MILLS COUNTY, Aug. 18, 2025 — The Mills County Commissioner's Court approved an updated contract with Goldsmith Solutions, adopted the county's 2025-26 budget and set the tax rate during a regularly scheduled meeting Monday morning.

The county judge moved to approve the Goldsmith agreement; Commissioner Head seconded the motion and the contract passed on a 4-1 vote. Later in the meeting the court approved the county's 2025-26 budget (3-2) and the tax rate (3-2).

Why it matters: The Goldsmith contract and the budget affect county spending and which projects will move forward in the coming year; the split votes on budget and taxes indicate significant differences among commissioners over spending priorities.

Goldsmith contract
The county judge introduced a motion to approve an updated agreement with Goldsmith Solutions after the item was tabled at a prior meeting. Commissioner Head seconded. The court recorded that the Goldsmith agreement passed 4-1; the transcript does not record individual roll-call votes for each commissioner.

Budget approval and public hearing
The court recessed into a public hearing on the 2025-26 budget at 9:05 a.m.; no members of the public spoke. The court returned to open session at 9:06 a.m. and later approved the 2025-26 county budget on a 3-2 vote. The motion to adopt the budget was seconded by Commissioner Head.

Salaries of elected officials
Earlier on the agenda the court considered salaries and allowances for elected officials. A motion to approve the salaries and allowances passed with four votes in favor and one opposed. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Sullivan.

Tax rate and publication questions
The court discussed and then approved the tax-rate numbers presented at the meeting. The county read the component rates as: interest and sinking 5.42, Road and Bridge 10.21, General 44.98, for a total of 60.61. Commissioner Sullivan moved to approve the tax rate; Commissioner Sullivan seconded the motion. The tax-rate motion passed 3-2.

Commissioner Williams raised questions about how the proposed numbers were printed in the newspaper and whether the legal notice complied with a statutory formatting requirement. "And then, it says in the news it says by statute that it's supposed to be 18 font on the printing in the newspaper," Williams said. County staff responded that the materials were posted on the county website and that corrections could be issued to the paper if necessary.

Discussion vs. decisions
On the Goldsmith item several participants urged caution about approving contracts before a final budget is approved; one member of the public and multiple commissioners raised sequencing concerns. The court nevertheless voted to approve the agreement. The transcript shows separate formal actions for the contract, salaries, budget adoption and tax-rate approval; in each case the formal motions and outcomes were recorded in the meeting.

What the record shows and what it does not
The transcript records the motion-makers and seconds for each action and the final vote tallies, but it does not record a roll-call showing how each individual commissioner voted on every motion. No specific dollar amounts for the county budget were read into the record during the public hearing, and no members of the public provided comment during the budget hearing.

Next steps
Any corrections to published notices will be handled by county staff, the judge said, and the adopted budget and tax rate will appear in the county's official records.