Uncle Sam to Spend Millions on Madison Airport

Last year our man Hunter criticized the spending of $4.1 million in federal stimulus dollars to build an airport on the Rosebud Indian Reservation. That airport was built to provide emergency air travel and economic opportunity for 20,000 underserved South Dakotans.

I eagerly await Mr. Hunter's criticism of even greater federal expenditures for the expansion of an airport serving even fewer South Dakotans. Mr. Hunter's own newspaper reports that the municipal airport right here in Madison, population 6,500, stands to receive about $4.5 million in federal handouts for various projects over the next three years.

Now I cannot speak to the quality or value of our fine local airport. I've never flown out of Madison. Neither has anyone else I can think of. So I would like to know:

1. How many local residents use the Madison airport to travel out of the county?
2. How many businesspeople, hunters, tourists, and other sources of business activity fly into the Madison airport each year?
   
3. How much economic activity is generated by the Madison airport?
   

The answers to these questions may provide a perfectly reasonable justification for the federal government to pick up 95% of the cost of our local airport improvements. All the Republicans in Madison had better hope those answers are good enough to convince Representative-Elect Kristi Noem to keep her Tea Party budget axe away from our airport.

Stimulus: Invest in Teachers, Tunnels...

Small stimulus note: If I'm reading the September Expenditure report correctly, the Madison Central School District has about $269,000 in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars waiting to be pumped into the local Lake County economy in the form of salaries for regular employees, tutors, and aides. $269K is a lot of groceries at JubiShine....

Bigger stimulus note: like our Governor Rounds, New Jersey's Republican Governor Chris Christie seems determined to sabotage the federal stimulus, not to mention make the daily commute for thousands of his constituents much worse. Governor Christie has canceled a new tunnel project from New Jersey to New York City. New infrastructure is exactly the kind of investment America needs right now. Building new tunnels and rail lines and other infrastructure creates jobs now and lays the foundation for long-term economic growth. But Tea Party thinking calls that investment taxes and socialism and takes America back... to economic decline.

City Offers Lake County Int'l Sewer Agreement

Looks like Lake County International will get a pot to poop in after all. The implement dealer on the west edge of Madison contacted the city last spring about hooking into the municipal sewer system in conjunction with the business's big expansion project. Owner Jeff Bloom filed a written request a couple weeks ago. The city commission's initial response to the prospect of a new industrial customer pumping money into the city's sewer system seemed surprisingly lukewarm.

But apparently the city sees the benefits of connecting another big customer who, unlike its competitor across town, is willing to foot its own bills for infrastructure. Included in tomorrow night's commission agenda (pp. 18–21) is an agreement between the city and Lake County International to hook 'em up.

Meditation for the day: Poop is money. Money is poop.

Madison Lives on Pork: Another $190K for LAIC

Local Glenn Beck-sters, arise! Madison is suckling again at the teat of big government socialism! Madison's Republicans-In-Name-Only (that's the proper term, right?) are celebrating yet another $190,000 federal earmark to build improvements to support private business. Democratic Senator Tim Johnson announced the Lake Area Improvement Corporation will receive a $190K grant—free money, a handout, a boost to the federal deficit, money our grandkids will have to pay off—to pay for one new street and one street extension we built last year in the industrial park on the southeast edge of town. If I'm reading the news correctly, this earmark duplicates an earmark President Obama sent Madison last year for industrial park infrastructure.

Somehow, I get the feeling the only Madison conservative I can count on to say Madison should reject this blatant dependence on liberal Washington pork is Jason Bjorklund.

Sioux Falls Sewer Woes -- I Love My Septic Tank

The next time someone around Lake Herman suggests we build a central sewer system around the lake, I'm going to remind them of the grief Sioux Falls residents are having with their sewer system this week. One pipe fails, and a million gallons of sewage backs up. Mayor Mike Huether orders thousands of homes and businesses not to use their toilets, laundry, or showers (just what you want to hear after a hard day of working on the road crew or getting back from a five-mile run in the summer heat). The city has to discharge sewage into Covell Lake and the Big Sioux River at a rate of 900 to 1200 gallons per minute.

If the Lake Herman Sanitary District were to replace private septic tanks with a shared public sewer, we wouldn't include a storm sewer that would amplify water flow and increase the risk of overloading the system. But consider that one plugged or broken pipe in a central system puts an entire quadrant of Sioux Falls at risk of basements full of sewage. One pump station malfunction threatens everyone's property and health. And whatever the problem—too much volume, one defective pipe, one human error—everyone one the system pays for it via taxes.

With our septic tanks on Lake Herman, there can still be problems. An old tank can crumble and leak. Drainfields can get saturated, plugged with roots, or packed by driving trucks or heavy equipment over the yard. Homeowners can flush grease and oil and objects down the drain that plug the system and cause a backup.

But when something goes wrong with a septic system, the damage is usually limited to one house and yard, the property of the person who more than likely neglected or misused his system in the first place. The costs of onsite septic system failure—wrecked carpet and drywall, stress from cleaning up, four or five thousand dollars to replace a tank—never impact an entire neighborhood at once. If I fail to take care of my septic tank, my stupidity doesn't cause my neighbors grief.

Living in the city has much to recommend it. But the joys of central sewer are not an element of city living that I envy or that I wish on my neighbors here on Lake Herman.

More Madison Handouts: Farmers Elevator Gets $100K Free Rail Crossing Upgrade

If we could draw an organizational chart of Madison's power structure, we might find Madison Farmer's Elevator somewhere near the top. Other businesses and organizations, like East River Electric and James River Equipment, have to ask nicely for their subsidies. Madison Farmer's Elevator gets $100,000 of work done on its property for free by the City of Madison without even asking:

Also scheduled in 2011 is the railroad crossing upgrade on Highland Avenue. Comes said this $100,000 project is 90 percent funded through a railroad grant.

Don't forget: vote in the latest Madville Times poll on what great project Madison's taxpayers should subsidize next!

Mayor Gene Hexom asked if the Madison Farmers Elevator would be contributing funding for the project, since that company actually owns the railroad crossing.

Comes said the elevator hasn't been approached about providing cost-share toward the project [Elisa Sand, "City Reviews Five-Year Street Improvement Plan," Madison Daily Leader, 2010.06.22].

Ah, the Madison free market at work. Imagine if the city would just appear on your street one day, fix all the sidewalks, and not even knock on your door to ask you if you want to chip in to cover the cost.

Madison Five-Year Plan: $5.2M for Infrastructure

...and right behind ICAP for subsidy: East River.

The Madison City Commission is looking into spending a million dollars a year to upgrade our streets and utilities. Tomorrow night's agenda includes the five-year Infrastructure Improvement Plan, which proposes to spend $5,234,000 on water mains, storm and sanitary sewer, and street work. The biggest ticket items: Center Street water works in 2012 and 2014, then Southeast Fourt Street water works in 2015. I would hope the Center Street project also includes fixing the bombed-out pavement from Washington Avenue east to Division and the stockyards.

Not included in the five-year plan: paving—not resurfacing, but just surfacing—of South Division, Southeast Third, or other stretches of gravel within city limits. Perhaps paving is in another budget? Or perhaps Madison just likes offering some select residents the dusty joys of country living in the big city.

Also on the agenda: East River Electric is asking the city to split the cost of improvements on South Harth Avenue. East River would like us to kick in $127,254 to help rebuild the street, improve draingage, and make it all look pretty. East River supports its request by saying the project will "improve the appearance of the city," improve traffic flow, "increase pedestrian safety," and support the city's effort to revitalize downtown (wait, the city has a downtown revitalization effort?).

East River's justifications are reasonable—well, except maybe for the traffic flow argument: how is it that in four decades of living in Madison, I've missed out city's terrible traffic jams? And East River's request is maybe only half of the subsidy the city handed ICAP on its Rosebud purchase.

Now if we could see the city offer some downtown revitalization subsidies to retailers actually on Main Street, we could be in business. I wonder, can Country Café apply for the city to split the cost of that new yellow paint job? How about a subsidy for Mochavino's new outdoor furniture? Or maybe a buyout and renovation of the Masonic Temple? Oh, the possibilities!

Citizen Survey: Madison Fire Department Great, Infrastructure Stinks, Groceries Needed

The Madison City Commission reviewed its Citizen Survey last night (2010.06.07 agenda packet, pp. 35–45, PDF format). The city got a 68% repsonse rate, sending out 314 surveys and getting back 214. Let's see what 3% of the city population thinks of our fair city:

Most of the quantitative responses fall into predictable bell curves, with majorities saying things in Madison are "Good," handfuls marking "Fair" or "Excellent," and a small but dedicated core marking "Poor." I crunch the numbers (granting 2 points for Excellent, 1 for Good, -1 for Fair, -2 for Poor) and find some noteworthy exceptions to that distribution:

1. The highest ranked aspect of our city is our fire department, followed by the citywide cleanup.
2. The Community Center (located, ironically, at the edge of town) also gets more Excellents than Goods. But 1 in 5 respondents said "Don't Know," the third-highest DK, behind the airport and the city website.
3. Scoring the strongest negatives: sidewalk maintenance, street repair, "the job Madison government does at listening to citizens," land use and planning, animal control, and "Madison as a place to work."
   

Interestingly, "Madison as a place to raise children" and "Madison as a place to live" get the third- and fourth-highest scores. Ask folks a general question, and they give town high marks. Ask Madisonians about specifics, and those scores mostly go down.

The survey includes numerous open comments. One 90-year-old says "No complaints... am thankful for a place to live." We're not all such grateful minimalists:

1. The need for a grocery store and more retail figures in more than one comment. One citizen notes Madison once had five grocery stores.
   
2. One commenter annotates the survey thus:
   
   • Madison as a place to work: "where?"
   • Street repair: "where? Piss poor."
   • Snow removal: "piss poor."
   • The overall direction that city government is taking: "which?"
   • The job Madison government does at listening to citizens: "When?"
3. A couple people note that North 9th Street needs work... and they're right!
4. A couple more note the need to revitalize Main Street.
   
5. One commenter grumbles about our "young" cops giving folks tickets for turning into the outside lane. Those tickets must be a huge revenue generator in Madison, since (a) 9 out of 10 drivers I see in Madison do it, and (b) Madison's newly-narrowed highway lanes make a proper tight lane entry impossible on anything larger than my bike.

Check out the survey for yourself, see what you think!

Madison Names Price for Bike Trail Land Acquisition

On the agenda for tonight's Madison City Commission meeting: discussion of the how much the city will pay landowners for allowing construction of the Lake Herman Recreation Trail on their land.

You have page through nineteen liquor license applications to get to it, but on page 45 of the agenda packet, you can find out how much the city plans to offer David Pitts and other landowners for the privilege of taking the right of way permanently out of their use.

If I'm understanding what's written in the city's "acquisition formulas," each landowner gets $500 up front. Then the city goes to Shirley Ebsen's office at the courthouse, gets the highest per-acre assessed value of the land in question, and multiplies by 2.

For temporary easements (the land the city will need to run the equipment up and down along the construction route), the city multiplies that land value by 20%. The city will add another 10% for crop damage.

For permanent easements, the city multiplies the land value by 140%.

Now I haven't taken the tape measure out to David Pitts's land, but I'm guessing the rec trail would slice about three acres off the east edge of his land. Let's wild-guess the value at $3000 an acre. By the above formula, the permanent easement for that strip of land would be the following:

• $3000 x 2 x 1.4 x 3 = $25,200.

What do you say, David (and fellow farmers): is that price enough to seal the deal?

And if it isn't, is the city willing to go higher? Is this bike trail worth paying the price the market will demand? And if not, will the city risk the political fallout of eminent domain?

A bike trail would be nice. It would draw tourists and boost economic development. But as I heard a wiser financial head than myself say this week, the bike trail is a want, not a need. The city tonight will make clear the price it wants to pay. If David Pitts doesn't want to accept that price, then so be it. Eminent domain should not follow.

By the way, I went for a couple of bike rides this weekend. Both days I rode the county road that parallels most of the proposed bike route, 234th Street, from Lake Herman State Park to Madison, just as I have for 21 years. Nice smooth road, traffic generally light and polite. Sure, I'd enjoy another path, but I can get where I want to go now just fine with the existing infrastructure. Of course, if the county would like to widen the shoulders, I wouldn't complain. David Pitts might not, either.

City Postpones Hiring Lawyer for Bike Trail Eminent Domain

Two phrases I do not like to see in the same article: eminent domain and recreation trail. Those phrases were on the Madison City Commission agenda last night. The city was to consider authorizing a contract with Jencks & Jencks, P.C., to handle "legal and eminent domain actions" in acquiring the land necessary for the proposed Lake Herman bike trail. The contract approved up to $30,000 for the legal work (with the possibility of amendment upward), with hourly pay for the lawyers at $80.

But that item didn't stay on the agenda. At the beginning of the meeting, City Engineer Chad Comes asked for its removal.

The agenda change probably means little, probably just some more paperwork needs to be done before offering a contract to the law firm.

But if the city is even thinking of using eminent domain for the bike trail, they have a long row to hoe before getting the public (or me) on board.

Google Offering Fast Fiber Net: Madison, Apply Now!

Google continues its quest for world domination with a pilot project to build an experimental fiber-optic network. Their initial trial would serve 50,000, maybe 500,000 customers in various communities around the United States. Google says it will run fiber to the home for a "competitive price."

And what would you get for hooking up to the beast? Downloads at one gigabit per second.

What does that mean? My residential service from Sioux Valley Wireless, robust as it may be, comes in at no more than one megabit per second... usually more like 600–800 kilobits. One gigabit per second is over a thousand times faster than my current service on its best day.

If you're in Madison, you might be getting faster service than I. Midco's "Ultimate" broadband service gives you up to 50 megabits per second for $125 a month. Google's proposed network would still be 20 times faster. In other words, the hi-def full-length movie that takes Midco's highest-paying customers maybe 15 minutes to download could blast through Google fiber to your hard drive in less than a minute.

Jeepers—I'd be satisfied just to watch Hulu without pauses. Any faster, we'll be teleporting people through that pipe.

Google's idea is to install a super-zoomy network to support the development of bigger and better applications and more opportunities for everyone to profit. The first example they give is rich 3-D medical imaging and videoconferencing to help rural hospitals connect with faraway specialists. The possibilities for rural medicine, education, and commerce are as big as your imagination and desire for data.

Google isn't even trying to crowd out other providers. They want to build an open network accessible to multiple service providers. Google figures this pie is big enough for everyone to share.

Google is asking communities that would be interested in having the fastest community Internet in America to send them an e-mail and make their pitch. Um, Madison? I'm thinking getting the Google fiber network would be a really good idea. Let's do it!

I've forwarded the Google Fiber Request for Information to the Madison City Commission, the LAIC, and a member of the Lake County Commission. I've also submitted my own nomination for Madison... and you can too! Residents and community groups are welcome to nominate their towns for this project.

Google's taking pitches until March 26. Madison, forget doubling the lanes on Highway 34. Let's try double-double-double-double-double-doubling the lanes on our information highway!

Landowner Bashes Bicyclists, Burbles Baloney at Bike Trail Meeting

Madison's recreation trail committee held an open house for residents to learn about the proposed route for a new bicycle trail to Lake Herman. The new trail would run west from Flynn Field along Silver Creek in the south part of Madison. The trail would cross Highland Avenue near Gehl, run south to the old NFO corner, then cross the road and run straight west to the state park entrance. (No formal plans yet to add the full 7.5-mile Lake Herman Loop... but I'm working on that!)

About 30 of us (I think Chuck might have included the engineers and local officials in his count) gathered in Madison's fire hall for the meeting to study the maps and ask questions of the patient engineers from Ulteig.

I say patient because the engineers had to stand through a fair amount of old-guy crabbing and small-town politicking. I heard one gentleman reciting his decades-old grievances about selling his land in southwest Madison for dirt cheap so Gehl could get built and then geting surprise bills for curb and gutter. The gentleman's point was a general assertion about not trusting the city on projects like this. The engineers listened politely and nodded as they eagerly awaited some actual engineering questions.

More bothersome to my ear were the protestations of David Pitts, who drives down from Ramona to farm the 150-some acres he owns across the road from Gehl and Madison's southwest corner. The proposed route would slice maybe three acres off that cropland. Pitts was a vocal opponent of a previous push to build a rec trail to Lake Herman, and he's renewing his protests over this effort.

I want to sympathize with Mr. Pitts's concern for his property rights. However, much of what I heard him say Tuesday night was, frankly, bull.

Pitts told the engineers (who again, did a lot of patient listening to matters that aren't their job to deal with) that he can't stop his combine on a dime to avoid a bike trail. His point is that he's going to lose a lot more cropland than the ten-foot ribbon of asphalt will take up. If I recall the map correctly, there would be a ten-foot easement next to the trail.

But if I recall correctly, when my wife and I rode the bicycle trail from the Lewis and Clark campground in to Yankton this summer, we found corn pretty close to the trail. Perhaps Pitts can drive down to Yankton for lessons on precision tractor driving.

Pitts told the engineers that it just doesn't make sense to situate recreation next to industry (industry meaning David Pitts). What Pitts fails to acknowledge is that recreation is also an industry, one on which our Chamber of Commerce stakes pretty big hopes (the town logo features a sailboat, not a combine). A bike trail to Lake Herman State park would be a key part of our local tourism industry, encouraging campers and day-tourists to come to Madison, ride and roller-blade around, and spend money. Infrastructure doesn't have to support big trucks to support business. (Read more on the value of recreation and public facilities in the city's comprehensive plan, Chapter 6.)

Pitts told the engineers that originally the city had proposed laying a bike trail along Highway 34, as evidenced by the little strip of trail out by Prairie Village on the old roadway. He seemed to say the city should go back to that plan. Never mind, of course, that a bike trail along Highway 34 would pass through even more industrial land, crossing driveways and taking up parking and workspace for Lake County International, Twin Lakes Veterinary, East River Electric, Tires Tires Tires, and several other businesses. Pitts doesn't really think it's a bad idea to have recreation next to industry or even a whole bunch of industries; he just doesn't want it near his single industry.

Pitts expressed his general disdain for bicyclists (and, I assume, anyone he might see dawdling about on a recreation trail), saying that "anyone who's got time to sit on a bicycle" has got time to take some longer route—i.e., some route not on his land. There were other implications in his tone of voice, the kind of implication that says, "I'm an important citizen, and you other guys aren't."

It is with difficulty that I restrict myself to noting that Mr. Pitts's characterization of bicyclists misses the point that many such individuals who have time for recreation also have money to spend. They'll buy drinks and ice cream in town. They'll buy gas and tires for their campers. They'll buy bikes and kiddie trailers and rollerblades and windbreakers and other sales-taxable gear. They'll rent campsites and motel rooms to come spend time in a town that offers a wealth of recreation opportunities.

Mr. Pitts also misses the point that even folks without a lot of disposable income can benefit greatly from a free recreational facility like a bike trail. Rich or poor, families can take their kids out for a walk or a tricycle ride on a summer evening, away from the dust and noise of trucks on the highway.

Mr. Pitts clearly thinks recreation doesn't deserve any favors from his industry. Of course, Mr. Pitts's industry benefits from the generosity of a community (and a state) that exempts some of his clearly commercial vehicles from commerical vehicle licensing laws. He might not be in a good position to protest "favoring" one industry over another.

I have deep sympathy for arguments in defense of personal property. If Mr. Pitts wishes to simply say, "It's my land, and I don't want to sell," that's fine. But when he manufactures arguments against public infrastructure couched in selfish, inconsistent, and at least unneighborly if not insulting language, he doesn't help his case.

----------------------
Update 2009.11.02: Count on the blog to spark neighborly conversation: David Pitts called me last week, and we had a good 2+ hour discussion. Read his take on the story, complete with his suggestion that the city has been a less-than-straight shooter.

Rosebud Lakota Criticize Madison Editorial on Airport Stimulus Funding

The Internet is a big place—it takes a while to read everything. That's why it took me until this weekend to find this criticism of Madison's news mogul Jon Hunter.

Back up to May 19, when the Madison Daily Leader publisher wrote that he was "taken aback" by the allocation of $4.1M in stimulus money to build an airport on the Rosebud reservation:

While there is no question that airports can be considered infrastructure, we question the value of building a new airport on the Rosebud reservation. This is an area that is considered among the poorest parts of the country, where alcoholism and poverty are pervasive, education is substandard and healthcare quality is questioned.

So the best way to spend $4.1 million there is on a new airport? [Jon Hunter, "Does a New Airport at Rosebud Help with Economic Recovery?" Madison Daily Leader, 2009.05.19]

Hunter says the airport money is a waste and would have had more impact if diverted to other infrastructure projects, such as the "schools, detention centers, and roads" the stimulus bill is also building.

Hunter's argument doesn't go over well with a couple of Native American writers. Rosebud Tribal President Rodney M. Bordeaux labels Hunter's editorial "stereotypical, racist, and the kind of polemic that demonstrate the ignorant and uneducated attitudes and animosity against Native Americans that lives on in South Dakota." President Bordeaux hammers Hunter for citing no sources to back his assertions (hyperlinks can be your friend, Jon!).

Now we can go back and forth on whether saying there's poverty and alcoholism on the reservation is racist. Beyond that discussion, Bordeaux argues exactly how a new airport can help address some of the problems Hunter identifies:

Adequate health care for Tribal members is a priority of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe. A new airport in Rosebud , South Dakota, would permit the transportation of emergency status patients directly from Rosebud to larger hospitals in either Rapid City, or Sioux Falls, South Dakota, where there are trauma centers, burn treatment centers, and emergency surgery bays. At the present time the only airport for transporting patients is about 15 miles away from Rosebud, and is not sufficient to meet our needs. There are more than two hundred seventy plus flights a year from our hospital alone!

A fully functioning airport not only provides emergency medical transportation, but can foster economic development in the areas of tourism, hunting and fishing, and other tribal economic development projects. Approximately 150 jobs will be created by this funding [Rodney M. Bordeaux, President, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, "Rosebud Sioux President: Stimulus Will Help Tribe," Indianz.com, 2009.05.27].

Kevin Abourezk, a Rosebud Lakota who reports for the Lincoln (Neb.) Journal-Star and writes a column called Red Clout, says Hunter's editorial "borders on racism."

I would add that Hunter's statements are patronizing, yet further proof of the we-know-what's-best-for-those-poor-ignorant-Indians attitude that so many white leaders in South Dakota demonstrate.

While those leaders constantly fail to do anything to improve the lives of the Indians in their state, they can always be relied upon to criticize tribes for trying to improve their own conditions. When a tribe pursues gaming, those leaders indignantly attack tribal leaders for taking advantage of their own, while failing to offer any other solutions to severe unemployment.

Further, the notion that a tribe has no need for airport access is demeaning at best [Kevin Abourezk, "Criticism over Tribal Airport Borders on Racism," Red Clout, 2009.05.28].

Abourezk argues that improved access to emergency health care for 20,000 tribal residents is plenty of justification for a new airport. One would think that Madison's 6,500 residents, served by their very own municipal airport, would agree.

Curb-Gutter Assessments Unconstitutional; Sidewalks Next?

Dakota War College provides plentiful ponder fodder this morning. Mr. Powers points toward a KCCR story (which dang it, those radio guys haven't learned to permalink yet! Memo to management: Fix it! and see also the CapJournal coverage) which says that Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl ruled last week that the city of Pierre violated the U.S. and state constitutions by imposing special assessments for curb and gutter work. The court found that "Evidence showed conclusively that replacing curb and gutter provided no physical, material or quantifiable special benefits to the property but did provide significant benefits to the city and community as a whole." The special assessments were therefore a taking of private property without just compensation or due process.

Hear hear for the Fifth Amendment! West River landowners, take note: when TransCanada comes knocking on your door with backhoes and condemnation papers, file your suit in Judge Trandahl's court if you can.

So I wonder: are sidewalks next? I've previously suggested that perhaps sidewalks should be built with municipal funds rather than saddling homeowners with the entire cost. We need sidewalks just like we need curb and gutter, but homeowners give up valuable turf for a public good. And unlike with curb and gutter, homeowners (at least here in Madison) are expected to handle hiring a contractor or installing the sidewalk themselves.

Judge Trandahl's ruling, if it withstands possible appeal, could result in thousands of dollars of refunds for 55–60 Pierre residents who paid the special assessment. Hmmm... might the court's reasoning here form the basis for Madison residents to sue the city for a refund on the work they've done to install sidewalks at the city's behest?

KELO Floats Munsterman Ad Draft

No, South Dakota's gubernatorial candidates aren't buying airtime yet (and I urge all of you to vote against anyone who airs a campaign ad before January 1, 2010). But KELO's coverage of the "Brookings Boom" offers a pretty good idea of what the Brookings mayor will run in his "Munsterman for Governor" ads:

While the state is struggling to make budget cuts, and other cities and towns throughout South Dakota are dealing with layoffs and foreclosures, one town hasn't felt the impact of the economy as hard. This year, Brookings is increasing the amount of infrastructure and improvements to the city [Erica Johnson, "Brookings Boom," KELOLand.com, 2009.02.09].

Population growth, $4 million for downtown improvement, citywide bike lanes, parks and playground upgrades, conservative fiscal practices... oh yeah, and the importance of higher education as an economic anchor.

Knuppe, Knudson, Daugaard—care to ante up? (No rush—wait 'til next year... please!)

p.s.: Mayor Munsterman, nice website... but turn off the video autoplay!