Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Size Ballot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors debate process to bring 3-to-5 board-size question to Mills County ballot
Summary
Supervisors debated whether to place a resolution on the ballot asking voters to increase the Board of Supervisors from three to five members; speakers split on whether the board should order the question or let a petition-driven process proceed. The transcript records a partial roll call but does not show a clear final tally.
The Mills County Board of Supervisors spent significant time debating a proposal to ask voters whether the county should increase the board from three members to five.
Supervisor (S3), who introduced the resolution (Resolution 26-25) under Iowa Code 331.203, said placing the question on the ballot would move the debate into the community and allow voters to settle a discussion that has recurred for years. "By placing it on the ballot it moves the discussion away from the boardroom and it moves it through our local coffee shops," S3 said.
Several residents urged the board to put the question to voters. Dan Stanley (S7) told supervisors that voters should be trusted to decide and urged them to "pass it." Lucy Wilson (S8) said giving voters a chance to decide was important for local representation and civic engagement.
Opponents argued the petition process would better educate voters and guard against "artificial delay." The chair (S1) and other supervisors flagged cost questions and the logistics of how additional supervisors would be seated or compensated. A resident (S6) representing a local working group cited an internal survey result reported to the board ("about 77% of respondents" among those who replied) and offered rough cost estimates for two additional supervisors — "probably add 2 people for a little over a $100,000," with a worst-case figure of $160,000 if budgeting $80,000 per supervisor.
The transcript includes a roll call during final consideration. The recorded responses in the provided segments were: "Roch?" — "Nope."; "Hey, Mary?" — "No."; "Thayers?" — "Aye." The meeting record in these segments does not include a complete, clearly recorded final tally or an explicit statement of final outcome. The minutes show the board moved on after the roll call and resumed other business.
The board discussion also included procedural clarifications: the County Attorney (S11) noted that approving a ballot proposition to increase board size would not by itself create districts; any districting would be a separate process and, if pursued by petition, could require a special election in an odd-numbered year. Treasurer and staff confirmed the petition threshold discussed to place a measure by petition (approximately 825 signatures; one speaker noted 826 to allow rounding).
Next steps noted in the meeting: the resolution text was presented for consideration; the board took a roll call as shown in the transcript segments; the record included no clear, complete final tally in the provided transcript excerpt. If the board or county clerk publishes full minutes or an official roll-call record, that document will contain the final vote tally.
