENR, and the local fire
departments are notified of any spill or fire involving a chemical or pesticide listed in the
hazardous materials plan.
11. Well-Head Protection Areas
There are no Well-Head Protection Areas or special zoning areas for well-heads within
the district.
18
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
12. Sole Source Drinking Water Aquifers
There are no Sole Source Drinking Water Aquifers in the CSDED area.
13. Flood Plains
The counties of Haakon, Hyde, Jackson, Jones and Sully have No Special Flood Hazard
Areas identified, while the counties of Sully and Hughes have identified floodplain areas.
The communities of Blunt, Pierre, Fort Pierre, Midland and Philip have identified
floodplains.
C. DEMOGRAPHICS & SOCIAL ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
1. Population Characteristics
The CSDED region, by any reasonable definition, is rural in character with the major
population center being Hughes County. As previously reflected in Table II-1, the area
has a population density of approximately 4.6 persons per square mile.
Figure II-9 2011 County Population Estimates
Overall, the District saw a slight decrease of 44 persons from 2000 (28,799) to 2010
(28,755). While the state saw a population increase of 3.6%. Four counties (Sully,
Jones, Hyde, and Haakon) saw population decreases from between 11.8 to 15.7%.
Hughes and Jackson Counties saw population increases of 3.3% and 3.4% respectively
and Stanley County saw the greatest population increase of 7%.
19
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
It should be noted that only Hughes, Jackson, and Stanley Counties saw increases (3.3%,
3.4% and 7% respectively) in population from 2000 to 2010, while the remaining
Counties were seeing losses with the greatest being Jones County with a 15.7% loss.
Hyde County saw a 15% population loss, and Sully and Haakon Counties an 11.8% loss
over the same time period. Thus, the District saw an overall 0.2% population loss from
2000 (28,799 persons) to 2010 (27,755 persons) all according to the US Census (Table II4). It is of interest that the population peaked in 1960—agriculture was stable and the
building of the dams along the Missouri River was beginning. The 1950’s and 1960’s are
also considered the baby boom era. Recently, Fort Pierre was the only community with a
substantial amount of growth.
Figure II - 10 Community Locations
20
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table II-4 Historical Population Data
Table II - 5 Population Projections / Trends 2010 - 2030
Area
2010
2020
2030
% Change 2010-2030
Haakon
1,937 1,664 1,400
-27.72%
Hyde
1,420 1,222 1,051
-25.99%
Hughes
17,022 18,131 18,823
10.58%
Jackson
3,031 3,116 3,267
7.79%
Jones
1,006
861
727
-27.73%
Stanley
2,966 3,113 3,177
7.11%
Sully
1,373 1,267 1,142
-16.82%
District
28,755 29,374 29,587
2.89%
Source: (2012) SDSU Rural Life and Census Data Center
Population projections (Table II - 5) indicate that by 2030, Stanley, Hughes, and Jackson
counties will be the only ones to see growth. Overall, the District as a whole is estimated
to see a modest 2.9% growth in population. Traits that the major declining population
counties share include limited or no Missouri River access and small initial population
bases.
21
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table II - 6 Population Estimates
Population Change
2011
Number
Change
Census
Estimate
Geographic Area
2010
2000
% Change
2000-2010
Agar town
76
76
82
-6
-7.32%
Belvidere town
52
49
57
-8
-14.04%
Blunt city
359
354
370
-16
-4.32%
9
9
6
3
50.00%
Cottonwood town
81
82
92
-10
-10.87%
Fort Pierre city
2135
2078
1,991
87
4.37%
Harrold town
126
209
-85
-40.67%
Highmore city
782
124
795
851
-56
-6.58%
Interior town
99
94
77
17
22.08%
Kadoka city
682
654
706
-52
-7.37%
Midland town
128
129
179
-50
-27.93%
Murdo city
486
488
612
-124
-20.26%
Onida city
659
658
740
-82
-11.08%
-11.98%
-1.66%
Draper town
Philip city
767
779
885
-106
Pierre city
13860
13646
13,876
-230
Source: Census 2011 Annual Estimates MCD; 2000 & 2010 (SF-1)
Geographic Area
Census
Estimate
Number
Change
% Change
2011
2010
2000
Haakon County
1907
1937
2,196
-259
-11.8%
Hughes County
17292
17022
16,481
541
3.3%
Hyde County
1394
1420
1,671
-251
-15.0%
Jackson County
3169
3031
2,930
101
3.4%
Jones County
1003
1006
1,193
-187
-15.7%
Stanley County
3002
2966
2,772
194
7.0%
Sully County
1375
1373
1,556
-183
-11.8%
29142
28,755
28,799
-44
-0.2%
District
2000-2010
Source: Census 2011 Annual Estimates CO-EST2011-01; 2000 & 2010 (SF-1)
Migration rates represent the difference between a population’s natural change (births
minus deaths) and population counts. Five of the counties saw a net loss—Haakon,
Hyde, Jones, Stanley and Hughes—due to natural changes from 2010 to 2011. Only
Haakon and Hughes counties saw increases due to International Migration. Net internal
migration factors resulted in population losses for all counties except for Hughes and
Jackson counties which saw minimal increases during this period. It should be noted that
the primary reason Jackson County sees growth is due to the younger demographic
residing on the reservation communities located within the county.
22
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Figure II - 11 CSDED Migration Data
Table II - 7 CSDED Migration Data
Overall, the CSDED saw a 67 person population increase from 2010 to 2011 in regards to
net internal migration. District wide natural migration, as well as international and
internal migration saw slight increases, resulting in the population seeing a slight 2.2%
increase. As demonstrated in table II-7, Hughes and Jackson Counties saw a minimal net
increase (115 and 67 respectively) due to natural changes from 2010 to 2011. Stanley,
Jones, Sully and Hyde Counties however, all saw population decreases (while minimal)
due to natural changes in the same time period.
23
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Haakon and Hughes Counties were the only ones to see increases due to international
migration; however, overall the district gained 67 people in net internal migration during
this period. Overall, CSDED saw a 2.2% population increase from 2010 to 2011, while
natural migration was on the increase; internal migration was also positive throughout the
state of South Dakota, resulting in the population increase of 7,484 from 2010 to 2011.
2. Age
The region’s median age is age 43.1, which is approximately 6 years older than the
national median age of 37.2 (Table II-8). At the same time, the median age has increased
from 38.6 in 2000 to 43.1 in 2010. Thus, our population is clearly getting older. Fewer
people are being born and people are living longer as a result of better nutrition, living
conditions and better health care. Both trends contribute to the rise of the median age.
Median age is also influenced by migration—largely out-migration, as young residents
are attracted to larger urban areas due to both higher education and job opportunities.
The region’s “dependent” populations are age 18 and younger and age 65 and over.
These are the age groups that rely more heavily on public-supported services, such as
local school districts and social services agencies. Table II - 9 and II - 10 indicate the
District’s population is growing older at a greater rate than the state and nation. The age
profile of the Native Americans is typically younger than the general population and this
is reflected in Jackson County data where approximately 52% of the population is Native
American.
Table II-8 Median Age 2000 to 2010
Area
2010
2000
Haakon
48.8
41.3
Hughes
39.8
37.5
Hyde
46.4
42.2
Jackson
31.5
30.6
Jones
46.9
41.1
Stanley
41.9
37.6
Sully
46.6
40
District
43.1
38.6
State
36.9
35.6
US
37.2
35.3
Source: US Census 2000 & 2010
24
%Change
18.16%
6.13%
9.95%
2.94%
14.11%
11.44%
16.50%
11.69%
3.65%
5.38%
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table II - 09 Persons Age 17 Years and Younger 2000 to 2010
Area
2000
% of Pop
2010
% of Pop
564
25.69%
431
22.25%
Haakon
4,583
27.81%
4,037
23.72%
Hughes
428
25.61%
318
22.39%
Hyde
1,070
36.52%
997
32.89%
Jackson
313
26.24%
225
22.37%
Jones
750
27.06%
721
24.31%
Stanley
397
25.51%
310
22.58%
Sully
8,105
28.14%
7,039
24.48%
District
202,649
26.85%
202,797
24.91%
State
72,293,812
25.69%
74,181,467
24.03%
US
Source: Census 2000 & 2010 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent
Data
Table II - 10 Persons Age 65 Years and Older 2000 to 2010
Area
2000
% of Pop
2010
% of Pop
396
18.03%
421
21.73%
Haakon
2,252
13.66%
2,285
13.42%
Hughes
373
22.32%
321
22.61%
Hyde
340
11.60%
407
13.43%
Jackson
217
18.19%
207
20.58%
Jones
305
11.00%
469
15.81%
Stanley
271
20.58%
263
19.16%
Sully
4,154
14.42%
4,373
15.21%
District
108,131
14.32%
116,581
14.32%
State
31,241,831
12.43%
40,267,984
13.04%
US
Source: Census 2000 & 2010 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data
3. Minority Population
The largest minority population group in the region is Native Americans. The 2010 U.S.
Census data states this demographic makes up 13% of the region’s population.
While there are no tribal headquarters located in the region, there are portions of three
reservations within the region: Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, Crow Creek and Lower
Brule Indian Reservation. The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe also has trust land located
within the region. There are no trust or reservation lands located within the counties of
Sully, Haakon, and Jones.
25
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Figure II - 12 Reservation Lands
Tribes often experience extreme economic distress which often present challenges, but
can also present unique opportunities. The nine tribes of the Sioux Nation have jointly
come together to build the Wakpa Sica Reconciliation Center just north of Fort Pierre in
Stanley County. In addition to a place where both tribal and non-tribal members/groups
can meet in a spirit of cooperation, plans include an economic development center, the
Tribal Judicial Support Center, a National Mediation Training Center and the Sioux
Nation Supreme Court. This project could be the catalyst that brings new “economic
growth” to the region as natives and non-natives come together.
4. Income
Many primary jobs come from the government sector as Pierre is the state capitol and
tourism is continuing to develop along the Missouri River. Average state jobs are not
high paying, nor are tourism related jobs. There are several professional jobs in state and
federal government that do pay very well. As a whole the area lacks manufacturing jobs.
Although, we have seen manufacturing jobs increase in Stanley County.
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the District’s 2010 per capita income
ranged from $24,633 in Jackson County to a high of $80,165 in Sully County. These
were 61% and 200% of the national per capita income of $39,937. Every county saw an
increase in PCI from 2009 to 2010 with the greatest increase being Hyde County by
51.73%. Jackson County is typically lower due to the number of natural disasters and the
lack of jobs in the county. Jones County saw the lowest growth of per capita income by
4.27% between 2009 and 2010 (adjusted for inflation), although it was still above the
average for the state which was only 3.18%. At the same time Hughes County’s per
capita grew by only 5.47%, most likely due to a freeze on state employee wages. Income
transfers and population losses are greatly affecting PCI figures.
26
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
In relationship to South Dakota as a whole, all District counties saw a larger increase in
PCI between 2009 and 2010 than the state. While this is a positive sign for the region’s
economy, diversifying the job base will still provide a much more positive outlook for the
future.
Table II - 12 BEA Per Capita Income
Area Name
2010 POP
2010 PCI
% of US PCI
United States
309,330,219
$39,937
South Dakota
Haakon
County
Hughes
County
816,598
$39,519
98.95%
1,925
$49,665
124.36%
17,079
$42,155
105.55%
Hyde County
Jackson
County
1,419
$46,382
116.14%
3,048
$24,633
61.68%
Jones County
Stanley
County
1,015
$40,664
101.82%
2,984
$44,911
112.45%
Sully County
1,372
$80,165
200.73%
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis. CA1-3 Personal
Income Summary
Median Household income data (table II-13) indicated that while the median household
income is going up in real dollars, the percentage in relationship to the nation as a whole
are remaining fairly consistent in Jackson, Hughes, and Stanley counties but have grown
in the other counties. We still see two counties with less than the SD median income
level and five counties below the US median Income. This strengthens the concept that
the area needs to diversify job opportunities within the region.
27
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table II - 13 Median Household Income
5. Poverty
US Census data indicates 2010 poverty rates for our seven county area ranges from
32.9% of the population in Jackson County to a low of 9% in Sully County. (Table II- 14)
This would indicate that while we do not have enough jobs or quality jobs, people may be
working at jobs that require less skill than their educational attainment levels.
Table II - 14 Persons in Poverty
Number of
Persons in
Poverty—2005
% in Poverty
2005
Number of
Persons in
Poverty—2010
% in Poverty
2010, estimate
Area
estimate
209
11.2%
253
13.4%
Haakon
1,414
8.9%
1,694
10.4%
Hughes
195
12.4%
190
13.8%
Hyde
924
32.8%
990
32.9%
Jackson
152
14.7%
156
15.5%
Jones
240
8.5%
299
10.1%
Stanley
130
9.1%
124
9.0%
Sully
100,756
13.6%
114,798
14.6%
South
Dakota
Source: websites: www.census.gov SAIPE-Small area Income and Poverty Estimates
28
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
6. Education
Educational attainment is directly linked to earning potentials. Hughes and Stanley
counties have the highest level of educational attainment level. There are no secondary
technical schools and or main university campuses in the CSDED area. However, the
Capitol University Center (CUC) in Pierre has several courses which are offered through
the various universities throughout the state and CUC is always expanding and offering
additional classes. This is a real plus/opportunity for training the underemployed and/or
those needing new skills in their current positions. Distance learning opportunities also
exist and are a great tool for the area. Individuals can take classes on-line. Universities
and technical schools also give classes to businesses, etc., utilizing state’s DDN system.
Local high schools also utilize this service.
Table II-15 provides educational attainment percentages, while 89.3% of South Dakota’s
population were high school graduates in 2010, 25% had a Bachelor’s degree or higher.
In comparison, 85% of the US population were high school graduates and 27.9% had a
Bachelor’s degree or higher for the same time period. Table II - 17 has local school
district information.
Table II - 15 Educational Attainment Percentages
High School graduate
or higher (percent of
population age 25+)
2000
2010
Haakon
Hughes
Hyde
Jackson
Jones
Stanley
Sully
CSDED
South
Dakota
US
Bachelor’s degree or
higher (percent of
population age 25+)
2000
2010
86.3%
89.5%
80.5%
82.7%
86.2%
87.7%
84.9%
87.5%
84.6%
88.0%
93.3%
86.0%
88.4%
92.4%
91.1%
92.0%
91.7%
89.3%
15.4%
32.0%
16.0%
16.2%
17.8%
22.1%
16.4%
25.9%
21.5%
20.0%
33.3%
16.8%
19.4%
15.6%
27.7%
25.1%
28.6%
25.3%
80.4%
85.0%
24.4%
27.9%
Source: US Census 2000 SF4 - DP2 & 2010 American
Community Survey 5yr estimates
29
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table II - 17 School District Statistics
2010
K-12
Enrollment
123,629
2010
DropoutRate
1.8%
Agar - Blunt - Onida 58 - 3
285
0.0%
Haakon School District 27-1
292
0.7%
Highmore-Harrold School District 34-2
294
0.0%
Jones County School District 37-3
174
0.0%
Kadoka Area School District 35-2
350
0.7%
2,578
1.8%
452
1.9%
School District
South Dakota
Pierre School District 32-2
Stanley County School District 57-1
Central SD
4,425
2010
Total
Graduates
8,201
0.7%
Source: South Dakota Department of Education - "2010-2011 School District
Profiles."
30
19
30
24
11
15
208
41
348
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Figure II - 13 2004-2005 School Districts
Figure II-14 – 2011-2012 School Districts
As demonstrated in figures II-13 & 14, the region’s school districts re-aligned from the
original 10 separate school districts, down to eight. The Midland school district
combined with Kadoka, and the Harrold school district combined with Highmore.
31
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
D. HOUSING
1. Housing Values & New Construction Related Issues
A fundamental factor to note about the regions housing is the issue of available financing
in the rural areas. New home construction is substantially hindered by the ability for the
assessed value to equal the cost of construction. The housing values are lower than the
cost of construction, making it virtually impossible for private individuals to build new
housing. In addition new banking regulations indicate that the appraisal can only include
within a certain number of miles and in many counties there is a lack of adequate
property sales to gauge on appraised value.
32
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Several generalizations may be attributed from 2000 Census data and 2010
American Community Survey (5 yr estimates):
• The majority of housing units are single family dwellings;
• The Hughes County is the only location with a significant number of multi-family
housing units;
• Mobile home/trailers make-up a larger percentage of the CSDED housing stock
(16.4) than statewide (9.3) or nationally (6.7);
• The average house values for the region are substantially lower than the national
average;
• Hughes County has the least amount of recently built housing.
• 22% of the housing stock within the district was built before 1950
• 43.24% of our owner occupied housing has a value of less than $100,000. This is
most likely due to the age of the housing stock as well as the rural nature of the
region.
Figure II-15 Age of Housing Units
Age of Housing Units - 2010 Estimates
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Built prior to 1950
Built 1950 to 1959
Built 1960 to 1969
Built 1970 to 1979
Built 1980 to 1989
Built 1990 to 1999
Built after 2000
33
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table II - 20 Age of Housing Units - 2010 Estimates
Haakon
Total Housing
Units
Built after 2000
% of Total
Housing Units
Built 1990 to
1999
% of Total
Housing Units
Built 1980 to
1989
% of Total
Housing Units
Built 1970 to
1979
% of Total
Housing Units
Built 1960 to
1969
% of Total
Housing Units
Built 1950 to
1959
% of Total
Housing Units
Built prior to
1950
% of Total
Housing Units
Hughes
Hyde
Jackson Jones
Stanley Sully
CSDED
SD
1,021
24
7,557
752
729
43
1,202
72
579
16
1,313
157
835
56
13,236
1,120
357,725
44,612
2.4%
10.0%
5.9%
6.0%
2.8%
12.0%
6.7%
8.5%
12.5%
73
1,007
57
112
61
343
110
1,763
48,763
7.1%
13.3%
7.8%
9.3%
10.5%
26.1%
13.2%
13.3%
13.6%
142
868
45
150
96
40
63
1,404
38,874
13.9%
11.5%
6.2%
12.5%
16.6%
3.0%
7.5%
10.6%
10.9%
207
2,192
82
173
114
234
183
3,185
63,286
20.3%
29.0%
11.2%
14.4%
19.7%
17.8%
21.9%
24.1%
17.7%
74
926
116
154
76
54
78
1,478
31,688
7.2%
12.3%
15.9%
12.8%
13.1%
4.1%
9.3%
11.2%
8.9%
177
662
50
168
90
126
76
1,349
34,945
17.3%
8.8%
6.9%
14.0%
15.5%
9.6%
9.1%
10.2%
9.8%
324
1,150
336
373
126
359
269
2,937
95,557
31.7%
15.2%
46.1%
31.0%
21.8%
27.3%
32.2%
22.2%
26.7%
Source: US Census 2010 American Community Survey DP-4 Estimates
Table II - 21 Housing Unit Values - Year 2000
Area
Haakon
Hughes
Hyde
Jackson
Jones
Stanley
Sully
District
Less than $50,000 to $100,000 to 150000 to
$50,000
$99,999
$149,999
$ 199,999
201
134
20
6
259
1645
912
328
194
90
8
0
212
48
17
3
115
80
2
6
74
233
79
34
117
103
26
0
1172
2333
1064
Source: United States Census
34
377
over
$200,000
2
117
2
0
0
32
6
159
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Figure II-16 Housing Unit Value Estimates
Housing Unit Values 2010 estimates
100%
100% =
Total Owner
Occupied Units
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
Less than $50,000
40%
$50,000 to $99,999
30%
$100,000 to 149,999
20%
$150,000 to
$199,999
10%
0%
It should be noted, due to the 2010 US Census only conducting a short version of their
survey, current housing information had to be pulled from American Community Survey.
While ACS is the most accurate data available, it is still an estimate, and can make
comparing/contrasting to past information difficult when it comes to identifying trends or
patterns.
35
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
E. INFRASTRUCTURE & OTHER SERVICES
1. Transportation Systems
State and federal highways are illustrated in Figure II - 17 and Tables II-23 and 24. These
primary transportation corridors account for 928 miles of road surface. Interstate 90 runs
east and west through Jackson and Jones Counties, while Highway 83, a four lane divided
highway, connects the Pierre / Ft. Pierre area with Interstate 90.
Figure II - 17
Table II - 23 State and Federal Highways
County
Haakon
Hughes
Hyde
Jackson
Jones
Stanley
Sully
TOTAL
State
83
51
67
185
35
99
32
552
Federal
40
49
18
46
12
66
24
255
Interstate
0
0
0
50
71
0
0
121
TOTAL
123
100
85
281
118
165
56
928
Source: South Dakota Department of Transportation
36
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table II - 24 County Road Surfaces
County
Haakon
Hughes
Hyde
Jackson
Jones
Stanley
Sully
TOTAL
Bituminous Concrete
122
0.6
77.2
23.8
93.5
0
45
7
49
0.4
164.7
0.5
98.1
11
649.5
43.3
Graded
34.3
14.7
7.7
52
46
46
2
202.7
Gravel
627.4
504
490.5
524
397
375
623.8
3541.7
Primitive Unimproved TOTAL
91.6
47.6
923.5
104
35.3
759
130
8
729.7
53
132
813
43
41.5
576.9
67.2
14.3
667.7
234.5
41.4
1010.8
723.3
320.1
5480.6
Source: South Dakota Department of Transportation
Figure II – 18 Railroad Network
The principal railroad in the area is owned by the Canadian Pacific Railroad and is
operated by DM&E hauling mainly agricultural products from grain storage facilities
within the district, to processing plants elsewhere in the United States, and some grain
will make its way to be exported overseas.
37
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Figure II – 19 Airports
Pierre Regional Airport is the only commercial/passenger airport in the District. The
major regional airports for South Dakota are in Sioux Falls and Rapid City. The Pierre
Regional Airport is regularly serviced by Great Lakes Airlines, which provides 4 daily
flights to both Denver as well as Minneapolis. This regular service provides Pierre
residents access to the two main regional population centers/air services to both the east
and west. In 2012, Pierre completed the construction of a new terminal which is shown
in the photo below.
38
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
2. Regional Utilities and Services
Figure II - 20
Figure II - 21
39
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Figure II - 22
Pierre is the only city in the seven county areas that operates a regional landfill. Blunt,
Fort Pierre, Highmore, Kadoka, Murdo, Onida, and Philip have restrictive use site
permits.
Figure II - 23
Sully, Stanley, and Hughes counties are unique in that they are the only counties to have
natural gas access. As demonstrated in Figure II – 18 a natural gas pipeline runs from the
northern Sully county border, south all the way to Fort Pierre.
40
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
3. Telecommunications/Technology
Three regional telephone cooperatives provide in-line service. Cellular service is
provided by all the major U.S. carries throughout the region. However, the entire region
does not have consistent cellular service.
Figure II - 24
Figure II-25-High Speed Internet Availability
41
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
One issue that the District is currently battling when it comes to economic development is
high speed wireless availability. As the age of technology rises, the need for connectivity
in order to keep up with a shifting economy becomes greater. ‘South Dakota Broadband’
is a governmental organization created by the Bush Administration “American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act” which focuses on not only establishing what the technological
capabilities of the state are, but also offering technical assistance as well as potential
grants to increase the state’s capacity. As demonstrated in figure II-25, not only is the
amount of connections much more sporadic than other areas of the state (which can be
expected with a lower population), but the speeds in our district are also intermittent.
High speed internet capabilities are a significant investment that could spur economic
development throughout the region and allow the District’s communities to tap into the
ever growing global economy.
4. Health and Social Services
The health care industry has experienced changes in service delivery and management
orientation over the past decade. Local clinics and hospitals are being integrated into
larger statewide health systems. This trend toward larger health care affiliations is based
upon several factors, including:
•
•
•
•
Increased demand for specialized diagnostic and treatment services;
Growth in local operational costs;
Workforce availability; and
Advances in communication technology.
Figure II - 26
42
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Beyond the normal health care facilities, the region’s Native American population is
served by Indian Health Services facilities in Pierre, Fort Thompson, Lower Brule, and
Wanblee. The CSDED area contains additional facilities and programs that provide care
and housing for persons with special needs. Future growth in assisted living and other
special care centers may be related to the limited number of nursing home beds.
Figure II - 27
Figure II – 28
43
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
While the cost of daycare is always a consideration, the availability of quality services is
an equal challenge. The region has a high percentage of women in the workforce plus a
significant number of persons with more than one job, making daycare a vital issue.
Haakon
Hughes
Hyde
60.0%
Jackson
Jones
Sully
Stanley
70.0%
CSDED
80.0%
SD
90.0%
United States
Table II-25 Women in the Work Force
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Percent of Women 16+ years in Labor Force
United States
59.4%
South Dakota
65.5%
CSDED
67.0%
Sully
70.8%
Stanley
67.3%
Jones
79.7%
Jackson
62.4%
Hyde
53.7%
Hughes
69.4%
Haakon
52.7%
Source: US Census ACS-DP03
(2006-2010 5 year estimates)
G. LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS/BUSINESS &
INDUSTRY
Although each county and community has their own unique characteristics, several
generalizations can be utilized to describe the region:
•
•
•
•
Government, at all levels, employs a significant number of people—almost 31%.
Agriculture is an important employment sector in most counties.
Non-farm sector wages lag behind state average in most sectors.
Tourism is a major business sector in most of the counties.
44
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
1. Agriculture
One of the large industry/business sectors is the agriculture industry. Overall, the number
of farms in the region has only changed slightly from 2002 to 2007. Coinciding with the
reduction in number is the increasing size of farming/ranching operations. Such a trend
indicates a move toward fewer, yet larger operations, requiring the need for more land to
obtain a sustainable income. On the other hand, Haakon and Hughes saw more farm
numbers and smaller farm sizes. This may be due to smaller acreages being developed for
horse owners and for other types of development—vegetables. Yet, the CSDED region
saw 1.4% more the land taken put into ag production from 2002 to 2007. This could be
due to land coming out of the CRP program and the federal government incentives which
basically encourage farmers to produce more. It should be noted, 2007 Census of
Agriculture information is the most current/accurate data available.
Table II - 26 Farm Numbers and Size
Area
2002 Farm
Numbers
2007 Farm
Numbers
Number
Change
2002 Avg
Farm Size
Acres
2007 Avg
Farm Size
Acres
% Change
2002 - 2007
Haakon
268
284
16
4,558
4,053
-11.1%
Hughes
258
305
47
1,425
1,348
-5.4%
Hyde
187
181
-6
2,507
2,657
6.0%
Jackson
308
297
-11
3,866
3,987
3.1%
Jones
163
163
0
3,169
3,186
0.5%
Stanley
166
165
-1
5,219
5,582
7.0%
Sully
228
195
-33
2,515
3,123
24.2%
CSDED
1,578
1,590
12
3,323
3,419
2.9%
SD
31,736
31,169
-567
1,380
1,401
1.5%
Source: US Census of Ag 2002 and 2007
As a whole, the area is extremely ag oriented and all seven counties were included in the
drought disaster declaration of 2012. The weather caused losses in agricultural income
and “stressed” the economies of rural communities. In 2011, the entirety of the district
(with the exception of Haakon and Jones County) was included as a primary county in
presidential disaster declaration 1984-DR due to severe flooding. See Figure II - 30
which shows the number of presidential disasters in the CSDED region from 1969 to
2012. These disasters, either severe thunderstorm, flooding, snow storms, or droughts,
affect the area’s economy greatly. While a hailstorm can wipe out a crop, it can also
cause extensive damage to homes, businesses, above ground utility infrastructure, etc.
Livestock numbers and crop production values also vary greatly depending on weather
conditions. This, in turn, reflects on income for the farmers/ranchers and may result in
less income for the local merchants on main street.
45
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Figure II - 30 Disaster Declarations
Wide variations in commodity prices, combined with weather disasters can dramatically
affect farm and ranch incomes. Table II – 27 compares 2000 with 2010 farm proprietor’s
net income. It should also be noted that government transfer payments saw a large
increase in 2005. Overall, this data shows how unpredictable farm net income can be year
to year, which creates a difficulty for planning with such a major economic mechanism
being so volatile. Fuel and fertilizer prices, along with a final sales price will have a huge
impact on net income.
Table II-27 Farm Net Income (thousands of dollars)
SD
Haakon
Hughes
Hyde
Jackson
Jones
Stanley
Sully
District
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2000
2007
2008
2009
1,323,940 $1,829,792 $ 3,039,257 $ 2,345,768
25,267
$11,145
$
30,880 $
11,855
16,801
$23,309
$
65,435 $
29,210
8,586
$8,676
$
21,626 $
(2,821)
4,814
$8,479
$
13,174 $
10,082
7,102
$12,705
$
22,415 $
7,830
8,543
$3,014
$
19,572 $
(1,334)
35,860
$42,231
$
96,420 $
22,455
106,973
$109,559 $ 269,522 $
77,277
Sourse: BEA www.bea.gov Local Area Personal Income
CA45-Farm Income and Expenses, Line 310
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
2010
2,577,073
23,983
59,374
21,553
13,356
10,182
6,421
50,992
185,861
As the need to make agriculture a sustainable enterprise grows, the call for value-added
agricultural processing increases. Communities in the area are looking to develop both in
value-added ag processing i.e. ethanol production.
46
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Although value-added agricultural processing is often considered by local leaders to be
a major development opportunity, it has certain drawbacks.
Value-added projects:
•
Normally require a large development of capital outlay.
•
Usually will not be successful without definite markets and/or product contracts.
•
May not employ a large number of people after the initial construction.
•
Often require significant infrastructure accommodations.
The term “value-added” means different things to different development interests. To
some officials, any agricultural production activity, including large-scale animal
confinement operations is value-added, if the activity will promote market stability and
job opportunities. Others may view value-added as finished product processing, such as
ethanol production and livestock packing plants. Another definition is creating work
opportunities off the farm that permit farm operators to subsidize their agricultural
income. Regardless of the definition, value-added agriculture is an attempt to build upon
the region’s wealth of natural and commodity resources. A significant barrier to
continuing value-added activities in the region is public perception. Large scale feedlots
to large scale fish farms can provide value-added opportunities, yet often continue to end
in heated —“not in my back yard” discussions. It is vital for the region and the public as
a whole to become better educated about value-added agriculture in order to make
informed decisions, so another major sector of the economy is not infringed upon—
tourism. On the other hand, the development large scale “value added” businesses such as
a proposed pulse processing plant at Harrold involves large financial investment from
both producers and non-producers alike.
2. Non-Ag Workforce/Regional Economic Clusters
According to Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) data, the largest increases in jobs
from 2009 to 2010 occurred in Wholesale Trade, Professional, Scientific, & Technical
Services and Mining in Hughes County (20.3%, 17.4, and 15.2% respectively). The
largest sector to lose jobs over the same time frame was Arts, Entertainment and
Recreation, in Jackson County. Table II- 28 reflects the non-farm worker numbers by
categories from 2009 to 2010 by county. Overall the District’s total employment figures
increased from 14,343 in 2006 to 14,780 in 2011 which demonstrates an overall job
growth rate for the region of approximately 3% over the past 5 years; with Jackson
County the only county to see lost jobs (demonstrated on table II-30). Of course, the
largest numbers of off-farm employees’ region wide are in the government sector
whether it is local government or state/federal government. While there are no real major
manufacturing pockets in the CSDED region, the state capital is located in Pierre, thus
the large number of government jobs. Yet, there are numerous state, federal and local
government employees in each county. Utilities are also a large employment sector.
Energy alternatives, broadband technology expansion, and drought tolerant crops are all
issues that face the region, but also have great economic potential for the area.
Communities in the area are looking to develop both in value-added ag processing, (i.e.
ethanol production) as well as alternative energy. Wind development and geo-thermal
opportunities are being discussed. Fish farming operations are also being considered. All
have potential for both short-term construction and permanent employees.
47
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table II - 29 reflects the average non-farm wages paid from 2008 to 2010. Wages are, on
the whole somewhat lower than state averages, except for the hospitality industry. Which
may reflect the area is geared toward the tourism industry. Table II-30 represents the total
amount of workers / wages paid in the region’s counties over the past 11 years.
48
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table II - 29 Employment and Wage Data
49
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Table II-30 Worker and Annual Pay Levels 2000-2011
It should be noted, due to the 2010 U.S. Census only utilizing their short form, data in
this area can be quite limited, and cause difficulties when analyzing. For confidentiality
reasons, the BEA doesn’t report some fields that have few members in them, which can
be an issue in rural areas. While the data is relevant, it should not be the primary guide
for decision making, as its data is lacking in some areas.
50
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Regional Economic Clusters (RECs)
Regional economic clusters have spurred economic growth and created jobs in a variety
of economic regions throughout the country. These geographic concentrations of a
variety of interconnected businesses focused in one industry or field. Clusters are groups
of industries that share common or complementary markets, suppliers or workforce skills.
There are three different ways clusters can have an impact on competition--increasing the
productivity of companies within the cluster driving innovation in the field, as well as
stimulating new business. Some other assets that clusters provide to the communities
containing them are their needs are similar. This is especially true when it comes to
infrastructure, technology, as well as human capital. These similarities lead clusters to
being successful in a variety of geographic places, ranging from rural to larger
metropolitan areas as well as an array of industries, including high-tech firms, mining and
a manufacturing. Clusters include both high and low-end employment, which proposes
an upward mobility for workers with a skillset within the clustered industry.
Communities embracing clustered economic development can utilize unused/misused
assets more effectively, adequately enhance their work force, and contribute to an overall
higher quality of life for the entire community.
The Location Quotient Calculator is a tool developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
that presents information about private sector employment data, by industry, as measured
by the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program. Location quotient
data provides information on relative employment levels in a region as compared
nationally. LQs are calculated by first, dividing regional industry employment by the all
industry total of local employment. Second, national industry employment is divided by
the all industry total for the region. Finally, the regional ratio is divided by the national
ratio.
The location quotients in Table II-31 identify Agri-business, Food Processing, and
technology, Mining, Machinery manufacturing and several manufacturing sectors as
industry clusters within the Central South Dakota Enhancement District that represent
larger proportions of the local economy. These are areas that communities should look
at first if looking to encourage cluster economic development. However, it should be
noted, each community is unique in their assets, technology, and workforce providing a
need for a unique strategy tailored to each place.
51
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Industry Cluster
Employment
Location Quotient
QCEW Cluster
Wages
Industry Cluster
Annual Wages
Location Quotient
Agribusiness, Food Processing
& Technology
QCEW Cluster Employment
Advanced Materials
Industry Cluster
Establishment
Location Quotient
Total All Industries
QCEW Cluster Establishments
Table II-31 2010 CSDED Industry Clusters by
(Establishments)&(Employment)&(Wages)
1,366
1.00
14,573
1.00
$467,821,066
1.00
2
0.13
18
0.04
$806,831
0.04
73
3.52
779
2.26
$29,913,781
3.37
Apparel & Textiles
Arts, Entertainment,
Recreation & Visitor Industries
2
0.27
19
0.24
$541,850
0.22
94
2.34
1,018
1.76
$22,335,294
1.61
Biomedical/Biotechnical (Life
Sciences)
40
0.99
1,021
0.74
$35,965,181
0.76
Business & Financial Services
153
0.71
904
0.70
$50,418,909
0.70
Chemicals & Chemical Based
Products
3
0.38
17
0.09
$584,732
0.07
Defense & Security
52
1.07
887
1.12
$45,309,754
1.21
Education & Knowledge
Creation
22
1.20
264
0.48
$9,146,867
0.50
Energy (Fossil & Renewable)
89
1.47
848
1.31
$38,037,862
1.19
Fabricated Metal Product Mfg
2
0.36
7
0.07
$208,902
0.06
Forest & Wood Products
2
0.30
10
0.09
$367,791
0.09
28
0.59
409
0.77
$23,145,213
0.71
Machinery Mfg
3
3.95
45
2.85
$2,001,634
3.92
Manufacturing Super-cluster
5
0.31
52
0.10
$2,210,536
0.09
Mining
2
7.02
7
2.75
$333,893
3.94
Printing & Publishing
25
0.95
249
1.11
$7,828,003
0.84
Transportation & Logistics
31
1.01
204
0.49
$7,785,873
0.58
Information Technology &
Telecommunications
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment & Wages (QCEW) and Purdue
Center for Regional Development.
Available at: http://www.statsamerica.org/innovation/anydata/custom.asp
52
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
3. Tourism/Hospitality Industry
Tourism/Hospitality Industry is an ever important part of the economy as shown in Table
II - 32 below. This industry, especially catering to fishing and hunting, continues to
develop along the Missouri River. Therefore, this sector of the economy is important in
the counties that have direct access to the river—Hughes, Stanley, and Sully. Yet, it is
also an important sector of the Jones and Jackson County economies as they are located
along I-90 and cater to the tourist going to the Badlands and the Black Hills. Table II-32
reflects the visitor spending by county from 2009 to 2011.
Direct visitor spending in South Dakota in 2011 was $1,310,000,000 which was a 2.4%
increase over 2010 according to a report prepared by IHS Global Insight and
commissioned by the South Dakota Office of Tourism entitled ¬2011 Tourism Satellite
Account. This report uses a different methodology than previous statewide visitor
spending reports prepared by Michael Madden of the South Dakota State University
Rural Life Census Data Center. The $1.31 million of direct visitor spending in 2011
resulted in a total statewide economic impact of $1,800,000,000 through indirect
spending. Total economic impact of visitor spending is the sum of both direct and
indirect tourism spending. The report defines direct spending as spending on core
tourism industries that touch the visitor and indirect spending as spending on industries
that supply those that touch the visitor. Examples of core tourism industry include food
services and drinking places, hotels, motels, casinos, retail, transportation, amusement
and recreation. Examples of non-core industries that benefit from direct tourism
spending include real estate, power generation/transmission, construction,
telecommunications, and wholesale trade.
CSDED saw a 2.3% increase in direct visitor spending from 2010 to 2011. The total
indirect economic impact is not given by each county. The report explains that each
visitor generates about $232 in expenditures, $120 of which goes to non-core businesses
that do not directly touch the visitor.
Table II - 32 Estimated Total Visitor Spending
County
2009 Sales
thousands
2010 Sales
thousands
2011 Sales
thousands
Haakon
Hughes
Hyde
Jackson
Jones
Stanley
Sully
CSDED
South
Dakota
$4,252.6
$77,120.3
$2,605.4
$11,644.2
$7,935.9
$11,059.3
$7,649.4
$122,267.1
$1.21
billion
$4,575.5
$82,282.8
$2,762.4
$12,829.8
$8,646.1
$12,121.3
$7,985.2
$131,203.1
$1.28
billion
$4,878.7
$82,746.4
$3,077.0
$14,289.2
$8,915.2
$11,761.7
$8,592.7
$134,260.9
$1.31
billion
2010 to
2011
Percent
Change
2009 to
2010
Percent
Change
6.6%
0.6%
11.4%
11.4%
3.1%
-3.0%
7.6%
2.3%
7.6%
6.7%
6.0%
10.2%
8.9%
9.6%
4.4%
7.3%
2.4%
5.6%
Source: IHS Global Insight (2012) Commissioned by South Dakota Office of
Tourism. "2011 Tourism Satellite Account" pages 17 & 40+. Totals represent
direct spending on "Core" tourism.
53
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
While all taxable sales are not directly related to tourism, a large percentage would be.
From 2010 to 2011, the CSDED saw an 7.53% increase in taxable sales. The region saw
substantial growth, which more than doubled the rate seen by the state as a whole.
Table II - 33 Taxable Sales (1,000's)
Area
2010
2011
Growth
21.60%
6.20%
22.85%
-5.26%
1.46%
2.78%
13.29%
7.53%
3.52%
Haakon
28,983
35,244
Hughes
317,285
336,955
Hyde
34,491
42,371
Jackson
18,227
17,268
Jones
23,754
24,100
Stanley
54,305
55,814
Sully
20,843
23,612
District
$497,888
$535,364
South Dakota
$ 17,116,226 $
17,718,582
Source: SD Dept of Revenue and Regulation,
"South Dakota Sales and Use Tax Report" Calendar Year Taxable Sales.
Available http://www.state.sd.us/drr2/businesstax/statistics/statistics.htm
4. Labor Force
As a whole, the District continues to see county unemployment rates equal to or less than
the state and nation, except for Jackson County. Jackson County continues to be
consistently equal to or higher than the national average 6 out of 11 years and higher than
the state unemployment levels every year from 2000 to 2011. In the last three years
Jackson County’s unemployment rate has been a 7% or above. According to STATS
America-Measures of Distress data secured from the website on 12/3/12, over the last 24
month period (ending October, 2012), the unemployment rate for Jackson County has
been 7.3%, while that of the state was 4.57% and the US was 8.65%. The county is
tourism and ag based. Therefore, when high gas prices and natural disasters occur—1
presidential disaster in 2007 and two in 2008, as well as an Ag disaster declaration in
2009 and two in 2010, and then another presidential disaster in 2011 this county suffers.
A portion of the county is also home to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.
Underemployment, while hard to track, exists District wide. According to STATS
Indiana-USA Counties in Profile, the percentage of the population age 25+ that has a
bachelor’s level degree or higher (20120 ACS) ranges from a high of 33.3% in Hughes
County to a low of 15.6% in Jones County. The remaining counties ranged from 16.8% to
27.7%. Yet, the District contained 2010 poverty rates (source: www.stats.indiana.edu)
ranging from 32.9% of the population in Jackson County to a low of 9% in Sully County.
This could indicate that while we do not have enough jobs or quality jobs, people might
be working at jobs that require less skill than their educational attainment levels.
54
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
YEAR
Table II - 34 CSDED Labor Statistics--Unemployment Rates
Haakon Hughes Hyde Jones Stanley Sully Jackson
SD
1.9
2.1
2.7
2.2
2
2.4
2.7
2000
4.6
2.3
2.3
2.7
2.1
2.4
2.4
3.1
2001
4.7
2.3
2.4
3
2
2.4
2.1
3.3
2002
5
2.4
2.7
3.2
1.8
2.8
2.2
3.5
2003
5.5
2.7
2.9
3.6
2.5
2.7
2.4
3.7
2004
5.9
3.2
3
4.1
2.7
2.6
2.8
3.7
2005
6.1
2.6
2.5
3.5
2.3
2.3
2.4
3.1
2006
5.6
2.5
2.4
3.3
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.9
2007
5.4
2.5
2.3
2.7
2.3
2.4
2.2
3
2008
5.7
3.9
3.4
4.1
3.3
3.4
3.2
5.2
2009
7.2
3.3
3.5
4
2.7
3.5
3
5
2010
7
3.6
3.6
3.9
2.9
3.5
3.2
4.7
2011
7.4
The highlighted cells indicate a rate equal to or greater than the national unemployment
rate
Source: SD Department of Labor. Website.
Source: US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Website.
Table II-35 Unemployment Rates
8.0
Sully
Jackson
Stanley
Jones
Hyde
Hughes
Haakon
3.0
CSDED
4.0
Sully
Jackson
Stanley
Jones
Hyde
Hughes
Haakon
5.0
CSDED
6.0
CSDED
7.0
Sully
Jackson
Stanley
Jones
Hyde
Hughes
Haakon
Unemployment Rates
2.0
1.0
0.0
2009
2010
2011
CSDED
3.7
3.7
3.8
Jackson
7.2
7
7.4
Sully
3.2
3
3.2
Stanley
3.4
3.5
3.5
Jones
3.3
2.7
2.9
Hyde
4.1
4
3.9
Hughes
3.4
3.5
3.6
Haakon
3.9
3.3
3.6
55
United
States
4
4.7
5.8
6
5.5
5.1
4.6
4.6
5.8
9.3
9.6
8.9
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
G. FACTORS AFFECTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
The region contains a variety of attributes that promote or encourage economic
development. The availability and usefulness of outside programs is normally dependent
on the characteristics of the specific projects.
The physical resources available to the region include plenty of land for industrial
development, power, telecommunication systems, rural water supplies, and major
highway transportation system.
While businesses/industries may question our need of an available labor supply, the
region has numerous underemployed workers and persons who are willing to commute
30 to 60 miles for a quality job.
The region’s ‘human capital’ includes local and multi-county development
corporations—Table II - 36. Only Pierre and Fort Pierre have full-time, paid, economic
development directors.
Table II - 36 Regional Development Corporations
Area
Fort Pierre Fort Pierre Development Corporation
Highmore Hyde County Community Development Corporation
Kadoka Economic Development Corporation
Kadoka
Second Century Development, Inc.
Midland
Murdo Development Corporation
Murdo
Onida Area Development Corporation
Onida
Philip Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Team
Philip
Pierre Economic Development Corporation
Pierre
Regional Mid-Dakota Economic Development Corporation
Source: websites of each development corporation, individuals
State laws that enhance economic development generally promote low property taxes. In
addition SD has no:
•
•
•
•
Corporate Income Tax
Personal Income Tax
Business Inventory Tax
Inheritance Tax
Yet, at the same time, the state has imposed a tax freeze which limits the amount of funds
that county and city governments can raise in a year. This often limits improvements to
infrastructure and program development. County government can only raise revenues via
property taxes and a wheel-tax, plus, they also receive gas tax and other funds from the
state government, plus payment-in-lieu of certain federal and state lands that are not taxed.
Properties own by the tribes and in tribal trust also do not pay taxes. State law does allow
for special purpose units of governments to be formed for fire districts, ambulance
districts, water districts, sanitary sewer districts, and roads. Often these special purpose
units of government are formed in order to get the necessary funds to undertake a project.
56
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Beside property taxes, municipalities can raise funds via sales tax, special assessments, as
well as user fees. State law also allows municipalities to borrow funds, but imposes
municipal debt limits--5% of the assessed value, plus another 10% for water and sewer
projects. Thus, project completion may be limited to debt capacity. Each community must
be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as loans are incurred, existing debt is paid back, and
the every changing assessed taxable value of a community which needs to be considered.
There are also state industrial development bonds that can be utilized for larger projects.
Several communities collect sales taxes that may be used to support development.
Table II - 37 Local Sales Tax Rates 2012
Community
Belvidere
Blunt
Tax Type
General Sales and Use Tax Rate
General Sales and Use Tax Rate
Gross Receipts Tax
Fort Pierre General Sales and Use Tax Rate
Gross Receipts Tax
Harrold
General Sales and Use Tax Rate
Highmore
General Sales and Use Tax Rate
Gross Receipts Tax
Interior
General Sales and Use Tax Rate
General Sales and Use Tax Rate
Kadoka
Gross Receipts Tax
General Sales and Use Tax Rate
Midland
Murdo
General Sales and Use Tax Rate
Gross Receipts Tax
Onida
General Sales and Use Tax Rate
Philip
General Sales and Use Tax Rate
Pierre
General Sales and Use Tax Rate
Gross Receipts Tax
Source: website, SD Department of Revenue
Tax Amount
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%
1.90%
2%
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
2%
1%
Beside Sales Tax Other Development Tools Include:
• Tax Increment Financing
• Local Graduated Property Tax Rates
• Local and State Loan Funds including SBA 504—direct loans to businesses
• Cooperative Marketing Relationships—SD Department of Tourism/Public
Utilities
• State and Federal Financing Programs are often used for infrastructure such as
roads, water, sewer, storm sewer, even buildings and machinery in some cases—
CDBG, EDA, SDDOT Community Access/Industrial Park Funds, SDDENR
Programs, Rural Development, HUD/EDI funds.
Tax increment financing (TIF) districts involve using the difference in taxable value
between existing and developed sites to finance public improvements (water and sewer,
etc.) They can know also be used in for the housing developments. Some communities
and or counties such as Hyde have graduated property tax rates for new
construction/development.
57
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Entrepreneurship may be a common development focus, but often traditional lending
practices hinder the opportunities to actually implement ideas. New housing construction
is also limited in the rural areas as new construction does not appraise out to cover loans.
Housing developments are going fairly well in the Pierre/Fort Pierre area. A modest
selection of decent affordable housing is crucial to economic development. The City of
Pierre and Fort Pierre recently completed a housing needs assessment by a third party to
evaluate the housing needs for the Community. It has indicated 150 to 190 rental units
and 275 to 325 privately owned homes over the next five years.
Although public financial assistance may be available to extend water, sewer, and road
access, most programs require a “bird in hand.” Businesses without the right type or
number of jobs to compete for state and federal development funds are forced to rely
upon their own private resources or the local development corporations. Local leaders
may focus on their financial situation more than the overall development interest of the
entire community. On the other hand, they might “give away the farm” in granting
favorable purchases or lease terms to acquire jobs for the area. It is a fine line which must
be weighed by each community. Local revolving loan funds in the region are operated
by:
• Fort Pierre Development Corporation—Stanley County area
• Mid-Dakota Economic Development Corporation—18 counties
• Onida Area Development Corporation—Sully County area
• Pierre Economic Development Corporation—Hughes County area
• Second Century Development—Midland area
• West River Economic Development Corporation—west river counties
• Rural Electric Economic Development Corporation—east river counties
• SD Rural Economic Development Initiative—SD Dakota
• Jackson Kadoka Economic Development Corporation—Jackson County Area
• Grow South Dakota—Statewide
• SD Governor’s Office of Economic Development
The Internet is a great “gateway” for community promotions. Depending on service
providers, in town residents can usually receive high-speed internet services, but rural
residents may be limited to dial-up services in certain portions of the region. Satellite
internet service is now available to rural residents at a fairly affordable rate. Rates are
approximately $200 to $300 for installation, plus approximately $50/month for unlimited
access. Rates are dependent upon the company providing the service. This enables
anyone to run an internet-based business anywhere. The state’s Dakota Digital Network
links classrooms and conferences throughout the
state to the world and is centered in
Pierre.
Transportation costs in the area are fairly standard. Gasoline rates are higher than some
areas of the country and state lower than others. Normal rates are currently around $3.35+
per gallon which can affect how consumers spend, but most have now adapted to that as
the norm. There are several private trucking firms and national carriers. The area is also
served by the DM&E railroad. The area is served by the Pierre Regional Airport which
has daily passenger service flights to Minneapolis and Denver. While I-90 runs through
Jones and Jackson counties, a 4-lane connects the Pierre/Fort Pierre area to the interstate.
The major highway going east/west through the District is US 14/34. Philip and Midland
58
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
are located along US 14 and SD Highways 73 and 63 connect them to the I-90 within 15
minutes. Highmore and Onida are located along US highways 14 and 83 respectively.
Energy costs vary from utility provider, and large volume users are often given discount
rates, especially for electricity. An individual user’s end utility costs will depend on
usage. This is a four-season area, thus heating and cooling costs need to be considered
based on each individual businesses need. Overall electricity rates are lower than most
area states. Natural gas is available in certain areas such as Pierre/Fort Pierre and Sully
County.
H. PUBLIC SAFETY
Public safety is not an issue hindering economic development. All counties have county
law enforcement departments. Jones County, in fact, has county-wide law enforcement
which encompasses the incorporated cities. In other instances the incorporated cities and
towns have their own law enforcement. Unincorporated places are under the county’s law
enforcement. Tribal police departments, state highway patrol, US Fish & Wildlife, SD
Game, Fish & Parks also provide law enforcement protection. Overall crime is very low
with nearly all statistics being below the national average. The low crime rate and
adequate public services that deal with safety are only a positive aspect of the district. All
areas are covered by either a municipal or rural fire departments. Ambulance departments
are headquartered in the incorporated communities of Pierre, Onida, Murdo, Kadoka,
Highmore, and Midland and Philip. Ambulance and fire departments are normally
operated by volunteers in the communities, except for Pierre. Equipment and personnel
are often stretched to the limits when more than one incident is occurring at a time. Fire
department equipment and facilities in some of the smaller communities are always in
need of updating due to age and usage.
I. RELATIONSHIP OF DISTRICT TO STATE
The CSDED is in the central portion of the state with offices located in the capitol city of
Pierre. This gives staff and board members easy access to state employees, training
sessions and meetings. The region is approximately three hours via car from the major
metropolitan areas of Sioux Falls or Rapid City.
A fundamental factor which continues to affect the region’s economic development is the
fact that the District is geographically centered within the state, and not close to any
major U.S metropolitan area, or any major state metro area. South Dakota as a whole is
growing steadily, however all the main job growth areas are occurring in the far east and
west regions of the state particularly Sioux Falls on the east, on the I-29 Corridor
including Minnehaha, Brookings, Beadle, Deul, and other counties. With the recent new
opening of a beef processing plant in Aberdeen, development in Brown county is also
expected.
Another factor affecting economic development with regards to the relationship of the
District to the state is the fact that there is no large city on Interstate 90. A four lane
highway does connect the Pierre / Fort Pierre area; however it is a 37 mile trip to the
interstate. Nearly all tourists and other travelers passing through the state will drive right
through the district and not see any sign of development.
59
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
J. Opportunities and Challenges
Challenges for the District include:
Disaster Preparedness:
The region that the CSDED serves is highly susceptible to a wide variety of natural
disasters ranging from flooding to droughts. Some examples of the devastation that has
recently hit the area are demonstrated below:
1. The rebuilding of the Pierre/Fort Pierre area due to the Missouri River Flooding.
This will take many years as the extent of the damages is still unclear. The US
Army Corps of Engineers began releasing record flows from the Oahe Dam on
May 6, 2011 through September, 2011 involving up to 160,000 cubic feet per
second. The normal flow is approximately 26,500 cfs. At 150,000 cfs, water was
being released at approximately 1.1 million gallons per second. The water finally
receded back into its normal river/lake banks in September. The worst hit
communities in the CSDED region were Fort Pierre and Pierre. In mid-June, the
damage estimates were around $18 million and climbing. Pierre has allocated
approximately $3.4 million of funds towards paying for temporary flood levees,
increased labor costs, sink holes, utility (water, sewer, electrical) emergency
repairs and operation of pumping storm water flows over the levees. FEMA has
reviewed approximately $1.8 million dollars of public infrastructure damages;
however, damage assessments are still ongoing. Initial numbers provided by the
Hughes County Emergency Management office indicated that that there was
initial damage to 218 residences and 45 commercial businesses. According to a
survey conducted by the city in July 2011, nine households were permanently
displaced and another 129 households in Pierre were temporarily displaces. Some
just stayed in their homes as no one was forcibly evacuated.
2. Fort Pierre has had to borrow $5 million from the State of South Dakota to
financially stay afloat for damages to public infrastructure, building and removing
of temporary flood levees, increased labor costs, emergency repairs, etc.
According to a survey conducted in July, 34 households were permanently
displaced and 142 households were temporarily displaced.
3. In Blunt, the flood control channel for the community was damaged in the spring
from rapid snowmelts and rainfall causing the main transmission line for the Mid
Dakota Rural Water System to become exposed. While the pipeline has been
stabilized, repairs and a concrete weir are necessary in order to prevent future
damage to the pipeline. The line serves hundreds of homes and many
communities from Blunt to Huron and beyond.
4. The rebuilding of Pierre and Fort Pierre will take many years, as damages will
continue over the 2011/2012 freeze/thaw winter cycle causing sink holes and
damages to underground pipe infrastructure. We continued to see these sink holes
occur into 2012, demonstrating the potential long term effects of the 2011 flood.
60
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
5. Further, an earthquake occurred on August 9, 2011 with the epicenter being
approximately La Framboise Island which is located just west of the city of Pierre
in the Missouri River. Earthquakes are a very rare occurrence in this area. La
Framboise Island is normally connected to Pierre via a causeway that was
destroyed during the flooding.
Diversifying the Job Base:
One economic development challenge that is hindering the region is the lack of a diverse
economy. The primary non-ag sector job market is government, leading to some
challenges as demonstrated below:
1. As the region is highly dependent upon state jobs and those incomes, the lack of
disposable income continues to show as State Government tighten its purse
strings to deal with the lack of income (sales tax and gas tax) and increasing costs
to meet federal program requirements (unemployment, Medicare/Medicaid and
health care), maintenance of the state transportation system, and financial
commitments made to the K-12 education system. Thus, there were no salary
increases given to state employees in 2009, 2010, and 2011. The Governor has,
however, proposed a salary increase for state employees in 2013. State
departments were asked to cut their budgets for 2011 by 10%. As sales tax and
state lottery incomes decrease or remains stable, the state has fewer funds to
spend on roads, education, and federally mandated programs.
2. A state imposed tax freeze which limits the amount of funds that county and city
governments can raise a year via property taxes. While governments can opt out
of the tax freeze, the issues normally get referred to a vote of the people at which
time they will often fail. There are also constitutional debt limits, which will often
hinder a community from improving its infrastructure. Once a community can no
longer borrow money, they can often no longer make those necessary
improvements which enable “economic/community” growth. This is especially
crucial for smaller communities who have little or no assessed value; therefore it
is difficult to finance wastewater system improvements as in Interior’s case or for
Blunt to make repairs to a flood control structure.
Transportation:
One of the main issues of the region that drains a large amount of resources is the
transportation system. Increasing usage of the road system by ag related traffic can
cause difficulty maintaining an adequate road system. Covering such a large geographic
region, maintaining the transportation system has proven to be quite difficult:
•
Incomes and business growth will be hampered by the unstable costs of electricity,
petroleum based products, and heating fuels (natural gas and propane). Currently gas
prices are approximately $3.35/gallon and electricity is on the rise due to infrastructure
upgrades necessary to meet demands. Electricity rates are increasing since the costs of
precious metals are rising. These metals are used to make transformers, poles and wires.
61
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
•
Keeping the highway/street system at all levels in good repair is being more difficult, due
to rising petroleum based product costs. Often highway/street repairs and improvements
have been delayed. The State Department of Transportation experienced a financial
shortfall starting in 2007 and; thus, was unable to help local units of government with
“economic development” related road/street projects in 2008 and 2009. The economic
stimulus funds helped somewhat and the state funded some local government “economic
development” related projects in late 2010. In 2011, the state also allowed the counties to
utilize funds for basic items such as gravel. State highway projects in the District that had
been delayed or taken off the 5-year improvement plan in 2009, were starting to be
placed on the plan again in 2011, but may not come to fruition for several years
depending on funding. The state does not anticipate increased funding available for roads
over the next five years. In fact, they expect it to decrease somewhat or to remain stable.
Legislation passed in 2011 increased the vehicle registration fees to the local units of
government for road/street repairs/improvements. This has very limited effect in 2011, as
the law did not go into effect until July, 2011. While the more rural counties will not see
a large increase in road budgets from this, it will help, but more funds are needed.
Housing
Housing has proved to be an obstacle for economic development for communities
throughout the region.
•
The lack of available housing is often a detriment to growth in the District as often
communities have no decent, affordable housing available for anyone either to rent or
purchase. In other cases, in small communities, if one needs to borrow the money to build
a home, the new homes will not appraise out to cover the loan. Thus, the
individual/family cannot get a loan to purchase or build a home. Often times a mobile
home is the only option with financing from the vender. In the immediate Pierre area, the
case might be the lack of affordable lots to build new homes for the lower/middle income
(those making $39,000 or less). Yet, for those wishing to rent high end apartments there
may also be a current lack of such housing, until construction on new units is completedthis has been alleviated somewhat with the completion of two apartment buildings in
2010 and one in 2011. The lack of excessive housing was made apparent this past year, as
residents in Fort Pierre and Pierre were forced to move from their homes due to flooding
and the conditions caused by sewer systems backing up into homes and businesses. Fort
Pierre and Pierre are limited in new development area due to drainage, floodplain, and
topography issues of the Missouri River Breaks. Decent, affordable housing is crucial to
economic development. The need for affordable housing/workforce housing in the region
is evident as a business has threatened not to grow or to move from the Pierre area if
affordable housing is not made available.
Opportunities abound in the region and can be built upon, including:
1. Energy Alternatives—wind and geothermal development. The construction of high
voltage transmission lines will be needed in order to advance development of wind farms
in the District. The next logical place for additional wind towers will be Hyde and
Hughes counties as they have high voltage transmission lines and more electricity can be
sold to the eastern markets. Jones County has been identified by a South Dakota PUC
study as a location where the wind blows consistently for wind farm development.
62
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Transmission lines are needed which may hamper development for up to seven years.
Wind developed electricity is not cheaper than other forms, but is a tool for economic
development (sales to elsewhere and lease payments to landowners). South Dakota does
not really need the electricity; however, there is a proposed oil pipeline from Canada
which may speed up the development of wind energy electricity by creating demand at
oil pipeline pumping stations. The permit for this oil pipeline will need to come from the
federal government. The development of geothermal capabilities will also lessen the
dependency upon electricity, fuel oil and propane for heating and cooling, not only by
businesses but residential users as well. The cost of such development will need to be
determined on a case-by-case basis depending upon the community.
2. Tourism and Recreational Opportunities—the continued development of a deep
water marina on the Missouri River/Lake Oahe will bring increased recreational
opportunities and in turn new business development such as hotels, restaurants,
convenience stores, etc. New marinas are also being planned on the Missouri River/Lake
Sharpe. While the Missouri River flooding of 2011 caused setbacks for these
developments and a new motel in Fort Pierre, it is anticipated that such development will
begin again in 2013. On the other hand, the $7.5 million dollar Club House Inn and
Suites hotel, restaurant and convention center complex completed construction in 2012 in
Pierre. Those areas not along the river have abundant areas which can be developed for
public and/or private hunting, as well as hiking and biking.
3. Land is available in most areas for industrial, commercial, and residential
development. One of the main difficulties encountered is getting current land owners to
sell property for development. Drainage and topography may be a hindrance in some
areas along the Missouri River breaks, thus, increased development costs may exist.
4. Workforce Development—Capital University Center (CUC) continued to expand its
course offerings in the health care and business field in 2012. It is expected this will
continue.
5. Value Added Ag—Development plans for a “vertically” integrated tilapia fish farm
continues in Hughes County, although recent economic conditions have delayed it. This
project will take “fry” from a Haakon County facility to be reared and processed in a
facility in Hughes County. Other opportunities may exist based on “wheat” production,
i.e. ethanol (cellulosic ethanol plant). Ethanol plants use a great deal of electricity which
may enhance wind energy development in the area. The 2010 building of rail spur at
Harrold could provide development for storage and manufacturing facilities to use that
rail spur other than the new grain elevator at Harrold. The construction of that facility has
led to the increased development of storage facilities in Sully and Hyde counties as the
area has better access to load unit trains. The area now has better access to west coast
markets. As access to better markets develops, spin-off development will continue to
occur such as the current expansion of the farm implement dealership in Highmore which
will create 5 new jobs. Currently, local stakeholders are working on raising funds in
order to get a pulse processing plant running in Harrold, SD. There is a targeted 2013
opening date for the project.
63
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Based upon survey results, discussions, and statistical information, the CEDS
Committee/Board of Directors at their September 14, 2012 and December 12, 2012
meetings determined that the overall goals and objectives should remain the same as
previous. Dates, of course, have been updated to start with 2013 and go forward. A large
number of work activities need to be ongoing to keep the momentum. This is discussed
more in the “Evaluation” section of this report.
64
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Chapter III
Regional Goals/Implementation Plan
A. REGIONAL PROCESS
A successful Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy should be the foundation
of all economic development activity in the Economic Development District Region. It is
important that the document be developed with widespread input from the public. The
CSDED Committee itself is comprised of a wide cross section of individuals both
geographically and professionally, including: business owners, the ag sector, chamber of
commerce staff, local economic development staff, elected officials, utilities, labor,
education, etc.
Unlike previous years, the South Dakota Governor’s Office of Economic Development
(GOED) reached out to the planning Districts throughout the state this year looking to
conduct an informative survey. The CSDED was in a unique position compared to other
Districts in that we were updating our entire strategy this year as well. The CSDED
decided to combine the two surveys into one in order to capitalize on the best possible
chance of receiving the highest return figures. It was expected, from past experience, that
sending out two separate surveys would do nothing but hamper the return results on both
attempts.
At the CEDS Planning Meeting on September 14, 2012, it was stated that we would
discuss the survey results and further refine the priorities at the upcoming December
meeting. The survey was then sent out both via mailings as well as invitations to take
online. A total of 182 survey initiations were sent out, with 143 of them stakeholders
from a variety of sectors within the District’s geographic service area. A total of 41
responses were received and analyzed to further extend the perimeter of research used to
refine the region’s economic development needs.
From there, the data was analyzed and presented to the board and then the respective
goals, strategies and objectives were discussed, refined and finally approved by the
CSDED board/CEDS committee in December 12, 2012.
1. Survey Results
The survey results analyzed for the Central South Dakota Enhancement District’s
Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy were filtered to only include results
from respondents within the district. Information was acquired from a larger amount of
communities in coordination with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development’s
survey, and taken into account while defining a strategy. The following is a summary of
the results stemming from the 41 District responses received:
65
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Utilities/Communications
•
•
•
56% of respondents identified drainage system as needing improvement or worse
(2nd highest improvement need response Cellphone service at 31%).
While a majority of responses indicated that services met anticipated needs, there
is still the capacity for improvement. Only two utilities received over 30%
exceeded expectations: electrical (36%) and telephone (34%) services.
While many of these utilities may not be a specific weakness, it should be noted
that there is still the possibility for improvement in offering citizens a higher
quality of life through greater utility services.
Transportation
•
•
An overwhelming 81% of the responses identified County/township Roads as
needing improvement or worse. (2nd Highest improvement need was Main Street
52%, Industrial access 40%)
Again, majority meeting anticipated needs, with only the airport (29.5%) and
Bus/Van service (22.7)
Quality of Life
•
•
Majority meeting and/or exceeding expectations.
Daycare options at 45% were the highest needing improvements.
Public Safety
•
Far majority meeting or exceeding expectations
Local Development Resources:
•
•
•
•
Workforce issues seemed to be a trend, with available labor force and workforce
training opportunities with 63% and 52% needing improvement or worst
respectively.
73% of respondents indicated retail and service business opportunities needed
improvement or worse.
Industrial sites is the only other majority need at 50%
Strengths: Local Govt. Support (71%) Public School System (50%)
Housing
•
•
Only option not needing improvement Construction/builder capacity
Top three needing improvement or worse: Overall Condition of Housing Stock
(89%) Availability of Single-family homes (80%) Overall Affordability of
housing (71%)
66
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Workforce (Significant changes over past 5 years)
•
Majority states no change in any of the options provided under workforce
Business Activity (Significant changes over past 5 years)
•
Majority states no change in any of the options provided under business activity
The following questions were ranked on a Likert scale in order to identify priorities for a
variety of sectors including: Business, Community Involvement and Environmental
issues.
Business Sector
While it was noted in the previous question that there hadn’t been significant noticeable
change in business activity in the region, this question addressed business priorities
respondents feel should be focused on. As you can see below, the leading three priorities
were: A) Keeping Professional Services Available (medical, legal, etc.), B) Building
Value Added Agriculture Processing Facilities, and C) Helping Existing Businesses.
Business Sector
Constructing "spec" industrial buildings
Supporting workforce training initiatives
Seeking more potential workers
Keeping professional services available…
Finding uses for vacant main street buildings
Working through business succession issues
Attracting new companies (recruitment)
Helping existing businesses (retention and…
Promoting tourism
Building value added agricultural processing…
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
Other priorities deserving note include work force support, as well as revitalizing vacant
main street buildings.
Community Involvement
The community involvement question aimed to address areas of quality of life that could
be improved upon throughout the region. As noted in the results table below, the top
three answers with the highest amount of priority include: A) Providing Adequate Public
Infrastructure B) Improving Housing Opportunities, and C) Improving Community
Appearance.
67
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Answer Options
Rating Average
Improving community appearance
Adding telecommunications capacity (high speed
internet, etc.)
Increasing cooperation among communities
Improving housing opportunities
Providing adequate public infrastructure (water, sewer,
roads, etc.)
Creating long range plans for development
Establishing a "social media" presence
Developing effective landuse (zoning) regulations
4.12
3.46
3.78
4.22
4.25
4.05
3.32
3.56
It should be noted that each of these priorities align with many of the discussions held at
the CEDS Board meeting on September 14th, 2012. It is clear these top three priorities
must continue to be included as a focus of any economic development strategy developed
by the CSDED.
Environment
The environment question attempted to define what priorities the region as a whole
placed the upmost importance on when it came to environmental preservation. As
revealed in the table below, improving drainage systems received the highest priority
ranking. Securing water rights/resources as well as managing grown impacts on
agricultural land rounded out the top responses.
Environment
Protecting sensitive areas (wetlands, etc.)
Anticipating impacts from oil drilling or other
resource based activities
Managing growth impacts on agricultural land
Improving drainage systems
Securing water rights/resources (Missouri
River, etc.)
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
While the majority of the rest of the survey was information sought out by the state’s
Governor’s Office of Economic Development, it still proves valuable in gauging the
economic development environment within the region. A few highlights of this
information included:
68
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
•
•
•
53% of communities had adopted a community development plan
Economic Development strategies are primarily implemented by volunteers
Mostly focused on attracting new businesses into communities.
The last section of the survey attempted to gauge priorities both in the short term (1 year)
as well as the long term (2-5 years).
Top 3 Priorities 1 year:
•
•
•
Housing (60.5%)
Main Street Revitalization (39.5%)
Infrastructure (34.2%)
Please select up to THREE issues from the following list as areas will
need financial and/or technical assistance in your community in 2013.
2013
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
Top Priorities 2-5 years:
•
•
•
•
Housing (63%)
Infrastructure (44%)
Business Recruitment (33%)
Roads/Bridges (29.6)
69
Main Street
Revitalization
Emergency
Services
Drainage
Infrastructure
Housing
Business
Recruitment
Workforce
Development
0.0%
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Please select up to THREE issues from the following list as areas will need
financial and/or technical assistance in your community in 20142014-2017
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
Main Street
Revitalization
Emergency
Services
Drainage
Infrastructure
Housing
Business
Recruitment
Workforce
Development
0.0%
In summation, the survey did a good job of gathering relevant information for both the
Central South Dakota Enhancement District as well as the state’s Governor’s Office of
Economic Development. Working in such a large geographic region, it can be difficult to
obtain input from a variety of sectors throughout the region. The design and distribution
of the survey enabled both entities to gather data from a good cross section of the region
including input from stakeholders in both the private and public sector.
At the September 14, 2012 CEDS Board meeting, extensive discussion commenced on
identifying priorities that should be focused on over the next 5 years. The list that was
assembled out of that session was quite similar to some of the results acquired by the
survey. The list developed by the board members’ discussion was as follows:
Drainage/Infrastructure
Roads/Rail
Housing (Workforce) (Rental)
Housing (Elderly)
Abandoned Buildings
Population Retention
Business Recruitment
Clearly, there is a trend between CEDS Board discussions as well as our survey results
that convey a local need placing high priority in the areas of infrastructure improvement,
housing, quality of life/community enhancement, as well as business recruitment. These
trends assisted the District Staff & Board in developing goals and objectives to
implement over the next 5 years to help spur economic development in the region.
70
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
B. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The following comprehensive goals and objectives were developed based on the input
gathered from the regional survey as well as the regional priorities/needs identified at the
September 14th, 2012 CEDS Board Meeting. After the collection and analysis of all this
data, goals and objectives were further refined at the December 12th, 2012 CEDS Board
Meeting. The goals and objectives aren’t organized by specific priorities, but take a
“‘holistic’” approach to addressing various needs throughout the District.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -- HIGH
Goal:
Assist in expanding economic opportunity through the development
of the region’s economic/natural resources.
Explanation: This statement recognizes the importance of developing all economic
resources, such as land, labor, capital, management, education,
communications, and other technologies.
The education and skill of the area’s labor force, the development of
natural resources, and alternative methods of financing new and
expanding businesses are essential for both economic growth and
stability.
Objective
Expand Opportunities for Value-Added Agriculture.
Strategy
Work with the SD Center for Value-added Agriculture, state
agencies and other agencies on projects and encourage them in
continuing value-added agriculture development.
Strategy
Assist local governments to ensure that intense agricultural
projects are properly sited in an effort to minimize damage to
the environment.
Strategy
Encourage local governments to enhance joint zoning
jurisdictions with the understanding that agriculture is a vital part
of the District’s economy.
Strategy
Continue to raise the awareness of value-added agriculture as a
development option, including agri-tourism.
Objective
Strategy
Strategy
Retention and Expansion of Existing Businesses
Work with the Governor’s Office of Economic Development and
local development corporations to focus on retention and
expansion of existing business.
Assist local government with infrastructure capabilities to
promote business growth.
71
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Strategy
Strategy
Strategy
Objective
Publicize small business financing programs
Work to identify employer workforce needs and encourage the
use of telecommunications and other “distance learning” training
techniques, as well as establishing the relationships between the
businesses and Capital University Center.
Research the possibility of creating a district revolving loan fund
for businesses.
Create an Environment for Entrepreneurship
Strategy
Continue to support the Small Business Development Center and
educate local economic development personnel, financial
institutions, schools, government officials, and the general public
of services provided by the SBDC staff.
Strategy
Encourage local schools districts to strengthen and/or create
business/entrepreneurship programs.
Objective
Enlarge the Region’s Manufacturing/Job Base
Strategy
Work with local leaders to identify potential site/facility
locations and to promote those sites.
Strategy
Work with local leaders to identify and enhance infrastructure
needed to serve manufacturing type businesses, including the
development/use of alternative energy forms.
Strategy
Work to establish a small business incubator center in the region.
Objective
Promote/Enhance Tourism Industry
Strategy
Work with the regional tourism associations and state tourism
staff to expose communities to marketing experts and resources.
Strategy
Assist local leaders in the development of a regional tourism
marketing piece, in addition to individual community
promotional pieces.
Strategy
Work with local leaders, state officials, and the regional tourism
association in the development of agri-tourism businesses.
Strategy
Work with local leaders, state and federal officials, in the
development of the Missouri River and other areas that enhance
hunting, camping, recreational boating, and fishing activities.
72
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Strategy
Promote year round recreational programs through the use of
existing facilities.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT-- HIGH
Goal:
Develop, expand, and upgrade local public infrastructure, programs and
facilities.
Explanation: The District shall seek to improve facilities and programs that enhance
public health, community safety, economic opportunities or housing
availability. Public facilities include, but are not limited to, water and
sewer systems, municipal enterprises such as electric utilities and landfills,
streets and highways, health and education structures, recreation sites, and
telecommunications equipment.
Objective
Strategy
Strategy
Strategy
Objective
Intergovernmental Cooperation
When appropriate, encourage the sharing of public services and
facilities (law enforcement, fire equipment, regional jails etc.) to
maintain a fiscally responsible atmosphere at the local level.
Encourage joint jurisdictional zoning agreements between the
county and municipal levels to better address growth issues.
Encourage cooperation between the local units of government
and tribal entities.
Promote/Market Communities
Strategy
Continue to promote use of current technologies (i.e. websites,
social media) for regional and local promotion/marketing.
Strategy
Encourage the local economic development leaders to work with
State Tourism and Development staff in the marketing of local
communities to the business world, with an emphasis on quality
of life.
Objective
Improve the Region’s Infrastructure—Transportation
Systems, Water, Wastewater, Recreation, Health Care
Facilities, Cultural, Educational, Energy Alternatives, etc.
Strategy
Promote capital improvement planning and local fiscal
responsibility for the future.
73
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Strategy
Strategy
Provide information to community leaders on financing
programs and assist agencies with project development—
financial packaging to administration to help ensure project
completion.
Educate community leaders on non-traditional financing
programs such as tax-increment financing.
Strategy
Work with the SD Department of Transportation to identify road,
airport, and railroad projects that enhance economic
development, as well as provide for public safety.
Objective
Expand Regional Housing Opportunities
Strategy
Continue the marketing of the Governor’s Housing units.
Strategy
Communicate on a regular basis with the South Dakota Housing
Development Authority (SDHDA), Rural Development, and
private leaders on housing issues and loan programs.
Strategy
Educate local leaders and private citizens on the availability of
programs that provide affordable housing throughout the region,
as well as those programs that help maintain/upgrade the existing
housing stock.
Objective
Continue Relationships with Local and Regional Human
Service Providers
Strategy
Strategy
Objective
Strategy
Strategy
Strategy
Provide information to agencies on financing programs and
assist agencies with project development—financial packaging
to administration to help ensure continuation of services.
Provide information to communities and individuals on the
Governor’s Day Care Center program.
Strengthen Quality of Life
Encourage communities and counties to undertake cleanup
campaigns.
Encourage communities to participate in community assessment
and leadership training programs in order that communities grow
in a manner that is the desire of the residents and to provide for
future leaders.
Encourage local elected officials to adopt and enforce nuisance
ordinances.
74
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Objective
Strategy
Support Retention of Youth in the Region
Encourage local leaders to invite youth to become involved in
organizations, committees, and governing bodies in order to
encourage “ownership” of a community.
Strategy
Maximize the use of telecommunications and other “distance
neutralizing” techniques to increase the number of job
opportunities.
Strategy
Encourage local financial and educational institutions to embrace
the idea of entrepreneurship and building from within.
NATURAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT—LOW (Except flood plain management)
Goal:
Promote the efficient utilization and management of regional natural
resources in order to receive beneficial uses now and to conserve those
same resources for future generations.
Explanation: The District will seek to promote the best possible use and care of the
regional resources. Each resource should be used to its optimal potential in
order to improve the area’s economic and social well-being. In addition,
natural resources should also be conserved for future generations. This
conflict between natural resources conservation and development is a
policy question often best answered by local leadership.
Objective
Participate in Missouri River Preservation, Flood Protection,
and Development Projects
Strategy
Assist governments with flood and siltation issues.
Strategy
Work with state and federal agencies, conservation districts, and
other agricultural based interest groups to promote best land
management practices on the Missouri River and its tributaries.
75
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Objective
Strategy
Participate in the Preservation of the National Grasslands,
Badlands, and Other Natural Resource Areas
Work with state and federal agencies, conservation districts,
RC&D agencies, local elected officials and leaders, plus other
interest groups to promote best land use management of these
areas for the economic well being of all while enhancing the
tourism and ag industries.
DISASTER PREPAREDNESS AND COMMUNITY RESILIENCY--HIGH
Goal: Increase a community’s resiliency to disasters
Explanation: Natural hazards such as flooding, wildfire, tornadoes, hail and
thunderstorms, high winds, winter storms/snowfalls, and earthquakes are
an inherent part of our region.
Objective
To reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property
from natural hazards and their effects
Strategy
Work with state and federal agencies to assist local units of
governments in securing funding to undertake drainage
improvement infrastructure, permanent flood control structures,
safe rooms, etc.
Strategy
Work with local units of government to incorporate local
mitigation plans and projects into the comprehensive planning
process and capital improvement programs.
Strategy
Encourage educational programs on flood proofing techniques
for private property. Encourage educational programs on
protecting private property against wildfires and high winds.
Strategy
Encourage local units of government to adopt building codes.
Objective
Strategy
To restore services and economic vitality.
Work with local emergency managers and units of government
to secure financing for repair of critical infrastructure.
Strategy
Encourage property owners to work with SBDC and local
financial institutions to secure financing for reopening and/or
facility improvements as a deterrent to natural disasters.
Strategy
Encourage county emergency managers to have a plan for
activating a long-term recovery committee should a disaster
occur.
76
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
PLANNING AND RESEARCH--Medium
Goal:
Provide planning and research services which foster the efficient
management of natural, human, and economic resources.
Explanation: The District recognizes the continued need for comprehensive and specialpurpose planning and research activities, as a means to avoid conflict, take
advantage of opportunities, and effectively utilize limited resources.
Objective
Enhance Land Use and Special Purpose Planning Activities
Strategy
Provide technical assistance to local planning commissions in the
areas of land use planning and zoning activities.
Strategy
Encourage continued development of the Wakpa Sica Center to
encourage cooperation between the tribes and other entities.
Strategy
Enhance the region’s census and business information resources
via GIS applications.
TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE--HIGH
Goal:
Provide assistance on short-term projects, respond to information
inquiries, and support public and private entities in dealing with state
and federal programs.
Explanation: There are certain projects or inquiries that can be completed in a short
period of time. In addition, this goal covers management assistance to
local units of government. The District serves as a source of information
and assistance with problem solving.
Objective
Enhance the Management Capabilities of Local
Governments
Strategy
Assist with personnel or financial management issues.
Strategy
Research/provide information to assist local units of government
and others to access or deal with state and federal programs.
77
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
CSDED MANAGEMENT--HIGH
Goal:
Manage the CSDED organization in an efficient manner.
Explanation: The District organization should provide effective services with a
minimum of waste, expense or unnecessary effort.
Objective
Enhance Staff and Board Capabilities and Structure
Strategy
Provide and/or attend leadership and technical training programs
for both staff and board members.
Strategy
Review By-laws, personnel policies, etc. to ensure compliance
with state and federal regulations in order to enhance the
operations of the district.
Objective
Increase/Maintain Staff to Ensure Provision of Services
Strategy
Maintain fully qualified staff.
Strategy
Employ a minimum of 3.5 FTE’s and enhance that number to
meet member demands as finances allow.
Strategy
Explore potential of internship program to support professional
development as well as increase office capabilities.
Objective
Stabilize long-term office financing
Strategy
Continue contractual relationships with state and federal
agencies and develop new contracts.
Strategy
Develop a membership fee schedule to keep pace with inflation.
Strategy
Continue to provide contract work to local members and others,
especially in the area of project administration.
C. CEDS STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION SUMMARY
Implementation of strategies to achieve the desired goals and objectives is a combination
of working with individual counties and communities to encourage sustainable economic
development activities. These activities will be implemented by various community
organizations, local economic development staff, private enterprises and developers. The
second approach is more regional in nature and CSDED staff, under the guidance of the
CEDS/Governing Body, will need to provide assistance with implementation.
78
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
The Implementation Plan, while based on local needs, is symbiotic with the Governor’s
Program to increase visitor spending, capitalize on existing opportunities, promote the
creation and development of new businesses as well as the expansion of existing
businesses, promote agricultural and natural resource development, brand and develop
South Dakota’s quality of life as the best in America; stimulate affordable
homeownership, rental housing, and day care facilities, and improve cooperative efforts
with Native American tribes.
CSDED continues to have formal partnerships with various State agencies and expects to
be an integral component of the implementation delivery mechanism of the State’s future
economic development initiatives.
CEDS Strategy Implementation Summary
January, 2013 – December, 2017
Economic Development
Strategies
Major Activities
Primary Participants
Target Date
Work with the SD Center for
Value-added Agriculture, the state
and other agencies on projects and
encourage them in continuing
value-added agriculture
development.
Assists local groups and
agencies in the
development of valueadded ag project.
SD Dept of Ag, SD Center
for Value-added Ag
Development, Economic
Development Corporations,
Farms Related Agencies, ,
CSDED
2013 and Ongoing
Assist local governments to ensure
that intense agricultural projects
are properly sited in an effort to
minimize damage to the
environment.
Provide information
Dept of Ag, Local Units of
Government, NRCS,
CSDED
2013 and Ongoing
Encourage local governments to
enhance joint zoning jurisdictions
with the understanding that
agriculture is a vital part of the
District’s economy.
Attend Meetings
CSDED, Dept of Ag,
Municipalities, County/State
Officials
Ongoing
State Dept of Tourism,
GOED, CSDED, Private
Citizens/Businesses,
Extension
2013 and Ongoing
Economic Development
Corporations, Chambers of
Commerce, Municipalities,
CSDED
Local Units of Government,
Economic Development
Corporation, Chambers of
Commerce, SD Dept of
2013 and Ongoing
Provide information
Prepare informational
materials
Attend Conferences
Continue to raise the awareness of
value-added agriculture as a
development option, including
agri-tourism.
Promote retention and expansion of
existing business.
Assist local government with
infrastructure capabilities to
promote business growth,
including the development of
Distribute Information
via newsletter,
mailings, and website
Promote buying
goods/services locally
Survey needs of
existing businesses
Provide information
Prepare financial
packaging as need
79
2013 and Ongoing
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
alternative energy uses.
Tourism, GOED, CSDED
Publicize small business financing
programs.
Provide Information via
newsletter, mailings,
and website
Economic Development
Corporations, SBDC,
CSDED
2013 and Ongoing
Work to identify employer
workforce needs and encourage the
use of telecommunications and
other “distance learning” training
techniques.
Survey businesses for
needs
Local Development
Corporations, SD Dept of
Tourism GOED, SD Dept of
Labor, CSDED
2013 and ongoing
Creating a district revolving loan
fund for businesses.
Identify Resources
CSDED, Board Members,
Economic Development
Corporations
2015
Continue to support the Small
Business Development Center and
educate local economic
development personnel, financial
institutions, schools, government
officials, and the general public of
services provided by the SBDC
staff.
Continue co-locating
SBDC office with
CSDED office
CSDED, Board Members,
SBDC
2013 and Ongoing
Encourage local schools districts to
strengthen and/or create
business/entrepreneurship
programs.
Discuss implementing
and or strengthening
programs,
Local Development
Corporations, Private
Businesses, SBDC, State
Department of Tourism,
GOED, SD Department of
Education
2013 and on going
Local Units of Government,
Economic Development
Corporations, SD
Department of Tourism,
GOED, CSDED
Ongoing
SD Department of Tourism,
Regional Tourism
Association, Chamber of
Commerce, Local
Businesses, Economic
Development Corporations
2013 and ongoing
2013 and Ongoing
Target Date
Provide information
Provide information via
newsletter, website, emails, press releases,
etc.
Develop local
mentorship program
Work with local leaders to identify
potential site/facility locations,
infrastructure needs, and to
promote those sites.
Survey communities for
vacant sites
Identify infrastructure
needs for those sites
Market available sites
Encourage communities to work
with the regional tourism
associations and state tourism staff
to expose communities to
marketing experts and resources.
Provide information
and coordinate
meetings.
Work with local leaders, state and
federal officials, in the
development of the Missouri River
and other areas that enhance
hunting, camping, recreational
boating, and fishing activities.
Attend meetings
Provide information as
requested.
SD Department of Game,
Fish and Parks, Businesses,
Local Units of Government,
Development Corporations,
Economic Development
Corporations
Community Development
Major Activities
Primary Participants
Encourage locals to
attend conferences and
training
80
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Strategies
When appropriate, encourage the
sharing of public services and
facilities (fire, police, jails, etc.) to
maintain a fiscally responsible
atmosphere at the local level.
Facilitate/encourage
communications among
service groups
Encourage joint jurisdictional
zoning agreements.
Attend meetings,
conferences, seminars
Research resources
Local Units of
Governments—Counties,
Municipalities, Tribes.
Public Service Providers
CSDED,
Ongoing
CSDED, Local Planning
Commissions, SD Planners
Association
Ongoing
Address issues in
newsletters, website,
mailings
Encourage cooperation between the
local units of government and tribal
entities.
Encourage
communication on a
regular basis
CSDED, All Local Units of
Government including
Tribal Government, Wakpa
Sica Center
Ongoing
Continue to promote use of current
technologies (i.e. websites) for
regional and local
promotion/marketing.
Assist local units in the
updating of websites
Regional Business Groups,
Local Businesses, CSDED,
Economic Development
Corporation, Chambers of
Commerce, Utility
Companies
Ongoing
Encourage the local economic
development leaders to work with
the state in the marketing of local
communities to the business world,
with an emphasis on quality of life.
Facilitate/encourage
meetings.
SD Dept of Tourism and
GOED, Development
Corporations, CSDED
Ongoing
Provide list of current
private industry
providers.
Attend conferences and
training
Assist with gathering of
information, brochure
development and
website development
Promote capital improvement
planning and local fiscal
responsibility for the future.
Provide information on
value of capital
improvement planning
CSDED, SDDENR, Rural
Water Associations, Local
Units of Government,
Midwest Assistance
Program
2013 and Ongoing
Provide information to community
leaders on financing programs and
assist agencies with project
development—financial packaging
to administration to help ensure
project completion.
Distribute information
via newsletter, website,
e-mails, and mailings.
CSDED, SDDENR,
SDDOT, SD Department of
Tourism, GOED,
Development, Local Units
of Governments
Ongoing
Educate community leaders on
non-traditional financing programs
Attend trainings and
SD Officials of County
Commissioners, SD
2013
Assist with financial
packaging and
administration
81
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
such as tax-increment financing.
conferences
Provide information via
newsletter, website, emails, mailings
Municipal League, GOED,
Economic Development
Corporations Planning
Districts, CSDED,
Work with the SD Department of
Transportation to identify road,
airport, and rail projects that
enhance economic development, as
well as provide for public safety.
Participate in State
Highway (STIP) and
other transportation
planning processes
CSDED, Local Units of
Government, SDDOT
Transportation, Economic
Development Corporation,
Chambers of Commerce,
local businesses
Ongoing Yearly
Meeting with
SDDOT
Continue the marketing of the
Governor’s Housing units.
Continue to work with
the SDHDA to market
the houses
CSDED
2013 and Ongoing
Attend housing
conferences, meetings,
seminars
CSDED
Communicate on a regular basis
with the South Dakota Housing
Development Authority (SDHDA),
Rural Development, and private
leaders on housing issues and loan
programs.
Participate in
conference calls, list
serves and websites
SDHDA
Ongoing
SDHDA, RD, Financial
Institutions, Economic
Development Corporation,
Compile contact
information
Educate local leaders and private
citizens on the availability of
programs that provide affordable
housing throughout the region.
Promote SDHDA
through website,
mailings
Invite public to
conferences, meetings,
seminars
Provide information via
website, e-mails,
newsletter, etc.
Assist in application
development and
project administration
CSDED
RD, SDHDA, Financial
Institutions
CSDED, RD, SDDOT,
Board Members, SD
Department of Tourism,
GOED, MAP, SDDENR
Ongoing
Provide information to
communities and individuals on the
Governor’s Day Care Center
program.
Promote program
through website,
mailings, press releases
CSDED, SDHDA, SD Dept
of Social Services,
Economic Development
Corporations, Local
Businesses
Ongoing
Encourage communities and
counties to undertake cleanup
campaigns.
Coordinate annual
clean-up campaigns
Local Units of Government,
Private Citizens, Chambers
of Commerce, Development
Corporations, Community
Service Organizations,
Ongoing
Provide information to agencies on
financing programs and assist
agencies with project
development—financial packaging
to administration to help ensure
continuation of services.
Develop and enforce
nuisance ordinances
82
Ongoing
Private Citizens
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Encourage communities to
participate in community
assessment and leadership training
programs in order that
communities grow in a manner that
is the desire of the residents and to
provide for future leaders.
Provide information on
Community
Assessment and
Leadership Programs
Extension, SDREI,
Economic Development
Corporations, Local Units
of Government, CSDED
Ongoing
Encourage local leaders to invite
youth to become involved in
organizations, committees, and
governing bodies in order to
encourage “ownership” of a
community.
Educate youth on the
functions of committees
and governing bodies
Educational Institutions,
Municipalities, Service
Organizations, Local
Citizens
Ongoing
Maximize the use of
telecommunications and other
“distance neutralizing” techniques
to increase the number of job
opportunities.
Educate Citizens on
services available via
press release
State, Educational
Institutions, Local Units of
Government, Extension,
RC&D Councils, Economic
Development Corporations,
State of South Dakota,
Utility Companies
Ongoing
Encourage local financial and
educational institutions to embrace
the idea of entrepreneurship and
building from within.
Provide information
SBDC, Economic
Development Corporations,
SD Department of
Education, SD Department
of Tourism, GOED,
Businesses, CSDED
Ongoing
Natural Resources
Development Strategies
Major Activities
Primary Participants
Target Date
Assist governments with flood and
siltation issues.
Participate in planning
and implementation
activities
Local Units of Government,
Corps of Engineers,
SDDENR, SD Department
of Tourism GOED, NRCS,
CSDED
Ongoing
Work with state and federal
agencies, conservation districts,
RC&D agencies, and other
agricultural based interest groups
to promote best land management
practices on the Missouri River and
its tributaries, as well as other
special areas for the well being of
all while enhancing the tourism and
ag industries.
Assist when possible.
Conservation Districts,
RC&D agencies, Farmers
Union, Local Units of
Government, CSDED
2012 on Ongoing
Disaster Preparedness and
Recovery
Major Activities
Primary Participants
Target Date
Repair basic infrastructure in
Recovery Mode- Provide technical
assistance to cities/counties on
financing applications for repair of
infrastructure.
Attend meetings
CSDED, RD, FEMA,
SDDOT, NRCS
As needed
Develop a youth
volunteer program
Attend seminars, etc.
Provide information
83
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Prepare Applications
Provide technical assistance to
cities/counties on financing
applications to implement disaster
mitigation measures.
Attend meetings
CSDED, RD, FEMA,
SDDOT, NRCS
2013 and on going
Planning and Research
Major Activities
Primary Participants
Target Date
Provide technical assistance to
local planning commissions in the
areas of land use planning and
zoning activities.
Attend Meetings
CSDED, Local Units of
Governments
2013 and ongoing
Enhance the region’s census and
business information resources via
GIS applications.
Gather Materials
CSDED, Board Members,
SDSU Census Center,
Census Bureau, SBDC
2013 and Ongoing
CSDED District, Economic
Development Corporations,
Chambers of Commerce,
Local Businesses, , Local
Units of Government
Annually
Technical and Management Major Activities
Assistance to Local Units of
Government
Primary Participants
Target Date
Assist with personnel or financial
management issues.
CSDED staff, Local Units
of Government
Ongoing as
requested.
CSDED staff and Local
Officials, Economic
Development Corporations,
Local Service Providers
2013 and Ongoing
Primary Participants
Target Date
Provide information
Prepare Applications
Provide Information
Attend seminars
Provide information via
website, newsletters,
on-site
Identify unmet needs.
Survey local
communities and
citizens to determine
unmet needs.
Coordinate meetings to
identify needs
Assist in the updating
of personnel policies.
Assist in the
development of job
descriptions
Research management
issues and distribute
information via mail
and website
Research/provide information to
assist local units of government
and others to access or deal with
state and federal programs.
Research issues
CSDED Management
Major Activities
Distribute information
to all member
governments about
issues.
84
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Provide and/or attend leadership
and technical training programs for
both staff and board members.
Identify resources
Attend conferences and
training on
management, GIS, land
use planning, website
development, etc.
CSDED Staff, Board
Members/CEDS Members,
2013 and Ongoing,
SDHDA, SD Dept of
Tourism GOED, NADO,
EDA
Arrange for experts to
attend board meetings
Maintain qualified staff. Develop
staff support relationships.
Participate in statewide
activities and training
CSDED, SD Planning
Districts, SD Dept of
Tourism, GOED, SDHDA,
SDDENR
2013 and Ongoing
Explore potential of internship
program to support professional
development as well as increase
office capabilities
Contact university
departments regarding
potential internships.
CSDED staff, Board
Members, Universities, SD
Career Services/Department
of Labor
Falls, 2013 and
then
Membership Dues
Gather information
CSDED Staff and Board
members
Reviewed Annually
Continue contractual relationships
with state and federal agencies.
Development new contracts.
Identify work contracts
and complete said work
Identify new contract
opportunities
Develop staff capacity
Work with local project
sponsors and funding
agencies
CSDED staff and board,
SDHDA, SDDENR, GOED,
State Development, EDA,
Rural Development, etc
2013 and Ongoing
CSDED, Local Project
Sponsors, Funding
Agencies, i.e., CDBG,
SDDENR, SDDOT, RD,
EDA, HUD, etc.
2013 and ongoing
Continue to provide contract work
to local members and others,
especially in the area of project
administration.
Prepare contracts
Train staff in
administrative
procedures
85
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
Chapter IV
Evaluation Plan
Regardless of theory or practice, the CEDS process is a starting point for local regionalized
economic development. The evolving nature of the CEDS, as it is applied in the District,
minimizes the “point in time” assessments. While annual updates may show differences in
regional development activity, the basic character of the District is unlikely to change. Our true
success will be measured by the engagement of individual citizens, governments, and businesses
in modifying, creating, and implementing the vision. Therefore, one measure of success will be
an annual public discussion forum to recognize success, identify tasks to be done, and learn from
one another—the basic CEDS’ process. If financial resources are available a consultant may be
hired to assist with leading this meeting discussion, otherwise CSDED staff will do so. Often it is
helpful to have someone else lead the identification of strengths, weakness and projects to be
undertaken as the public, as well as CEDS committee members, often rely too much on staff to
develop the ideas.
Besides the annual public discussion form to identify successes and needs, a survey will be sent
annually to each unit of government, economic development directors, chambers of commerce,
local service providers assisted, etc. to help identify needs of the District and for ways staff can
be of more assistance. The District staff, under the direction of the Governing Board as well as
the CEDS committee, conducts the composition of the CEDS. The reporting of program progress
is the responsibility of the staff. There are currently 3.4 FTE’s, with the Executive Director and
the Planners being largely responsible for implementation and preparation of reports. Assistance
is then provided by the administrative staff position.
Other evidence of success will include:
1. Ongoing CSDED membership by local entities or program participation
2. The development of staff capability to provide those services requested by members in a
timely manner and to fulfill contract requirements with state and federal agencies—
annual review of director by Governing Board.
3. The number of jobs created along with jobs retained occurring in the region.
4. The number and types of investments undertaken in the region (including public and
private.)
5. Changes in the economic environment including but not limited to: Taxable Sales,
population numbers, income levels, and other quantifiable facts will also aid in the
documentation of success. These factors can also help in determining needs.
Adjustments will be based on input from the CEDS committee, CSDED’s member
municipalities and counties, related interested third parties, and CSDED staff. Changes will be
reflected in CSDED’s annual Scope of Work and CEDS report
In reality, incremental progress may only be best understood over a decade or more. Long-term
analysis also mitigates the impacts of disasters and other isolated one-time events.
86
CSDED Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy —December, 2012
APPENDIX
CENTRAL SOUTH DAKOTA
ENHANCEMENT DISTRICT
3431 Airport Road, Suite 3 * PO Box 220, Pierre, SD 57501
605.773.2780 605.773.2784 Fax
Email: [email protected]
www.csded.org
October 18, 2012
Dear Community Development Leader:
The design and character of many cities and towns in South Dakota can oftentimes be traced to
civic leaders who stepped forward in times of challenge and diligently worked to maintain and
improve their respective communities. In present times, community leaders such as yourself carry
on efforts to help shape the state’s cities and towns for future generations. For this reason, we are
asking you to share your unique insight by participating in a community and economic development
survey by November 2, 2012. One can complete the survey on-line by going to
www.csded.org/survey.php or by completing a paper survey and mailing or faxing it to the Central
South Dakota Enhancement District.
As you will note, the survey is a joint effort sponsored by the Governor’s Office of Economic
Development (GOED) and the Central South Dakota Enhancement District. The central focus is:
1. To gauge the present state of primary infrastructure and essential services in South
Dakota communities;
2. To identify and prioritize the issues of concern in South Dakota communities and the
region and implement corresponding initiatives to address them;
3. To ascertain the level of economic development preparedness in South Dakota cities and
towns and guide the design and implementation of community/economic development
programs.
The data generated from the survey will be compiled and presented to community leaders at a
regional meeting to be held at a time and place yet to be determined. Representatives of the
Governor’s Office of Economic Development are planning on being present at that meeting to help
present survey findings and to take comments and recommendations from meeting participants.
Additional information regarding the meeting will be sent to your attention at a later date.
On behalf of Governor Daugaard, we want to thank you for your service to your community and the
State of South Dakota. We look forward to seeing you at the meeting.
Sincerely,
J. Pat Costello, Commissioner
Governor’s Office of Economic Development
Marlene Knutson, Director
Central South Dakota Enhancement District
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Section 1 ­ Participant Background
The Governor's Office of Economic Development and the state's planning districts are seeking your input. Your responses will be part of a report on regional development issues that will be provided to the Governor. Please answer each question to the best of your ability. The answers will help sharpen the focus of development resources at the state and regional levels. The survey will also be used to update the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) for the Central South Dakota Enhancement District (CSDED) If you have any questions, please call (605)773­2780. November 2nd, 2012 is the last day to respond to this survey. Thank you. *1. Please note the sector you are representing in your answers (mark only one
response).
j Tribal Government
k
l
m
n
j County government
k
l
m
n
j Municipal government
k
l
m
n
j Economic development corporation
k
l
m
n
j Business owner/operator
k
l
m
n
j Non­profit/community organization
k
l
m
n
2. How long have you lived at your current location?
j Less than 5 years
k
l
m
n
j 5 to 10 years
k
l
m
n
j More than 10 years
k
l
m
n
j Entire life
k
l
m
n
3. What is your age?
j Under 20
k
l
m
n
j 20s
k
l
m
n
j 30s
k
l
m
n
j 40s
k
l
m
n
j 50s
k
l
m
n
j 60s
k
l
m
n
j 70s
k
l
m
n
j 80+
k
l
m
n
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
*4. Please select the county you reside in.
j Aurora
k
l
m
n
j Beadle
k
l
m
n
j Fall River
k
l
m
n
j Bennett
k
l
m
n
j Faulk
k
l
m
n
j Brookings
k
l
m
n
j Brown
k
l
m
n
j Brule
k
l
m
n
j Clark
k
l
m
n
j Corson
k
l
m
n
j Potter
k
l
m
n
j Custer
k
l
m
n
j Davison
k
l
m
n
j Jerauld
k
l
m
n
j Lake
k
l
m
n
j Dewey
k
l
m
n
j Douglas
k
l
m
n
j Stanley
k
l
m
n
j Sully
k
l
m
n
j Edmunds
k
l
m
n
j Todd
k
l
m
n
j Turner
k
l
m
n
j Union
k
l
m
n
j McCook
k
l
m
n
j Walworth
k
l
m
n
j Tripp
k
l
m
n
j Marshall
k
l
m
n
j Lyman
k
l
m
n
j Lincon
k
l
m
n
j Sanborn
k
l
m
n
j Spink
k
l
m
n
j Lawrence
k
l
m
n
j Shannon
k
l
m
n
j Kingsbury
k
l
m
n
j Roberts
k
l
m
n
j Jones
k
l
m
n
j Perkins
k
l
m
n
j Pennington
k
l
m
n
j Jackson
k
l
m
n
j Codington
k
l
m
n
j Deuel
k
l
m
n
j Moody
k
l
m
n
j Hutchinson
k
l
m
n
j Hyde
k
l
m
n
j Minnehaha
k
l
m
n
j Hughes
k
l
m
n
j Harding
k
l
m
n
j Miner
k
l
m
n
j Hanson
k
l
m
n
j Mellette
k
l
m
n
j Gregory
k
l
m
n
j Hand
k
l
m
n
j Charles Mix
k
l
m
n
j Day
k
l
m
n
j Hamlin
k
l
m
n
j Campbell
k
l
m
n
j Clay
k
l
m
n
j Meade
k
l
m
n
j Haakon
k
l
m
n
j Buffalo
k
l
m
n
j Butte
k
l
m
n
j McPherson
k
l
m
n
j Grant
k
l
m
n
j Bon Homme
k
l
m
n
j Yankton
k
l
m
n
j Ziebach
k
l
m
n
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Section 2 ­ Local Conditions
Please assign a grade to the following services, systems, or facilities. If you live in a rural residence, answer the question for your location or the community where you work or socialize. Only mark one grade per item. A ­ Exceeds Expectations B ­ Meets Anticipated Needs C ­ Improvements Necessary D ­ Way Below Expectations F ­ Serious Problems Exist N/A ­ Don't Have or Not Applicable 5. Utilities/Communication Systems
A
B
C
D
F
N/A
Drinking water system
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Sanitary sewage system
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Garbage/recycling services
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Drainage system
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Electrical service
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Natural gas/propane service
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Telephone service
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Internet service
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Cell phone service
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
A
B
C
D
F
N/A
Federal/state highways
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
County/township roads
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Main street
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Industrial access roads
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Airport
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Railroad
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Bus/van service
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
6. Transportation
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Only mark one grade per item. A ­ Exceeds Expectations B ­ Meets Anticipated Needs C ­ Improvements Necessary D ­ Way Below Expectations F ­ Serious Problems Exist N/A ­ Don't Have or Not Applicable 7. Quality of Life Facilities
A
B
C
D
F
N/A
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Senior citizen center
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Daycare options
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Healthcare services
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Library services
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Historic properties/museums
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
A
B
C
D
F
N/A
Law enforcement
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Ambulance service
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Fire department
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Emergency sirens
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Dispatch/communication j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
A
B
C
D
F
N/A
Public school system
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Access to higher education j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Workforce training programs
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Industrial sites
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Retail and service business j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Available laborforce
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Development corporation j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Local government support
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Local website
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Park/recreation/trail offerings
Community center/meeting rooms
8. Public Safety
systems
9. Local Development Resources
courses
opportunities
activities
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Only mark one grade per item. A ­ Exceeds Expectations B ­ Meets Anticipated Needs C ­ Improvements Necessary D ­ Way Below Expectations F ­ Serious Problems Exist N/A ­ Don't Have or Not Applicable 10. Housing
A
B
C
D
F
N/A
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Number of buildable lots
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Construction/builder j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Nursing home units
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Assisted living units
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Overall affordability of j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Overall condition of housing stock
Availability of single family homes
Availability of apartment units
capacity
housing
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Section 3 ­ 12 Month Perspective
Please consider how your local economic development "environment" has changed over the past year. Please mark the response that best fits your opinion on each issue. 11. Workforce
Number of people Much Better
Better
No Change
Worse
Much Worse
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
employed in living wage jobs
Employee training opportunities
Number of people available to fill jobs
Public awareness of technical job openings
12. Business Activity
Much Better
Better
No Change
Worse
Much Worse
Manufacturing
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Retail and services
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Professional services
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Construction trades
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Agricultural j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Trucking companies
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Tourism
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
services/processing
13. Entrepreneurial Support
Much Better
Better
No Change
Worse
Much Worse
Access to capital
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Awareness of professional j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
counseling assistance
Participation of local investors
Networking/mentoring opportunities
Public confidence in taking risks
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Section 4 Future Development Priorities
Please rank each issue based upon its importance to the regional economy over the next 12 to 18 months. Think in terms of the entire region surrounding your county or Reservation area. 1 = not important 5 = extremely high importance Please select one number for each issue. 14. Business Sector
5 = Extremely High 4
3
2
1 = Not Important
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Promoting tourism
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Helping existing businesses j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Importance
Building value added agricultural processing facilities
(retention and expansion)
Attracting new companies (recruitment)
Working through business succession issues
Finding uses for vacant main street buildings
Keeping professional services available (medical, legal, etc.)
Seeking more potential workers
Supporting workforce training initiatives
Constructing "spec" industrial buildings
Other (please specify) Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
15. Community Involvement
5 = Extremely High 4
3
2
1 = Not Important
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
4
3
2
1 = Not Important
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Improving drainage systems
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Managing growth impacts j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Importance
Improving community appearance
Adding telecommunications capacity (high speed internet, etc.)
Increasing cooperation among communities
Improving housing opportunities
Providing adequate public infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, etc.)
Creating long range plans for development
Establishing a "social media" presence
Developing effective landuse (zoning) regulations
16. Environment
5 = Extremely High Importance
Securing water rights/resources (Missouri River, etc.)
on agricultural land
Anticipating impacts from oil drilling or other resource based activities
Protecting sensitive areas (wetlands, etc.)
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Section 5 ­ Specific Development Factors
Please respond to each question based upon the location where you live or have the most involvement. The words "county" or "Reservation" may be substituted for "community" if it applies to your situation. This section is of special interest to the Governor's Office of Economic Development. 17. Has your community adopted a comprehensive community development plan?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
18. If yes, does your community plan include an economic development component?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
19. Has your community adopted economic development goals and objectives?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
20. Does your community prepare an annual economic development work plan?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
21. Does your community's economic development program include the following
components?
Yes
No
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Business Succession
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
New Business Attraction
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Entrepreneurship
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Business Financing
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Business Retention & Expansion
22. How is your community's economic development program implemented?
Yes
No
Full Time/Paid Staff
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Part Time/Paid Staff
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Regional Development j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Volunteers
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
No Formal Organization
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Association
23. Does your community have a developed industrial/business park with available land
for new or expanding businesses?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
24. If an industrial/business park has been developed, does your community intend to
submit an application to GOED for Certified Ready Site designation?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
j Not Aware of the Program
k
l
m
n
25. Does your community offer any of the following incentives to new or expanding
businesses?
Yes
No
Not Sure
Tax Increment Financing
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Discretionary Tax Formula
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Revolving Loan Fund
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Local Sales Tax Rebate
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Customized Labor Survey
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Custom Build/Lease j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Building
26. Does your community have any available manufacturing buildings 10,000 sq. ft. or
larger?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
27. Does your community conduct any economic development marketing activities?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
28. Has your community conducted a labor survey within the past three years?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
29. Does your community have an internet web page?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
30. If your community has an internet web page, does it prominently feature the
community's economic development program?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
31. Does your community have any buildings listed on GOED's business development
website at www.readytowork.com?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
32. Has your community ever participated in one of GOED's joint marketing activities?
Yes
No
Not Sure
Not Aware of the Program
Target Industry Trade Show
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Media Advertising j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Campaign
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
33. Within the past year, has your community responded to a GOED Request for
Information announcement?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
34. Do you receive GOED's quarterly newsletter?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Aware of the Newsletter
k
l
m
n
35. Have you attended the Governor's Economic Development Conference within the past
three years?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Aware of the Conference
k
l
m
n
36. Have you accessed either of GOED's economic development websites within the past
twelve months?
Business Development Yes
No
Not Aware of the Website
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
(www.sdreadytowork.com)
Community Development (www.sdreadytopartner.com)
37. Do you have a general understanding of GOED programs and services?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
38. Have you had any direct, personal conversations with a GOED staff member over the
past 12 months?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
39. Is it important for you to have direct interaction with GOED representatives?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
40. Do you depend upon other entities, such as a planning district, to communicate with
GOED on your behalf?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
41. How valuable is the following information to you in supporting your economic
development efforts? Please mark only one response per item.
Very Useful
Somewhat Useful
Not That Useful
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
j
k
l
m
n
Details of state asssitance programs
Directories of organizations and agencies associated with development activities
Names and contact information of state program managers
Links to development oriented web sites
Examples of local success stories
Notices of training seminars or workshops with development topics
Names and contact information of local or regional resource persons
Best practice outlines, templates, or guides
Reference materials and studies concerning economic development theories and trends
Locally applicable demographic data and other statistics
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Section 6 ­ 1 Year Focus
Please indicate the issues that will need financial and/or technical assistance in your community over the next year. Your community's 2 to 5 year focus will be addressed in Section 8 of this survey. 42. Please select up to THREE issues from the following list. Do NOT select more than
THREE priorities.
c Workforce Development
d
e
f
g
c Business Retention and Expansion
d
e
f
g
c Business Recruitment
d
e
f
g
c Access to Healthcare
d
e
f
g
c Housing
d
e
f
g
c Recreation Facilities (Park Dev., etc.)
d
e
f
g
c Infrastructure
d
e
f
g
c Roads/Bridges
d
e
f
g
c Drainage
d
e
f
g
c Agricultural Processing
d
e
f
g
c Emergency Services
d
e
f
g
c Community Facilities (Fire Hall, etc.)
d
e
f
g
c Main Street Revitalization
d
e
f
g
c Community Appearance
d
e
f
g
Other (please specify) 43. Does your community have specific projects "on the drawing board" for
implementation over the next year?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
44. If yes, has your community contacted a state agency or planning district for
assistance?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Section 6 ­ 1 Year Focus
45. Please note the type of project(s). Mark all responses that apply.
c Planning
d
e
f
g
c Business support
d
e
f
g
c Infrastructure
d
e
f
g
c Community Development
d
e
f
g
Other (please specify) *46. Please note the appropriate person that should be contacted concerning your
projects.
Name:
Company:
Address:
Address 2:
City/Town:
State:
6
ZIP:
Country:
Email Address:
Phone Number:
47. Please rate your overall attitude about the prospects for improving the future of your
community. Mark only one response.
j Optimistic with Positive Expectations
k
l
m
n
j Cautiously Optimistic
k
l
m
n
j Status Quo will be Maintained
k
l
m
n
j Resigned to Continued Decline
k
l
m
n
j Very Pessimistic
k
l
m
n
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Section 6 ­ 1 Year Focus
48. How did you arrive at your response to the previous question? Mark the answer that
had the most influence on your opinion.
j International/national events
k
l
m
n
j State events
k
l
m
n
j Local events
k
l
m
n
j Personal experience/knowledge
k
l
m
n
j Conversations with others
k
l
m
n
j Media reports/stories
k
l
m
n
Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Section 7 ­ Your Turn
49. What topics or questions would you want to discuss with state development officials at
a "face to face" meeting?
5
6 50. This survey is intended to provide feedback on local and regional development
conditions. What did it miss?
5
6 51. How should communication be improved between state development resources and
local groups?
5
6 52. Who do you currently rely on the most for economic development information?
5
6 53. If you could improve one thing in how economic development is practiced in South
Dakota, what would it be?
5
6 54. Other Comments
5
6 Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Section 8 ­ 2 to 5 year focus
Please indicate the issues that will need financial and/or technical assistance in your community from 2014 to 2017. 55. Please select up to THREE issues from the following list. Do NOT select more than
THREE priorities.
c Workforce Development
d
e
f
g
c Roads/Bridges
d
e
f
g
c Business Retention and Expansion
d
e
f
g
c Business Recruitment
d
e
f
g
c Access to Healthcare
d
e
f
g
c Housing
d
e
f
g
c Drainage
d
e
f
g
c Agricultural Processing
d
e
f
g
c Emergency Services
d
e
f
g
c Community Facilities (Fire Hall, etc.)
d
e
f
g
c Recreation Facilities (Park Dev., etc.)
d
e
f
g
c Infrastructure
d
e
f
g
c Main Street Revitalization
d
e
f
g
c Community Appearance
d
e
f
g
Other (please specify) 56. Does your community have specific projects "on the drawing board" for
implementation in the next 2 to 5 years?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
57. If yes, has your community contacted a state agency or planning district for
assistance?
j Yes
k
l
m
n
j No
k
l
m
n
j Not Sure
k
l
m
n
58. Please note the type of project(s). Mark all responses that apply.
c Planning
d
e
f
g
c Business support
d
e
f
g
c Infrastructure
d
e
f
g
c Community Development
d
e
f
g
Other (please specify) Survey on Community and Economic Development Issues 2012-2013+
Section8 ­ 2 to 5 year focus
59. How many new jobs do you think have been created in your community over the last 5
years?
j 0 new jobs
k
l
m
n
j 1 to 5 new jobs
k
l
m
n
j 6 to15 new jobs
k
l
m
n
j 16 to 20 new jobs
k
l
m
n
j 21 to 26 new jobs
k
l
m
n
j 27+ new jobs
k
l
m
n
j Not sure
k
l
m
n
60. If you are a member of the Central South Dakota Enhancement District (CSDED) or
have utilized CSDED's services, how might this district better serve your municipality,
county or economic development agency?
5
6 61. How would you rate the services of the Central South Dakota Enhancement District if
you have worked with the district within the past year?
j Outstanding
k
l
m
n
j Satisfactory
k
l
m
n
j Unsatisfactory
k
l
m
n
j No Opinion
k
l
m
n
*62. What is the name of your organization?
Thank you. As noted in the introduction, this information will be used by the State of South Dakota and the planning districts. A special "roundtable" meeting is being planned for the spring of 2013. The survey results will be a major part of the discussion. The Governor's Office of Economic Development staff are expected to participate. 

Similar documents