Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clerk outlines reduced elections budget, details ballot, postage and staffing costs
Summary
Bonner County election officials presented a pared-down elections budget that reduces some line items for a non-presidential year, detailed printing and postage needs for ballots and absentee mailings, and discussed poll-worker staffing, contract maintenance and accrued comp‑time.
County elections staff presented line-by-line detail for the elections budget and explained several reductions tied to this being a non‑presidential year.
Elections staff said the office consolidated previous bulk election budgets into more specific line items and cut overall election-supply totals because 2026 will not be a presidential year. Staff noted the office reduced a prior bulk supply line (about $48,000 in older budgets) and redistributed amounts into per‑election categories; one election-supply line was reduced by roughly $10,000 for the coming year.
Staff described the mechanics and costs: a partisan primary can generate up to five ballot faces in some precinct splits; ballot printing for a heavily split election can run in the low tens of thousands of dollars (staff cited roughly $12,000 in prior comparable years). Absentee-mail postage is substantial because each absentee mailing contains multiple envelopes and materials; staff used roughly $1 per absentee mailing for budgeting and said the office mailed about 6,600 absentee ballots in November’s presidential election.
On staffing, elections staff explained shifts in poll‑worker budgeting: the office previously budgeted for up to four election events per year and is now budgeting for fewer elections in some years, which reduces anticipated poll-worker wages and training pay. Elections staff also flagged accrued comp time paid to courthouse staff who support election nights and asked auditors and payroll staff to ensure those payments are captured in the proper payroll lines.
The office also listed equipment and maintenance items: small asset needs (printers, label printers and time-stamp devices) and a service contract for voting-equipment maintenance (identified as the HEART contract). Staff noted some scanners for tabulation are costly (staff cited $78,000 as a ballpark for high-end scanners) while smaller printers and peripheral devices are much less expensive.
Commissioners asked for more documentation on travel and training line items and for text notes explaining reductions and the statutory training obligations for election staff. Staff replied that some conferences and statutory trainings are required and that vendor-provided on‑site training (for example from Tyler Technologies) is sometimes available at no cost.
Next steps: elections staff will add more detailed notes to travel, education and printing lines, clarify which conferences are statutory requirements, and work with auditors to ensure comp‑time payouts and payroll coding for election overtime are captured in the appropriate budget lines.
