Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Retention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Library asks council to explore citywide social-media archiving; council refers funding review to January finance meeting
Summary
The St. Francis library director told the Common Council the library lacks a citywide archive of social-media and website content required to meet recent public-records guidance. Staff and the city attorney warned of high recurring costs and limited contractual liabilities; council referred the funding and procurement question to the January 2026
The St. Francis library director asked the council to consider a citywide contract for archiving social-media pages and websites to ensure compliance with evolving public-records rulings. Library director Amy told the council that quotes she obtained ranged from roughly $3,000 to $7,000 per year depending on scope and that an independent archiving vendor can capture metadata, edits and deletions required for full records retention.
Amy told the council the library initially obtained quotes just for the library but expanded the inquiry after learning archival obligations extend to public comments and that website pages add cost. She said consolidating the service citywide could be less expensive than separate departmental contracts. Amy asked whether the council wanted the library to proceed on its own or if the city should explore a consolidated solution.
City staff and the city attorney warned that archival services can be costly. Paul (city attorney) noted that firms providing continuous archiving commonly quote monthly rates that can reach several thousand dollars because vendors must capture and store all user comments, edits and deletions. Staff recommended limiting public comment access on some department pages to reduce archival burden in the near term and suggested a case-by-case approach given St. Francis’s limited number of city-sponsored social-media pages.
Council action and next steps Council members agreed the issue requires more research and a budget appropriation. The council voted to refer the item to the January 2026 finance committee meeting for additional review, vendor analysis and budgeting. The library board may proceed on its own if it chooses, but any citywide contract or city-funded solution would require approval and an identified funding source.
Why this matters Recent Attorney General and state court guidance has clarified that public comments on municipal social-media pages can be public records requiring retention of metadata, edits and deletions. For small municipalities, continuous archival can be expensive; the city and library discussed interim measures such as disabling comments on certain posts and consolidating record snapshots until a budgeted solution is in place.
