Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Residents urge full library funding as county, Rapid City negotiate contract and reserves

December 02, 2025 | Pennington County, South Dakota


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Residents urge full library funding as county, Rapid City negotiate contract and reserves
Chair Ron Wifenbach opened the county meeting Dec. 2 with routine business before hearing public comment and later scheduling a detailed conversation about library contracts and funding.

“I am again coming today to request that you fund the library in full for 2026,” Sarah Polley told the board during the public-comment period, criticizing a social-media post by the chair that publicized library staff salaries and saying she would keep attending meetings until the issue is resolved.

County staff told commissioners they have held a series of constructive meetings with Rapid City Public Library and several smaller, rural libraries (Hill City, Keystone, Wall and others). Jordan (county administration) said staff drafted a contract that moves the county to an annual contract-extension model rather than an indefinitely renewing agreement. That approach would allow the county to commit funding each budget year while giving libraries earlier notice of the likely county contribution.

Staff also recommended clearer, standardized quarterly reporting from each library so the county can measure how many Pennington County residents are served by each facility and whether funding levels are proportionate to usage. Jordan told the board the county currently budgets roughly $81,000 to Rapid City Public Library (the current annual amount in the county budget) and noted a county library reserve balance that staff estimates is in the low‑hundred‑thousands (staff cited roughly $196,000 as an informal figure in discussions).

Commissioners and library boards raised three practical questions: 1) which parcels actually pay the library levy (historic opt-outs by some municipalities make the voter rolls and payer lists complex); 2) whether the county should expect libraries to supply consistent usage data to justify proportional funding; and 3) whether the county should seek a non‑voting or voting seat on local library boards (a statutory voting seat would generally be proportional to county funding).

No final funding decision was made at the Dec. 2 meeting. Commissioners agreed to continue contract talks and asked staff to present final draft language and the auditor‑verified levy/parcel information at the Dec. 16 meeting. Jordan told the board he will invite each library’s trustees and staff so the trustees can review final contract text before any signatures.

Next steps: county staff will confirm which parcels pay the library levy with the auditor’s office, finalize the draft annual‑term contract language and return to the board on Dec. 16 with library representatives present for a decision or further direction.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee