Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Size Ballot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mills County board deadlocks on route to increase supervisors; advocates press to put 5-member question on ballot
Summary
Supporters urged supervisors to place a question on the November ballot to expand the Board of Supervisors from three to five members; the board debated cost, petition versus direct placement, signature thresholds and voted by roll call with mixed results.
A group of residents and county working-group members urged the Mills County Board of Supervisors on July 8 to let voters decide whether to increase the board from three to five supervisors by placing a proposition on the November ballot.
Public commenters said a local survey showed substantial support and that placing the question on the ballot would move deliberation out of the boardroom and into public debate. "This is not a vote for you guys to just say we're doing that. It's a vote to put it on the ballot to let the people decide," a commenter said, citing a working-group survey that the speaker summarized as about 77% support among respondents.
Board member Speaker 3 moved to approve resolution 26-25, citing Iowa Code provisions allowing the board to submit a proposition to voters. Speaker 10 seconded the motion for discussion. Supporters in the room, including Dan Stanley and Lucy Wilson, argued voters should have the opportunity to research and debate the change. Opponents raised concerns about cost and representation: one supervisor said adding two members could cost the county “a little over $100,000” at one estimate and questioned whether five-member boards sometimes see decisions made outside open meetings.
Board members also debated process. Speaker 3 noted a petition route would require roughly 825 signatures (county staff corrected the minimum to 826 signatures), and that petitions would require more time for community discussion. Speakers who favored placing the measure on the ballot said doing so at no cost during the general election would give voters a full opportunity to debate the change.
The board took a roll-call vote; the transcript records responses from named members as follows: Crouch — No; Mayberry — No; Thayers — Aye. The record in the transcript shows a divided board and substantial discussion about whether the board should direct placement on the ballot or allow the petition process; the transcript does not include a full, clearly labeled final tally beyond the recorded roll-call responses.
The board then moved on to other business. No procedural next step for the ballot question is recorded in the transcript beyond the debate and recorded roll-call responses.
The county will next see whether petitioners pursue the signature route or whether the board revisits placement at a future meeting.
