Reno County commissioners discuss placing ballot question to expand commission from three to five members

Reno County commissioners on June 22 discussed whether to place a question on the ballot asking voters to expand the county commission from three members to five, and they directed staff to prepare district maps and a public information sheet ahead of August ballot deadlines.

The discussion began after one commissioner reported unsolicited support from two local civic leaders and said a larger commission would provide a “broader cross section of representatives.” Staff and legal advisers explained the mechanics: if the commission initiates the change it must adopt a resolution dividing the county into five districts using existing precinct assignments; if voters initiate by petition, the commission would divide the county within 30 days after a successful vote. The election officer stated ballot language would need to be submitted by Aug. 10 to appear on the fall ballot.

A commissioner who expressed caution said the commission should give the public time and clear information about how new district lines would affect residents and what the cost would be. “If we don’t give time to inform the public, I’m not sure what chance it might have,” the commissioner said. Staff estimated the ongoing additional cost for two members at roughly $36,000 in salaries plus benefits and modest supplies and equipment; a staff summary suggested a working estimate of about $50,000 when benefits and other expenses are included.

Legal staff told commissioners the resolution would list district assignments by township, precinct and ward rather than by a detailed metes-and-bounds description; the county’s redistricting would initially use the most recent census data available to staff, which is the 2010 census, with 2020 figures expected later this year. Commissioners discussed whether precincts could be split for district creation and were advised that the starting point is existing precinct assignments.

Members agreed to winnow draft maps and asked staff to prepare an informational fact sheet explaining the fiscal impact, the appointment process for any interim commissioners and the schedule for public review. One commissioner suggested each of the three current commissioners pick three preferred draft maps and return choices to staff to narrow options before the next meeting.

The commission did not take a final vote. The next steps are map refinement, an informational packet for the public and further discussion at upcoming meetings; if the commission decides to place the question on the ballot, staff said the final ballot language would need to be provided to election staff by Aug. 10.