Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Election Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery CCPD agrees to pay half of city’s November 2024 election bill amid questions about $36,000 total cost
Summary
The City of Montgomery Crime Control and Prevention District voted to pay 50% of the city’s November 2024 joint election costs—$17,929—after board members raised concerns about a near-$36,000 final invoice and what the fee covers.
Get email alerts on the Election Costs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The City of Montgomery Crime Control and Prevention District voted July 28 to pay 50% of the city’s November 2024 joint election bill, a share the district says totals $17,929. The vote followed sustained questioning from board members about the size and components of the final invoice, which board members said amounted to nearly $36,000 for two polling sites. Board members noted the district had budgeted $30,000 for elections in FY25 and said prior local elections had cost substantially less. Why it matters: CCPD funds are drawn from a special-purpose district intended for crime control and prevention activities; paying election costs reduces the district’s available balance for other programs and prompted members to ask for clearer billing detail. Board discussion focused on three points: (1) the apparent increase in the county’s election invoice compared with prior years, (2) what the district is being charged for when ballots are run at county-owned facilities, and (3) whether the district is being billed for equipment or other county costs. A board member said one polling place would be on county-owned property at Lone Star Community Center and questioned why the district would pay for use of county property. Miss Langley, a member of the City of Montgomery Crime Control and Prevention District, made the motion to approve the payment; Miss Johnson, a district member, seconded the motion. The motion carried. The board record shows affirmative responses and at least one opposition, but the transcript does not list a roll-call of individual votes by name. The board asked staff to provide the invoice breakdown showing what the county charged for machine rental, staffing, facility use and other line items; that detailed breakdown was discussed as being available in the packet but several members said it was not clear to them in the meeting. The transcript reflects members saying previous elections had cost about $15,000 and that the district had set aside $30,000 in the prior year’s budget because the county’s estimate was uncertain. No statutes or external authorities were cited during the discussion. The motion authorized the payment as presented; there were no recorded amendments or conditions attached to the approval. The board’s discussion and vote occurred during the regular agenda under “consideration and possible action” for the November 2024 joint election costs. The transcript does not record a formal follow-up assignment with a deadline; board members requested clearer documentation for future invoices as a matter of practice. Taper: The district’s next regular meeting was scheduled for Aug. 25; members said they would monitor election-related expenditures and asked staff to provide clearer line-item detail at a future meeting.

