The document summarizes a report from a committee tasked with studying the feasibility of an indoor recreation center in Brookings, South Dakota. The committee evaluated community needs and amenities, construction costs, operating costs, and economic impact. They determined priority amenities should include a turf field, courts, an aquatic facility, and support spaces. Construction cost estimates ranged from $10-30 million depending on the size and amenities included. The committee recommended further study and partnerships to help finance the project.

1. October 26, 2015
PREFACE:
The duly-appointed ad hoc Steering Committee to study the feasibility of the Indoor Recreation Center is
pleased to submit the following report for consideration by the Brookings City Council. This Committee
was authorized by the City Council on April 28, 2015, which was preceded by the adoption of an
Enabling Charter on March 24, 2015 describing the purpose, objective, and membership representation
of the committee. The purpose of the committee was as follows:
I. Evaluate the needs of the community and match those with current and
future amenities.
II. Determine potential construction costs and funding sources.
III. Evaluate potential operating costs.
IV. Investigate the potential economic impact.
In addition to the four outlined above, the Committee added a fifth (V.) consideration; that being
desirable aspects, characteristics of a location for such a facility. As such, a methodology for considering
site aspects is included. The full charter of the Committee is attached as Exhibit A.
The membership of the Committee included the following citizens:
Dan Hansen, Chair, City Council Member Randy Soma, BHS Activities Director
Brittany Kleinsasser, Park & Recreation Board Justin Sell, Brookings Health System
Jennifer Johnson, Convention & Visitors Bureau Mark Binkley, at-large
Gus Theodosopoulos, at-large Matthew Vukovich, at-large
Becka Foerster, at-large
Staff support to the Committee was provided by:
Peter Colson, former director, Park, Recreation, and Forestry Department
Jeff Weldon, City Manager & acting director, Park, Recreation, and Forestry Department
Darren Hoff, Recreation Supervisor
Mitch Peterson, Recreation Supervisor
Christi Weidemann, office manager, Parks, Recreation, & Forestry Department
The Committee held meetings on:
May 12, 2015 August 11, 2015
May 26, 2015 August 25, 2015
June 9, 2015 September 8, 2015
July 14, 2015 September 22, 2015
July 28, 2015 October 20, 2015
1

2. The draft report was provided to the Brookings Park and Recreation Advisory Board on October 26 for
review and comment prior to being forwarded to the City Council.
The amenities identified should be considered “components” of an overall master plan for such a
facility. That is, the project could be viewed as being constructed either all at one time or phased, or
staged, over a period of time. Financial implications will certainly drive issues of any sequencing or
staging of the amenities.
Finally, the Committee recognizes this as being only the very first step of an incremental process
whereby subsequent steps build upon the foundation of previous work completed. Such a project
naturally progresses from a very high-level with generalized considerations eventually to very specific
decisions in a model that resembles that of a linear funnel. At each one of these steps involved in
project management are opportunities for the all-important question of whether or not to proceed to
the next step will need to be answered. As such, this report has specific limitations in scope and
acknowledges much more specific research will be necessary for the project to progress. For this
reason, building schematic designs, for example, are not part of this report as such analysis would be
premature. These questions are best left for a subsequent analysis. This report represents only the very
first step. If the City Council determines the project has sufficient merit to continue, next steps would
be a more detailed and comprehensive analysis of each of the components explored in this brief report.
At that point, funding will be necessary for further study and analysis.
The pages that follow describe the process as well as the findings as a response to the responsibilities
described in the Charter. In doing so, the Committee offers the following disclaimer:
Disclaimer: This report is intended to undertake quantitative research, within the limits of the research
tools available, to discover answers to public policy questions outlined in the enabling charter. It is NOT
intended to make the case in support of, or opposition to, the City of Brookings having an indoor
recreation center. It is only for purposes of providing information the City Council may deem helpful in
addressing the bigger public policy issues surrounding this potential project. In addition, in order to
undertake the work of the enabling charter, the Committee found it necessary to make a series of
assumptions. Such assumptions can and should remain flexible and subject to changes over time and
can be challenged should the City Council determine more detailed analysis on this potential project be
necessary.
The Committee would like to thank the firms of ICON Holdings, LLC, design/Arc architects, and JLG
Architects for their pro bono technical consulting assistance in providing construction cost data as well
as other material that aided the Committee in this project.
The Committee looks forward to the City Council’s reaction to this report.
FOR THE COMMITTEE:
Dan Hansen Jeffrey W. Weldon
Chair City Manager/ Acting
Council Member Director, Parks & Recreation Dept.
2

3. PROCESS:
The Committee addressed the issue of predicting and quantifying amenities as the first task of this
project, with the presumption that all other considerations such as location, capital and operating
expenses, and economic impact are wholly dependent upon what such a facility looks like and what
amenities are to be included in the facility. Indeed, none of these subsequent issues can be adequately
addressed until and unless the central question of amenities is answered.
The Committee conducted several “brainstorming” sessions to develop a comprehensive list of
amenities to be considered. Early in the process, no item was dismissed. The list included items
currently in the community’s “inventory” of amenities regardless of who owned or provided them;
projections of future needs; and amenities not currently available but where interest for them had been
determined. The Committee further analyzed a list of current inventory where similar amenities are
provided, their usage analysis, current condition, ownership or party that provides them (whether they
are publicly or privately provided), and amenities of other facilities in our peer-group cities – this
information can be found in Exhibit B.
The Committee sponsored two public open houses to solicit feedback about what types of amenities
individuals or groups preferred to have in a potential indoor recreation center. The open houses were
held on June 24, 2015 from 10:00 a.m. to 12 noon and 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at the Mickelson Middle
School Commons. Committee members were available to visit with members of the public about their
opinions. Participants were asked to rank their priorities from a list of most –likely amenities. A
complete listing of amenity ranking is attached in Exhibit B.
Other means of public input solicited and considered by the Committee were responses to the “Engage
Brookings” public input module and other social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter, as well as
letters, telephone calls, and email messages. All such public input communications were forwarded to
the Committee for consideration.
From this public input and usage analysis, the Committee then prioritized and aggregated, the various
amenities as most desirable for such a facility and eliminated others. This analysis is further described in
the next section (I. Amenities).
The Committee then turned its attention to the other considerations. Next to be examined was the
likely construction costs. The selected amenities were further synthesized into a capitalized
construction cost analysis for purposes of determining estimated costs. Two architectural firms
provided unit cost information of the pre-selected amenities. These firms included a joint partnership
consisting of ICON Holdings, LLC and design/Arc Architects, and the other was JLG Architects. Both firms
have offices in Brookings and provided pro bono services. The capitalized construction cost analysis was
the baseline project description the consultants used to extrapolate estimated construction costs. This
document is attached as Exhibit C. The Committee found it advantageous to have two professional
opinions relative to construction cost estimating and both datasets were presented to the Committee by
the consultants. For purposes of this report, the estimated construction costs were aggregated and
averaged. This estimate is further described in a subsequent section (II. Construction Costs).
3

4. Finally, the Committee turned their attention to the final considerations of the report such as projected
annual operating costs, financing options, location/site considerations, and economic impact. Those
descriptions are in subsequent sections.
I. AMENITIES:
The Committee’s approach to determining the most optimal amenity mix began with a comprehensive
listing of all potential features that could conceivably be included in the facility, this work produced a
comprehensive ‘menu’ of items. At this initial step, no items were eliminated. Following that, the
Committee collected a database of information designed to begin the process of prioritizing the items.
The database included the following, which are attached as Exhibit B.
(i) Inventory of existing amenities in the community
(ii) Participant levels in various activities, historical trend
(iii) Brookings Public Schools facility data
(iv) Brookings City population projections
(v) Brookings County population projections
(vi) City and School District facility usage analysis
(vii) Brookings School District enrollment history/projections
(viii) Amenity inventory of private facilities
(ix) Engage Brookings survey data
Upon review of the above data, and comparing such data with the initial list of amenities, a priority list
of amenities began to emerge. The Committee determined it was time to host its first public input
meeting to gather information about priorities and preferences, utilizing an “open house” format.
Attendees were able to meet one-on-one with Committee members to learn more about the progress
to-date and solicit input. Attendees were given the opportunity to ‘vote’ on a priority of amenities from
a pre-determined list. Attendees were also able to suggest additional amenities and offer general
comments, suggestions, or other input. Between the two open houses, approximately 120 members of
the public attended. The Committee aggregated and tabulated the public input data. The results are
attached as Exhibit C. Admittedly, this response is not a statistically reliable sample but a cross-section
of responses of the public who participated.
The Committee then examined other comparable facilities to examine not only their amenities but also
their process for community planning and development of their respective center, and their estimated
capital and operating expenses. The recently approved Watertown Community Center and planned
Pierre Events Center were two such facilities examined. Several other facilities were examined as well,
but local knowledge of the Watertown and Pierre facilities really helped guide the Committee’s work.
Armed with this information, the Committee utilized the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) to further
prioritize the list of amenities. This final listing would be further detailed with a scope, vision, and needs
4

5. assessment for each. From this process, preliminary cost estimates were developed which are discussed
in the next section.
The Committee determined that several amenities would constitute “anchor” amenities of the facility
while other features were necessary and would constitute “support” or “ancillary” amenities.
The “anchor” facilities were determined to be (in ranked order as recommended by the Committee):
1) Turf space: This space would have an artificial indoor turf field to accommodate one large
soccer field that could be divided into two intermediate size, or four small, soccer fields by
utilizing drop nets. This turf space would include drop-down netting, and could accommodate
soccer, football, lacrosse, golf, baseball, softball, and other field activities requiring a turf
surface.
2) Court space:
a) Court space/wooden floor: This space would constitute a wooden floor sized to
accommodate four basketball courts or four volleyball courts. The courts could be
separated by drop-down netting.
b) Court space/rubberized floor: This space would constitute a rubberized floor
surface sized to accommodate three tennis courts or pickleball/soft touch tennis.
Drop-down netting could separate the courts; this area could also accommodate a
tot play area with suitable play features.
3) Aquatic facility: This would include a 25-meter, eight-lane competitive lap pool; a separate
recreational pool with a zero-depth entrance, slides, and water play features. The two major
pools would have separate heating and filtration systems for variable temperature controls and
ease of maintenance.
Possible “enhancements” to (2) court space:
4) Walking/running track: A walking/running track would be 1/8-mile, three or four lane circular
track made of a suitable rubberized surface. The track could be elevated on a second floor
above either or both of the court or turf spaces.
5) Racquetball Courts: Space should include two (2) standard-sized racquetball courts.
Amenities determined to be utilized as “support” or “ancillary” to the facility would be:
A) Multi-purpose room: This would be one, general-purpose room with a maintenance-free floor
that could be used for children’s birthday parties, arts-and-crafts activities, senior activity
programming, small group meetings, or similar types of programmed activities.
5

6. B) Locker rooms/restrooms: One centralized set of men’s and women’s locker rooms should
service the six amenities that comprise the “anchor” amenities. Restrooms, family rooms, and a
mother’s room should be appropriately located in the building.
C) Centralized lobby/concession/office/circulation: A centralized lobby should flank the main
entrance to welcome and assist patrons via a customer service front desk. Staff office(s) should
be located directly behind the customer service desk. A concession stand and vending machines
should be located at a suitable site in the facility. Appropriate circulation space is necessary to
effectively move and direct patrons to various amenities. Sufficient circulation space should be
programmed to provide registration or sign-up functions.
D) Mechanical/storage: Building design will dictate requirements for mechanical systems. A series
of decentralized storage rooms should service the turf space, court space, and aquatic facility.
This will provide supplies and equipment in close proximity to the amenity they are designed to
service. Custodial “water closets” should be located at various locations throughout the
building for convenience.
Several amenities were explored by the Committee but eliminated for various reasons. For example,
exercise equipment is not included as the Committee determined there are sufficient venues already
providing this service elsewhere in the community and it would be unnecessarily redundant for this
facility to provide for that. Likewise, a large array of meeting and conference rooms were not included,
as the facility was not envisioned to be an “Event Center”. While this facility is intended to be
intergenerational and accommodate all age groups, it is not a replacement for the Brookings Senior
Center nor does it accommodate the Senior Dining Service.
The totality of these amenities was used to analyze the other issues in this report, such as estimated
operating and capital budgets, site analysis, and economic impact.
To assist with the financial and operational viability of this potential project, the development of
partnerships with other entities will be necessary. This will enable multiple parties to accomplish
together what they will likely not be able to do individually. For example, the aquatic facility prescribes
a 25-meter, 8-lane competitive pool. If, however, SDSU, Brookings Public Schools, Brookings Swim Club,
or the YMCA desires to have a 50-meter pool, this expanded pool could be accomplished for an
upcharge of approximately $2 million, with the financial partner receiving prescribed user privileges.
Clearly, these potential partners could not provide a 50-meter pool for only $2 million so partnerships
make this possible for everyone. The specific details and nature of partnership arrangements will vary
depending upon the specific needs and circumstances of the issues identified.
II. CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES; FINANCING OPTIONS:
The following are the estimated construction costs of the contemplated project, as defined in the
previous section. The estimated construction costs are based on the average of data provided by two
professional consulting opinions, who based their estimates on a description of the project in Exhibit D.
The description is based on amenities and their respective square footage to provide for extrapolation
6

7. of specific amenities so that they can be deleted, delayed, or expanded in a phased construction plan.
As a result, the costs are identified as “by amenity”. It estimates construction as well as associated
“soft” costs for the structure only. It does NOT provide for property acquisition or related development
of a host site.
Sources of revenue for construction include the following:
1) Property tax increase for general obligation debt through a voter-approved referendum or an
opt-out.
2) Sales tax debt from future sales tax capacity. Brookings generates approximately $12.4 million
annually in sales tax revenue. Currently, all sales tax proceeds are committed annually 50% for
operations and 50% for capital improvements that are either paid with cash or by debt service.
The City is scheduled to have additional sales tax capacity beginning in 2024 of approximately
$1.6 million per year due to retired debt, unless other commitments against this capacity are
incurred. To use existing sales tax revenue would require less cash funding of capital projects
since existing debt service and other commitments against this revenue must continue.
Regardless of whether debt is issued under (1) or (2), the following hypothetical principal debt issuance
for a 20-year term at the current interest rate would require the following annual revenue stream.
Principal Annual Payment Tax Rate/$1000
$10 million $ 735,818 $0.69
$15 million $1,103,726 $1.03
$20 million $1,471,635 $1.37
$25 million $1,839,544 $1.72
$30 million $2,207,453 $2.06
3) Donations/gifts/community fund drive/corporate capital campaigns & sponsorships.
4) Partnerships with other groups to share the facility (i.e. YMCA, School District, SDSU, Boys and
Girls Club)
With regard to (1), the property tax increase resulting from either a voter-approved referendum or an
opt-out will have the following annual property tax increase on 2014 taxable value of $1,070,993,328 for
the various residential properties in the City of Brookings for 20 years at four percent interest. (Source:
Dougherty & Associates LLC)
Valuation $10 million $15 million $20 million $25 million $30 million
$75,000 $ 51.53 $ 77.29 $103.06 $128.82 $154.58
$100,000 $ 68.70 $103.06 $137.41 $171.76 $206.11
$125,000 $ 85.88 $128.82 $171.76 $214.70 $257.64
7

8. $150,000 $103.06 $154.58 $206.11 $257.64 $309.17
$175,000 $120.23 $180.35 $240.46 $300.58 $360.70
$200,000 $137.41 $206.11 $274.82 $343.52 $412.23
$250,000 $171.76 $257.64 $343.52 $429.40 $515.28
$300,000 $206.11 $309.17 $412.23 $515.28 $618.34
$350,000 $240.46 $360.70 $480.93 $601.16 $721.39
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: The Committee recommends Financing (1), property tax increase, as
the primary revenue stream for the potential facility. Voter approval of a property tax increase will
provide public validation of the project by, and for, the community. While increases in property taxes
can be achieved with the approval of the voters, this option does not exist for sales tax increases. In
addition, projections indicate there is insufficient revenue capacity from the City’s sales tax revenue
stream to support the sales tax debt service that would be required for this potential project.
The Committee further recommends (3) and (4) be utilized as secondary financing options, as it is
unlikely that either option could be utilized as the primary means of financing the capital construction.
Since (3) and (4) would be important components of an overall capital financing strategy, a lot more
work must be done to identify potential gifts, sponsorships, and partners.
III OPERATING COST ESTIMATES:
The following is the estimated annual operating expenses of the contemplated project as defined in (I.
Amenities). Operating estimates will change depending upon the addition, deletion, or alteration of the
specific amenities of the project. This section attempts to detail expenditures but not revenues.
However, it is safe to assume that revenues will fall far short of meeting annual expenditures, thus
requiring subsidization by the City. This should be expected and is consistent with many public services
generally, and recreational facilities specifically.
With regard to revenues, categories of revenue sources are suggested but not itemized. It is impossible
to determinate at this point in time with any validity what revenue could be generated from these
sources. The research suggests these categories are used frequently in other facilities but the
percentage from each is not statistically reliable. However, an aggregated amount can be surmised.
The research suggests the sum total of revenues can be expected to provide approximately 50 percent
of operating expenditures. Revenues can and should be diverse (i.e. sponsorships, user fees, facility
rental, concessions, community partnerships, etc.).
8

9. Applying fundamental principles of public finance with regard to such facilities, and since they provide a
public benefit, the public should be expected to pay for a portion of the operating cost through
subsidization with taxes. These facilities also provide a specific benefit to the user, who should also be
expected to pay for their specific use through user fees, rentals, service charges, or other pay-for-use
mechanisms. Many communities utilize a split fee structure of resident and non-resident rates for
purposes of equity of the general benefit revenue. The general benefit revenue helps insure access to
the facility is affordable to virtually everyone in the community since the initial assumption is that user
revenue will fall short of meeting operating expenses. Determining the appropriate mix of general and
specific benefit is beyond the scope of this report.
The subsidization with taxes pursuant to City finances would be an annual encumbrance of the General
Fund.
With regard to expenditures, specific research is more beneficial as well as conclusive than estimating
revenues. Estimating utility costs is a mathematical formula of local utility rates, the construction of the
structure, and square footage. Mean construction standards used in the architectural field were utilized
to provide these estimates.
Estimated annual operating expenses are attached in Exhibit E.
IV. SITE/LOCATION CONSIDERATIONS:
The Committee identified the five following criteria to be considered when siting the facility.
1) Access for pedestrians through existing or proposed sidewalks, trails, or pathways.
2) Access for motorists via arterial or collector streets.
3) Proximity to neighborhood subdivisions, but not on neighborhood streets.
4) Utility access for water and sanitary sewer, telecommunications/fiber, natural gas lines.
5) Located in growth corridor or densely-developed area for future growth.
Possible locations under consideration could be:
1) Re-purposing of an existing park or athletic complex.
2) Any other existing city-owned land, even some land currently held for commercial/industrial
purposes.
3) High School addition and re-location of existing bus garage.
4) Purchase of privately-owned land.
With regard to size and land mass requirements; the recommended size of a parcel needed to
accommodate the contemplated project as defined in (I. Amenities) is a minimum of 15 acres with a
preference of 20 acres. Site requirements of the facility comprising this acreage need to consider:
a) Building footprint
b) Parking
9

10. c) Landscape and open space requirements
d) Storm drainage site requirements
e) Future building expansion potential
f) Any desirable space dedicated for future outdoor amenities, such as ball fields or courts to
enhance the indoor facility.
Suggesting specific sites is beyond the scope of this study. In addition, to publicly suggest private
properties would not be advisable, as it would prematurely lead to adverse circumstances pertaining to
the negotiations of property acquisition.
It is important to note that the focus of the facility is especially crucial in selecting its preferred location.
For example, if the focus is to be a regional event center for visitor sporting events such as tournaments,
then proximity to interstate access and ease of finding the facility is crucial. If the focus is for
community-oriented usage, then interstate access is not as crucial and considerations such as
neighborhood proximity become more important. While both types of focus are envisioned by the
Committee, it was determined the primary focus should be that of community access.
The items in the first category above can be given a weighted ranking number and using cross-
multiplication, can result in a value-rated score to determine a priority of considered sites.
V.ECONOMIC IMPACT:
Brookings Indoor Recreation Center
Calculating Event Impact
Overview and Assumptions
To assist the Indoor Recreation Facility Committee, the Brookings Convention & Visitors Bureau (CVB)
has generated the estimated annual economic impact for the new venue as it relates to hosting events
and sport tournaments. Since there are many variables to consider, the CVB made the following
assumptions to help in the estimating process:
• Given the committee’s goal for the facility to be utilized by residents first, a 25% weekend usage
rate was applied to events and tournaments that could happen at the proposed facility.
• Weekend events (primarily Friday-Saturday), which are the most common and highest demand
days for tournaments and sporting events, were considered to represent the primary facility
market.
• The economic impact of past events and tournaments were used for comparative purposes. An
average per-event day impact of prior events was applied to the 25% usage model.
o It is important to note that should a tournament like Willie Mac utilize the new indoor
rec facility once built, this cannot be considered new economic impact as this
tournament already takes place in Brookings. However, should the Willie Mac
tournament grow in number of participating teams due to increased facility capacity,
the percentage of growth could be applied to the new indoor rec facility.
10

11. • Example events and tournaments used to generate the average “Event Day” impact are event
types that could be held in the proposed facility:
Example Tournaments (2014) Economic Impact Event Days % from Out of Town
Wille Mac Basketball Tournaments $554,040 4 93
Brookings Swim Invitational $172,800 2 80
Brookings Tae Kwon Do Fall Classic $14,400 1 60
Triangular Wrestling Tournament $104,400 2 75
Indoor Futsal Tournament $162,720 2 70
Wildfire Cheer & Dance $264,240 1 85
Tae Kwon Do Open Championship $17,280 1 70
TOTAL $1,289,880 13
Average event day impact $99,222 1 76.14%
Notes
1-Economic impact calculations include both direct and indirect spending.
2-The Out of Town percentage is factored into the economic impact numbers.
3-Economic impact is calculated using the following formula: $140 per day for the first person lodging, $60 per day for the
second person lodging and $60 per day per commuter. The formula includes a multiplier of1.8. Event attendee numbers
are based on information provided by the event organizer through an application and a post event evaluation form.
Event Economic Impact
Given the aforementioned assumptions, the CVB estimates the annual event economic impact of the
proposed Indoor Recreation Facility to be $2.5 million, once up and running at full capacity. Calculating
52 weeks in a year multiplied by the 25 percent usage rate equates to 13 weeks. We then attributed 2
event days per week, for a total of 26 event days in a year. 26 multiplied by the average event day
impact of $99,222 arrives at $2,579,772.
Time for Growth & Additional Considerations
The CVB anticipates that while an annual 25 percent event usage rate is achievable, it is not likely to
occur during the first few years of facility operation. In Year 1 and Year 2 of operation, the committee
should not account for any economic impact related to event and tournament activity, as it can take 1-2
years to work into the rotation for established tournaments. There is the possibility for new events to
be generated locally; however, new events take time to develop and grow into events that stimulate
significant economic impact for a community. Additionally, to be successful in event bidding, the facility
must have all the required amenities (seating capacity, parking, locker rooms, etc), as well as the
necessary community amenities like number of hotel rooms and eating establishments that support
event activities off the court. A final factor for consideration is high weekend volume for existing event
and tournament activity.
11

12. VI. FINAL CONCLUSION
The Committee held ten meetings and two open houses over the course of six months in an effort to
complete the tasks prescribed in the Charter approved by the City Council. During those meetings and
over that period of time, significant data and research, as well as some opportunities for public input
were used to arrive at the conclusions and recommendations laid out in this report. In addition to
fulfilling the directives of the Charter, it is the hope of the Committee that this report will be used as a
guide for identifying and framing the various issues that will obviously need more detailed research,
investigation, and certainly much more public input if the City Council determines the project has
sufficient merit to proceed to the next step.
To summarize, the Committee recommends the following:
1) The amenities or components of the project should be considered as a master plan to be either
constructed at one time or in multiple phases over the period of years as the needs of the
community and finances dictate. For this reason, amenity cost estimates are presented to
facilitate an analysis of phasing by “anchor” amenity.
2) The primary “anchor” amenities should be (in this order): (a) turf space; (b) court space,
encompassing both wooden and rubberized surfaces; and (c) an aquatic facility, encompassing
both competitive pool and water park features. Additional “enhancement” amenities to (b)
court space, would be a walking/running track and racquetball courts.
3) The recommended means of financing would be a property tax increase, supplemented by a
capital fund drive and leveraging partnerships for some capital expenses.
4) The Committee recognizes the projected operating expenses create a significant challenge to
the project since user charges and other revenues will be insufficient to meet the projected
expenses. Such expenses will need to be underwritten by City tax revenues and come from
existing revenue streams.
5) The economic impact is best described at approximately $2.5 million annually from specialized
events. The economic impact from everyday community usage is anecdotal at best and is
difficult to quantify. However, community usage should best be considered as a reflection of
improving the overall quality of life of the Brookings Community and augment the many existing
recreational attractions and features currently available to residents and visitors.
12

13. EXHIBIT A: ENABLING CHARTER
EXHIBIT B: INITIAL RESEARCH DATABASE
EXHIBIT C: PUBLIC INPUT OPEN HOUSES, AMENITY
RANKING
EXHIBIT D: ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
EXHIBIT E: ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES
13

14. Exhibit A

16. ExhibitB(i)

17. Exhibit B (ii)

18. ExhibitB(iii)

19. ExhibitB(iv)

20. Exhibit B (v)

21. ExhibitB(vi)

22. ExhibitB(vii)

23. ExhibitB(viii)

24. Exhibit B (ix)

32. Comments
1. Lifeguards are available all year round to staff a pool. Children could have swimming
lessons before summer starts. There is a lot of public support for an indoor aquatic
facility-if fits everyone! Feel free to contact me! Josh.sorbe@gmail.com
2. Cross fit area- Adult playground, rock wall, climbing ropes, obstacles. American Nija
Warrior type exercises. This is what all the teenagers are into.
3. Specific area dedicated to seniors.
4. Dart Boards. We would like a non-alcoholic place to play darts-fun or competitive-
youth will be able to build teamwork, relieves stress, improve social skills, build
confidence, ect. The adult leagues willing to help establish youth darts. You leagues can
draw economic growth as well.
5. How to handle low income families? Possible to offer a “free” AM or PM to allow esp.
children to participate?
6. Plenty of exercise/cardio/fitness facilities in town. If you accommodate turf sports it will
free up court sport spaces at existing facilities. Separate building for indoor aquatics—
see Aberdeen & Pierre.
7. Space to view swimming events
8. Warm therapy pool, diving boards. If we spend the money for 1 pool we’ll already have
the equipment necessary for the other. With a comp. pool we can host the state swim
meet, creating lots of community revenue.
9. Aquatics!-therapy pool (90 degrees) I sincerely feel that if you’re going to incur the
expense of one aquatic aspect (ie filtration system) you should really do the whole thing
at once.
10. Fees could be prorated by age & activities participated. Please visit the Brookings
Activity Center vs a new center at another town.
11. We need more options for citizens above age 50 and under age 6. All city pass.
12. Space for youth development programs. Right now we have no recreational youth
program for volleyball. A consistent space would be a huge asset for all youth
programs. Spectator space is a necessity. For court space the mms setup (or Yankton) is
ideal-multipurpose courts with the ability to section them off-if there were a youth
program using part, another area would still potentially be open for other use. I love
the idea of an indoor playground and drop-in daycare! Something I haven’t heard
anyone talk about, but an awesome feature. The Yankton rec gym is a great one to
think about-3 volleyball courts, when they use 2 for volleyball and 1 for another. 3
volleyball courts is ideal.
13. Significant questions: Cost to operate, ongoing expenditure? Fee for use, revenue
generation, family memberships? Regional impact & financial involvement from county
& regional communities. Population & demographic study to assure low-income access
and geo-location for physical access.
14. If we have a swim center everyone can do it. AGE 10
Exhibit C

33. 15. Tennis needs a gritty surface that is not compatible with basketball. There are already
enough basketball courts in the schools and churches.
16. Swim team is an amazing sport for children. It is not very accessible in Brookings at this
time. If it were more accessible more people could join bring more people to town work
for the health of our young. It will add more jobs. Brookings needs a positive activity
for children & families. We need a main gathering spot for all ages in all seasons.
17. Would strong be against exercise/cardio/fitness facilities as already being offered by
private sector.
18. Enough meeting rooms in the city/county building.
19. Family friendly!
20. Aquatics- it would be interesting to better understand the financial benefit to the city in
hosting swim meets.
21. Bring to a city vote.
22. As a tax payer I am concerned about the tax burden. Thank you.
23. Go for it BIG! & reach out to the public for $-besides govt.
24. Brookings has not been able to host swim meets because BHS pool is not able to host
these events because of the indoor 5 lane pool. The BSC has been able to sponsor
meets at Hillcrest that bring in many economic benefits. The BSC helps the community
health with swimming by offering swimming lessons and training
25. Already have a pool in the community. Walking/running track would be excellent for
cold winter days. Exercise/cardio/fitness would be great so long as not taking away
from current businesses.
26. I think aquatics should be viewed together. Undertaking the fixed costs to build one but
not the other would not be efficient. Might as well build both.
27. All city pass…one fee for access to all city P&R opportunities.
28. Love the golf and other turf sports ideas! Kids say “yah” to a water park. Many close by
communities building new pools.
29. See Marshall, MN Community Services. Able to host regional tournaments.
30. Court Sports-Plenty gyms in town. Aquatics-Too expensive and HS has one. Dance
Studio/Aerobics- Private Business. Indoor Playground-Ridiculous.
Exercise/Cardio/Fitness-Private business.
31. Big Waste of money.
32. None of the above.
33. Not needed.
34. Joke. None needed.
35. Recreation center FOR ALL.

34. Write In (# of mentions)
⑰
Tennis

Aquatic Therapy (Therapeutic Pool 90 Degrees)

Cards (playing cards)

Pickleball

Craft Room Dance Floor Golf
Zero Depth Pool Batting Cages Pools Tables
②
Lacrosse Cricket ADA Sports
Recreation Volleyball Wii Bowling Mini Golf
Climbing Wall

Horse Shoes Yoga Ping Pong
Quilting Equestrian Aqua Aerobics
60’s Dining Ultimate Frisbee Basketball
Spectator Seating Drop-In Daycare Cross-Fit
Adult Playground Obstacle Course (Am. Ninja Warrior)
Dart Boards Jacuzzi Diving Boards
Sauna Storage Space Daycare
Golf Simulator Soccer Baseball
Softball

35. Ranked
#1 #2 #3 TOTAL
Turf Sports 69 20 21 110
Court Sports 69 38 13 120
Racquetball Courts 3 18 9 30
Aquatics-Recreational 48 50 5 103
Aquatics-Competitive/Lap 93 16 2 111
Walking/Running Track 30 38 21 89
Dance Studio/Aerobics Room 3 10 9 22
Indoor Playground 3 12 9 24
Exercise/Cardio/Fitness 18 16 14 48
Meeting Rooms 3 6 7 16
Ranked #1 = 3 points
Ranked #2 = 2 points
Ranked #3 = 1 point

36. Exhibit D

37. Exhibit E