Cochise County supervisors review elections office budget, staffing and mail‑ballot procedures

Cochise County Board of Supervisors members discussed the county elections office budget, staffing and special‑election procedures at a work session where staff asked the board to hold the budget essentially flat while covering recent wage increases and other election costs.

Elections staff said the department posted the elections director position and is holding finalist interviews this week; staff will return to the board with a recommendation. “We went out for, we posted the position. We had conducted interviews, and we are conducting a finalist interview later this week…and then I'll bring back to the board for further recommendation,” an elections staff member said. The transcript records the posted salary as “a hundred and 10” (figure not specified in the record).

Staff asked supervisors to keep the elections budget “flat from last year to this year with the exception of those wage increases,” saying available funds would cover three elections through July 2026 and would allow for added city‑board elections if necessary. The draft materials discussed a $28,000 cash carryforward earmarked as a reserve for an additional voting machine and a $454,000 subtotal for contractual services and printing related to ballots.

Supervisors and staff also discussed logistics and costs tied to mail‑ballot elections and intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with local districts that ask the county to run their elections. The elections office described the county’s standard reimbursement formula to other jurisdictions as $0.75 per registered voter, a rate set by the board in a prior year. Staff noted both postage and printing add to the cost: current first‑class postage and ballot printing raise the per‑ballot expense and reduce the margin between county costs and the $0.75 reimbursement.

Board members asked how small school or special‑district elections should be run. Staff said small districts can choose to pay for local in‑person vote centers or use the county under an IGA; if a district insists on all‑mail voting but the county will not provide only‑mail services, the district can run its own election. Staff cautioned there are cost and legal tradeoffs: the county must be attentive to court guidance on whether small precincts allow voters’ choices to be ascertainable, and the county must ensure inactive voters are notified in ways courts have found sufficient.

Staff described operational limits tied to ballot printing and processing: ballots are printed and mailed through an external vendor and regional postal processing now routes through Phoenix after the regional distribution center in the area closed. Staff said the ballot‑printing vendor handles programming and printing and that the county reviews proofs before printing.

The board also asked about secure storage for ballots and materials. Facility staff described that vaults have standards beyond simple shelving; participants discussed reinforced concrete walls and secured doors as examples of the kinds of requirements elections officials must meet for long‑term ballot storage.

Supervisors asked staff to review the reimbursement formula, postage and vendor costs and to return with more detailed numbers and options when the IGA or related budget items come before the board. A member summarized the direction: fund what the office needs to meet legal and operational requirements and bring refined cost proposals back for board consideration.

Next steps recorded in the discussion included completing the elections director hiring process, producing a cost review of IGAs and mail‑ballot options (including postage and printing), clarifying vault specifications with facilities staff, and preparing an IGA for the board to consider. The board scheduled follow‑up budget sessions, including an upcoming session on IT and risk management.