Rapid City SD – The Rapid City Impact Fund Endowment’s nine-member board is now officially seated.
City Council approved it Monday night, but not before a public commenter called it a “slush fund,” two Council members voted against it, and the Mayor had to walk through, in detail, exactly how those nine names got there.
Public Comment: “A Who’s Who of Donors”
Before Council took up Item 14, resident James Bialota used public comment to go after the fund directly.
He compared it to other city-linked boards — the BID board, Main Street Square, and Visit Rapid City — claiming the city’s own attorneys had told those boards they weren’t operating lawfully: holding closed meetings, failing to record minutes, skipping public comment.
Bialota’s core argument was that the $3 million commitment amounts to a “slush fund” for Rapid City’s “elite,” rewarding donors rather than serving the public.
“What individual — or should I say which donor, because it’s a who’s who of donors of Rapid City,” he said, later adding: “We don’t need to give the city’s elite an extra board member position as a thank you for your contribution to my campaign.”
He argued the money would be better spent on potholes, streetlights, and schools, and separately raised the question of whether the city would need to buy private liability insurance for the board, citing what he said was lost sovereign immunity protection tied to Main Street Square and Visit Rapid City.
The Sentinel has not independently verified these claims and is continuing to research them.
The Council Debate
Councilor Bill Evans
Evans opened by saying he found himself “in a peculiar situation” agreeing with Bialota.
He argued the appointment process moved further from “the intent of the voters,” called it “maybe inappropriate,” and said the fund had been taken “completely out of the hands of the citizens of Rapid City.”
He asked to table the item pending further discussion of who serves on these committees and who decides how the money gets allocated.
Councilor Seachris
Seachris laid out the mechanics: the $3 million came from the Vision Fund, held in trust at the Black Hills Area Community Foundation and matched by a $500,000 Vucurevich Foundation grant, bringing the total to $3.5 million.
She described the board’s near-term role as primarily fundraising — building the endowment toward $6 million, with $10 million as the eventual goal — and thanked those who had “put their name in.”
Councilor Armstrong: “Hijacked”
Armstrong took a different angle.
“I think it’s great we are recognizing the who’s who of Rapid City. I think that’s phenomenal,” she said — but pushed hard on process. “If we’re going to be completely transparent on how this happened — they did not put their name forward. They were selected. The Mayor’s office reached out to these people.” She said a couple of the appointees had actually contacted her asking what the board was about, because they hadn’t known either: “I did not know.”
She said she’d since spoken with BHACF and holds the foundation in high regard, but added: “I just have an issue with how I feel the Vision Fund [dollars] were hijacked” by pulling $3 million of what she’d believed was taxpayer money.
She said she’d since learned that, under a contract Council approved before her term, that $3 million is technically no longer taxpayer money once transferred to BHACF — “it is now BHACF money” — but that her issue was with the procedure itself, “as well as how it was reached out.”
“There were attachments to this item. I didn’t see any applications,” she said. “All of the people brought forward, I think, are stellar people in our community, and I hold them in high regard. I just wonder about the little people — the middle class, the people of color — that are not a part of this board.”
She said she has faith BHACF will be good stewards of the money, but: “I just don’t like how this was done. It just seems very middle school. We picked our favorite people instead of reaching out to a bigger pool of people.”
She closed: “I think, going forward, if we are going to have citizen committees — yes, they’re movers and shakers, I agree — but we need to be more inclusive to all the taxpayers of Rapid City, because that is their money too.”
Where the Money Actually Comes From
The $3 million isn’t in dispute — everyone at the table agreed it came out of the Vision Fund. What’s contested is what that means.
The Vision Fund traces back to a sales tax increase Rapid City voters approved in 1972 to build a civic center, and reaffirmed in a second vote in 1993.
It’s governed by Ordinance 3.16.090, which restricts Vision Fund dollars to capital projects — buildings, infrastructure, community programs — that benefit the city as a whole, and bars the fund from covering ongoing operational or maintenance costs.
The city’s own Round VIII planning materials describe Council’s role as setting and adjusting Vision Fund priorities “with flexibility to respond to community input” — language that supports reallocation as a normal, built-in part of how the fund works, not a violation of it.
The $3 million transfer itself went through a Council-approved contract with BHACF before this meeting, and before Armstrong’s own term on the Council.
Whether moving that money into a permanently invested endowment — managed by a private foundation, with grant decisions made by an appointed board rather than by elected officials — is still the same thing voters approved twice, or a meaningful shift of control away from the people who actually vote on it, is the real question underneath the word “hijacked.”
The Mayor’s Explanation
Mayor Salamun responded directly, inviting Chief of Staff Leah Braun to the podium, though the meeting record doesn’t show her adding anything before he continued.
He reminded Council it had already approved reallocating $3 million from the Vision Fund for this purpose, and that the city had issued a Request for Proposals to local foundations to manage the endowment — a competition BHACF won.
He described the fund’s purpose as generating interest income to match capital-project funding for local nonprofits, designed to outlast the current Council, and modeled on a similar fund in Sioux Falls.
On selection specifically: BHACF gave the Mayor’s office an initial list of people it believed had the capacity to raise money and attract major donors.
The remaining board seats, he said, were opened to public applications under city policy. He singled out Briana Vande Pol and Kristin Conzet as appointees who brought distinct backgrounds to the board.
In Closing
Evans wasn’t satisfied. He said a fundraising endowment was a good idea in principle, but using money that had been earmarked for the Vision Fund was the wrong process — and that if it were put to a public vote, citizens would want the money back under their own control.
Kevin Maher pushed back hardest. He reminded the Council it had already voted, previously, specifically to take grant-making decisions for this money out of city politicians’ hands. He restated the $10 million goal and told his colleagues to “stop picking on our philanthropists.”
Item 14 passed. Evans and Armstrong voted no.
SOURCING:
- City Council meeting, City of Rapid City, September 21, 2026 — public comment and Council debate on Item 14 (Impact Endowment Fund board)
Leave a Reply