[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5972784,"mediaKeyId","5855633-b8887e38ef85a756c4f24629361015bb","parentId",5855633,"title","Public commenter raises audit, TIF and records concerns during budget meeting","audioSeconds",161,"startMs",106000,"endMs",267000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5855633-b8887e38ef85a756c4f24629361015bb&start=106&end=267","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5855633-b8887e38ef85a756c4f24629361015bb/thumbnail_106000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5972784/Pennington-County/South-Dakota/Public-commenter-raises-audit-TIF-and-records-concerns-during-budget-meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5972784-aea4e9a700b6f7127af2cc150cc35b91/orig.mp4?Expires=1771103305&Signature=VQRqrt2rqT38zngLwyMXO9I3GOqaLnTa6uWgDpdwPEesssTP~iTcI2oZUAW~jcoSJ2Z45d2SuORlctnnIHUhaMYA597IbtG2uTfsb3kItF9kup5LHixtDtapzaVNWY7rRSRhVWBcdzI8dYcIFhgqMJRoQPUFejP6fr3Drdi5uvigBH7~vgO6zRbN2yYjUrnrC6Kqn~e-cFs--9WaE1E-n9QWupjoK4U1jP4Jf~1iZFgALgjvPh4fr3cUpQro3e8E5eN4MHrQVQylkQV~P~MShccKr2kK3ic5RR4zNSLnKf0ZY7mKpjITp6U753fwnbgpaZ7nlPJ~25DYZHVxYaegSQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Pennington County, SD","date","2025-09-29T22:00:52Z","article","Chet Ellsworth of Rapid City used the public-comment period at the Sept. 29 Pennington County budget meeting to raise concerns about a recent tax-increment financing (TIF) approval, audit deadlines and shifts in custodial responsibility for public records.

Why it matters: Public commenters can call attention to administrative procedures and impending audit requirements that may affect county risk ratings or the timing of official actions.

What the commenter said: Ellsworth identified himself as a TIF petitioner and said the board had waited until late in the budget process to address deadlines related to audits and other filings. He asserted that changes made in mid-September had transferred payroll and elections duties into a group under human resources and described that shift as a \"separation of powers\" concern for elected offices. He requested the commission review memos he cited (he referenced a memo by \"Ms. Bancroft\" dated 09/16/25) and provided printed materials to staff.

Board response: The chair asked staff to accept Ellsworth's handouts and the meeting proceeded. Commissioners did not take formal action on the allegations during the meeting; they treated the remarks as public comment for the record.

Caveat: The statements in this report are attributed to the speaker, Chet Ellsworth, and are his claims. The board did not make findings or take actions at the meeting that substantiate those claims; any review of audit status, separation-of-powers issues, or custody of records would be a separate administrative or legal process.

Ending: The commenter supplied materials to the commission office for review; commissioners did not act on the specific claims during the Sept. 29 meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","9-29-2025 Pennington County Board of Commissioners Special Meeting - Budget Hearings FY2026","oneSentenceSummary","A public commenter urged the board to heed upcoming audit deadlines and alleged separation-of-powers concerns related to payroll and elections duties; the remarks were presented as observations and a record for the board to consider, not as findings of the commission.","taxTitle","Pennington County, South Dakota","taxId",2745,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5972788,"Commissioners weigh competing staffing asks: jail, detox counselors, treasurer and state's attorney needs",3047,2708000,5755000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5855633-b8887e38ef85a756c4f24629361015bb&start=2708&end=5755","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5855633-b8887e38ef85a756c4f24629361015bb/thumbnail_2708000.jpg","/articles/5972788/Pennington-County/South-Dakota/Commissioners-weigh-competing-staffing-asks-jail-detox-counselors-treasurer-and-states-attorney-needs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5972788-6cfef806084b68803dba2b0a2e0851d2/orig.mp4?Expires=1771103305&Signature=lDfe0xnG7SxtGw12AC3hy3~T-uo39pw4RK7HJM2YQR1fqBRuFSqX4odnGfX6TjsK87t1CGMd2Yqc1hvZ3niYcXI3-aDSCUgz3k~TsTToXr0j-jdBTae1PoFhCVYKCxoYkBc8NYTI7RFShqQZ3IIDocaaS2~i36DVJE4E2TMV3ubACBg-D2T1RzfRzzVIFs35ekL3XJvnrWskf7r2VStQsbcb2Vjk6tAv1mKGflLq~CC7d4zjGQ7G~nQNp~e2OvpdbH5Zg0WEFdgkkvL3rIS-EF2rTF2CVLh4qOY6aW77eZidlbc5MQlfuMu5ESe4~QozMZjcTXayXQB4YOhzeMbHsw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Multiple elected officials told the Pennington County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 29 that their offices needed additional staff and stable workforce planning; commissioners made several budget decisions on those requests during the FY2026 deliberations.

Why it matters: Personnel is the county's largest recurring expense. Decisions about FTEs and wage policies affect service delivery for public safety, courts and customer-facing departments.

Requests on the record: Annette Brant, Pennington County treasurer, asked the board to approve additional staffing so the office can staff 12 public windows in its new office and handle mail processing and training. Brant said her office measures turnaround times and reported that roughly 75% of customers are served within 15 minutes and 90% within 30 minutes; she said she provided materials (SWOT analysis and charts) to support the request.

State's attorney: The state's attorney (identified in the transcript as \"Miss Laura\") told the commission her office is at capacity and warned the county may have to prioritize prosecutions if staffing does not increase. \"We're reaching a crisis point where we're gonna have to start making hard decisions about what crimes we prosecute because we just simply don't have the number of attorneys that we need,\" she said, and noted specialty courts and increased caseloads consume significant prosecutorial time.

Public defender concerns: Eric Witscher, the public defender, asked commissioners to delay actions that could force additional moves of county departments and argued the cost and disruption can be substantial. \"The amount of effort and cost that it takes to move a county department is a huge undertaking,\" he said, noting recent investments in the Concourse Building and warning of potential client-safety or access-of-counsel risks if offices are colocated without mitigation measures.

Sheriff and detox counselors: Sheriff Brian Mueller told the board there were four detox counselor FTEs that were omitted from the provisional budget due to an oversight; he requested those four positions be restored so the care campus can bill the city and provide services that offset county costs. Jordan Ebb confirmed those four positions were not included in the flat number the board previously adopted and that adding them would increase expenditures by about $318,329. Commissioners agreed to include the missing detox counselor FTEs in the final budget package rather than removing them; the sheriff warned that without those positions the county could lose city-managed revenue for the care campus.

Law-enforcement pay discussion: Sheriff Mueller also presented scenarios for pay adjustments on the law-enforcement pay scale: he told the commission a 2% cost-of-living increase in January would cost about $170,872; splitting a 2% raise into 1% in January and 1% in July would cost about $126,644; a 3% single increase would cost about $256,235; and a 3% split would cost about $190,261. Commissioners asked for market comparisons and health-benefit analysis before acting on law-enforcement pay beyond the countywide adjustments the commission approved earlier in the meeting.

Board action on personnel reductions: A separate motion to apply a 4% reduction to specified departments was clarified mid-meeting to include the public defender's office and Buildings and Grounds; the board voted to include those two offices in the 4% reduction and staff confirmed the numbers had been recalculated and communicated to departments.

Next steps: Commissioners asked commission-office staff and HR to produce consistent, centralized FTE counts and to audit position splits across departments ahead of next year's budget process. Several commissioners said they support targeted, data-driven decisions rather than across-the-board FTE increases.

Ending: The board included the four detox counselor FTEs in the final budget adjustments and added the two offices to a 4% personnel reduction group; it directed staff to provide market and benefits data to guide future law-enforcement compensation decisions.","Several elected officials asked the board for more staff during the FY2026 budget discussion. The board approved including four previously omitted detox counselor FTEs and also clarified which departments are covered by a 4% personnel reduction.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5972793,"Pennington County adopts FY2026 budget after package of adjustments; commissioners split on some cuts",4551,2001000,6552000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5855633-b8887e38ef85a756c4f24629361015bb&start=2001&end=6552","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5855633-b8887e38ef85a756c4f24629361015bb/thumbnail_2001000.jpg","/articles/5972793/Pennington-County/South-Dakota/Pennington-County-adopts-FY2026-budget-after-package-of-adjustments-commissioners-split-on-some-cuts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5972793-561abf23d0d8de3496af46c68644473f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771103305&Signature=HzowIXLNaoip2qzGMPJfJ8NFOryTQ6LoIEi1S1YCJ3w0vdga81AMU0x16TM5x4a0YVEkSE~pDKOrTSdE45tg4axe22smXWnFgoNxHXDEouH7XlbnD~hv6oesfsbZBZlml~n0H6CbMmuM0OebuPFeH8uQkieMOU0jKYm5A~6gNTO0qgEdehhocREdMlbrQmruEUF7uvHWYNWdGFif9wrMSizvPwY~U~lVQEK9AXVKhXydwYctFAddk~oAW5u0doPjmlvhunZyVatXRI7jBxwJikxKsbNeaUCdkUpm-wO8jD~bFIg10LNKxWeCkEJLKXuJyKS2LSoY2mmKuyoKCBFG~A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Pennington County Board of Commissioners adopted the county's FY2026 annual budget on Sept. 29 after approving a package of adjustments to the provisional budget, including personnel modifications, operating transfers and contingency funding.

Why it matters: The budget outlines county spending and the plan to draw on reserves to balance revenues and expenditures for fiscal year 2026. Commissioners debated staff levels, departmental reductions and how much cash to apply from reserves.

What staff presented: Jordan Ebb, director of the commission office, said the board previously approved a provisional 2026 budget on July 23 and that the provisional expenditures \"excluding interfund transfers\" were $128,650,000. Ebb told commissioners there were known changes to incorporate, including omitted line items, changes to operating transfers and personnel adjustments. He said the provisional budget left a shortfall that required using budgeted cash-applied and that the general fund cash-applied figure was $4,500,000 (about 16.3% of the anticipated starting general fund balance).

Major motions and adjustments: Commissioners approved an omnibus motion that altered numerous fund and department line items (motions recorded on the public record and incorporated into the final resolution). Among the changes the board approved were increasing general fund contingency to $500,000 and moving specific transfers and adjustments across departmental budgets. The board also approved a set of reductions in certain program budgets and increases in others; Jordan Ebb stated he would file the final calculated amount with the auditor after the commission went into executive session.

Personnel and reserves: Ebb said the budget, as adjusted, would require drawing roughly $9.8 million from budgeted cash-applied across funds, with about $4.5 million coming from the general fund. Commissioners noted the plan would leave an unassigned fund balance of roughly $13.9 million (about 16.3% of the anticipated starting balance); Ebb cautioned that these figures include the statutory 5% mandatory withholding referenced by SDCL 07-21-2018 (as recited during the meeting) and other accounting adjustments.

Votes and roll call: The omnibus motion to incorporate the adjustments passed on the record with one commissioner opposed. Later the board voted to approve the formal resolution adopting the 2026 annual budget; roll call on that resolution recorded the following votes: Commissioner Rosknecht — Nay; Commissioner Dirr — Aye; Commissioner Drews — Nay; Commissioner Weifenbach — Aye; Commissioner Adcock — Aye. The resolution carried.

Debate highlights: Commissioners emphasized the need for better personnel counts and centralized tracking of FTEs going into next year. Commissioner Durr and the commission office staff described efforts during 2025 to reconcile multiple departmental submissions and open positions; finance staff said open positions were fluctuating during the summer and that consolidating position data remains a work in progress.

Next steps: Jordan Ebb will finalize the resolution's numeric totals and file the resolution with the auditor for execution. Commissioners said they will continue work on internal audits, position controls and benefit-plan reviews to inform the 2027 budget cycle.

Ending: The adopted FY2026 budget allows the county to move into the new fiscal year with adjustments agreed by the board, but commissioners signaled additional work on personnel and program-level prioritization ahead of next year's budget process.","After multiple motions to adjust line items and personnel assumptions, the Pennington County Board adopted the FY2026 annual budget Sept. 29. The board approved an omnibus set of changes to the provisional budget and then passed the final resolution by roll call.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5972798,"Pennington County declares downtown bank building surplus; South Dakota School of Mines expresses interest",159,301000,460000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5855633-b8887e38ef85a756c4f24629361015bb&start=301&end=460","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5855633-b8887e38ef85a756c4f24629361015bb/thumbnail_301000.jpg","/articles/5972798/Pennington-County/South-Dakota/Pennington-County-declares-downtown-bank-building-surplus-South-Dakota-School-of-Mines-expresses-interest","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5972798-2eddf1018c323a920a77047958857578/orig.mp4?Expires=1771103305&Signature=gkJoB4~vZzCjx~N16VXavSmbSc~aEfaz8cpbCY9I7RQAyCrR-4aZX9zGIA1GHX4FLNYoI8f5rEnhaE6lQdP1yl6m4nbPmtL4yluEq3G9fHrVoY4XPxPvMIP3mqSB44m9k5raYhGhwAvI8FJDLRYLUV2CLkhhirL8nK9schmRyMIh1nVbXTBzc1xonN0wdrLTeTYyH7OsLKQMLbbRn6FAT1fL0VBbHQdGHxeVRcXP3vTG71hxQUHLezUj9Nbo8XaiYYgxSwJXNblghosYOVD-p6U9ucA6eZRZi9JSUYBBz1dg1BB-edVQZQHOmd3~cvM6n4EfRmuXcAlk~cHlCPvwNg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Pennington County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 29 declared the county-owned building at 14 Saint Joseph Street — the former First Interstate Bank — surplus and adopted an independent appraisal to be filed with the county auditor, clearing the way to begin negotiations on a possible sale.

Why it matters: The county bought the building in February 2023 and has since spent nearly $1 million on improvements; commissioners said selling the property could reduce the county's operational footprint and remove annual operating costs, while the South Dakota School of Mines described potential community benefits if it or a partner acquires the building.

The board's action: Commissioners voted to declare the property surplus and adopt the independent appraisal by Simpson & Associates dated 08/20/2025; the motion carried. The motion was stated on the record under SDCL 6-13-1 and SDCL 6-13-2 and the appraisal will be filed with the Pennington County auditor as part of the surplus process.

What county staff said: Davis Purcell, director of Buildings and Grounds for Pennington County, told the commission the county purchased the building in February 2023 \"for about $4.4 million\" and has invested \"roughly $960,000 in improvements,\" bringing total county investment to \"about $5.4 million,\" while the independent appraisal set market value at \"about $5.1 million.\" Purcell said the board must declare the property surplus before staff can begin negotiating sale terms.

School of Mines interest and constraints: Brian Tandy, president of the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, told the commission he supports the Innovation District vision and that the university sees potential for the building to house firms that partner with faculty and students. \"We're very interested in that vision because it will bring companies to town that will work with our faculty and staff, hire our students, and create more opportunities for our students to stay here after graduation,\" Tandy said. He added that, as a state entity, a direct campus acquisition would require approval by the state legislature and that the school is exploring partnership structures and a donor who has expressed interest in funding a purchase.

Debate and concerns: Some commissioners and department leaders urged caution about timing and operational impacts. Eric Witscher, public defender, asked the board to delay selling or otherwise acting quickly, saying moving county departments is costly and disruptive: \"To move us back into this building is gonna cost $3,000,000,\" he said, noting the public defender's office had recently moved and invested in furniture and buildout. Commissioners who supported starting the surplus process said declaring surplus and filing the appraisal does not itself sell the building, but enables public negotiation and transparency.

Next steps: With the surplus declaration and the appraisal filed, county staff may begin public negotiations with interested buyers. Commissioners said they will consider sale terms, exposure to open market offers, and any legislative requirements if a state entity is involved. The county retained a vacant lot acquired with the purchase and clarified the parking lot is not included in the surplus action.

Ending note: The commission's action is administrative — it declares the property surplus and records the appraisal. Any actual sale would require subsequent approval and, if a sale involves the school as a state entity, potential legislative approval as described by Tandy.","The Pennington County Board of Commissioners voted to declare the county-owned former First Interstate Bank at 14 Saint Joseph Street surplus and to file an independent appraisal, after presentations about potential sale terms and interest from the South Dakota School of Mines.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Public commenter raises audit, TIF and records concerns during budget meeting

Commissioners weigh competing staffing asks: jail, detox counselors, treasurer and state's attorney needs

Pennington County adopts FY2026 budget after package of adjustments; commissioners split on some cuts

Pennington County declares downtown bank building surplus; South Dakota School of Mines expresses interest