Committee review finds biggest savings under Minot Public merger option; members vote to seek elected-official guidance

A committee reviewing a proposed merger of the Minot Public Library and the Ward County Library heard an analysis showing the largest short- and long-term savings if the libraries were consolidated under the Minot Public Library, and voted to refer the matter to the city council and county commission for further guidance.

The committee presentation, led by staff member Randy, laid out three scenarios. Randy told the panel the Minot Public option produced “recurring savings [of] approximately $200,000 annually,” rising to about $1 million at five years and $2.0–$2.7 million over 10 years after one-time implementation costs are spread out. By contrast, the Ward County option showed smaller immediate savings (about $80,000 per year) with more modest five- and 10-year projections, while a Ward County scenario that explicitly modeled vacancy reviews and attrition showed a wider range of long-term savings depending on how many positions were consolidated through attrition.

The analysis intentionally assumed no layoffs and that core services — including the bookmobile and current programming — would continue during any transition. The presenter said capital maintenance costs for the Minot Public Library building were assumed to remain the City of Minot’s responsibility, and described mitigation strategies such as phased benefit alignment and grandfathering existing employee benefits during a multi-year transition.

Members pressed on key uncertainties. Several raised concerns that the model’s attrition assumptions may not reflect reality for frontline staff who handle patron services and desk coverage. “Most of our staff are the staff who are with the patrons,” one committee member said, noting the libraries already rely heavily on volunteers to keep programs and shelving running. Another member asked for a new scenario that directly compares attrition assumptions across both merger options.

Committee members also discussed alternatives short of a merger. Some argued a memorandum of understanding between the two entities could capture efficiencies without changing governance, while others warned that separate boards could create competing priorities and blunt potential savings.

The report also noted possible grant support: state- and federally administered grants could cover many one-time merger costs such as signage and recataloging, reducing the need to draw on city or county reserves for implementation expenses.

On process and timing, members were told that putting a merger question on a November ballot would be tight given an estimated 90–120 day lead time for resolutions and ballot preparations. A committee member said 120 days would be needed to meet both boards’ requirements, and another observed that calendar constraints made a same-year ballot unlikely without compressed work.

After debate the committee put a motion on the floor asking the city council and county commission to continue the work described in the report (notably recommendations on pages 6–7) with an end goal of pursuing an election in 2028 if directed. The motion was seconded and carried by voice vote; the committee agreed to postpone its next meeting until it receives guidance from the elected bodies.

Public commenters reiterated earlier survey results and community concerns: a 2018 survey showed more opposition than support for a merger, and residents stressed that both libraries provide important after-school space for children and other community services that would need careful protection in any change.

Next steps: committee members asked the presenter to circulate the underlying Excel spreadsheets and scenario data so elected officials and the public can review the assumptions and projected savings. The committee will report these findings and its request for direction to the city council and county commission.