Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Size Ballot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mills County board tables proposal to ask voters about expanding supervisors after public debate
Summary
After an extended public-comment period both for and against expanding the board from three to five supervisors, the Mills County Board of Supervisors voted to table the resolution to place the question on the November ballot pending county attorney review.
A resolution to place a measure on the general-election ballot asking Mills County voters whether to increase the Board of Supervisors from three to five members was tabled Tuesday for legal review after a sustained public-comment period.
Supporters urged the board to give voters the choice. “I respectfully urge this board to vote to place this question on the ballot and let the people have their voice,” a resident said during the public-comment period. Chris Whitey, who said he represents a local working group, told supervisors the group will compile pros and cons to help voters understand the implications before the election.
Opponents argued the board should delay or oppose a ballot referral. Weston Wet Rock read remarks on behalf of an absent resident, Henry Clark, saying the county operates more efficiently with three supervisors and warning of additional costs for salaries and benefits. Karen Cipold, speaking for rural residents, told the board there had not been enough outreach in outlying areas and urged more community discussion before putting a permanent change to a vote.
County staff reported they had sought legal input before today’s meeting; one staff member said a preliminary review had been received from an outside reviewer (referred to in meeting as “Isaac”) but that the county attorney’s office still needed to complete its review. The board agreed to table the resolution until the county attorney has had an opportunity to review the proposed language and provide advice.
Because the action on the floor would only place the question on the ballot rather than immediately change the board composition, staff and multiple speakers noted that today’s vote does not itself alter governance. The resolution will return to the agenda next week after the requested legal review.
What happens next: The board expects to reconvene the item after the county attorney’s review; no date for the resumed discussion was finalized at the meeting.
