Committee presses library staff on merger budget, forms review group to re-check numbers

A joint City and County library committee spent most of its meeting scrutinizing a line-by-line budget scenario for a possible merger between the Minot Public Library and Ward County libraries and voted to form a small group to double-check the numbers.

Brandy, library staff, presented five years of circulation and program statistics and two merger scenarios: one that would move Minot Public operations under Ward County and one that would keep them under the City of Minot. The slides and packet showed both one-time transition costs and recurring line items, including software and cataloging changes, recataloging/tagging of materials, and added IT and email accounts for transferring staff.

Officials flagged several potentially large line items. Presentation material cited a possible OCLC/catalog subscription transfer cost of $28,000, a first-year book-systems consolidation cost estimated at $4,115 (about $3,000 annually thereafter), and an HVAC repair quote from 2023 of roughly $50,000. The packet also lists a previously used transfer of $144,000 and a capital transfer of $83,333 that may not recur. One committee member noted that, under the 2026 numbers presented, moving Ward County employees to county benefits would raise recurring benefit costs by roughly $133,235 per year.

"We have been given a target to arrive at with our tax levy and to get to that number will be a substantial… it will require a lot of work and reevaluation of how we approach business across the city," Dave, a city official, told the committee as he summarized the city’s ongoing effort to cut the budget and reduce reliance on reserves.

Committee members debated whether the merger should place operations under Ward County or the City of Minot. Several members argued that because the city owns the Minot Public Library building, matters such as insurance and insurable interest favor a city-led approach; others said a county-led merger would increase costs for county taxpayers. A number of participants proposed phased cost-sharing (for example, an interim 80/20 split that would move toward a 70/30 population-based split) or delaying some one-time expenses across multiple years to reduce first-year pain.

Legal staff and counsel reviewed the memorandum of understanding (MOU) options, noting two primary legal approaches: shared services through a joint-powers agreement (no election required) or dissolving existing library boards and placing a merger/funding question on the ballot (which would require clear ballot language and adherence to statutory levy caps). The attorneys warned that exceeding the statutory property-tax levy cap (referred to in discussion as the "3% cap") would require voter approval.

Faced with unresolved assumptions in the packet, the committee voted to form a small finance review group—named in the motion as Miranda, Rob, Randy, Carrie and relevant library staff—to re-check calculations and assumptions and return updated figures before the next full meeting. The motion passed. The committee set a working deadline of July 6 for ballot language or recommendations if the group determines a ballot question will be needed; the full committee agreed to reconvene on June 16 at 1:30 p.m. for a further review.

The committee emphasized that this meeting was intended as an information-gathering exercise, not as a final policy decision. "I feel like we're getting a little bit ahead of our skis on some of these things," Alderwoman Lisa Olson told colleagues, urging caution and more data before recommending policy or ballot questions.

Next steps: the smaller review group will meet, re-check staff and benefit assumptions, and return updated budget scenarios to the full committee by the June 16 meeting so members can decide whether and how to present a ballot measure before the statutory timeline for a November election.