Story County auditor outlines election-related revenue and expense uncertainties for FY26 budget

Auditor Lucy Martin told the Story County Board of Supervisors on Feb. 7 that the auditor's office does not generate substantial revenue and that election timing and state legislation drive year-to-year volatility in the office's budget.

Martin said the office uses three-year averages for many line items but expects specific FY26 changes tied to elections. "The auditor's office is not a revenue generating office, but, we do show fluctuations," she said, adding that special elections are "anybody's guess" and that the county typically runs "about 2 or 3 a year." Martin also listed current fees: "Voter lists are $10. And then if a candidate wants a absentee list for the duration of an election, that's $25."

Why it matters: election administration is a large, intermittent cost for the county, and proposed state-level changes could materially increase county expenses. Martin told supervisors that combining city and school elections has already increased costs: "It's like a 28% increase in the cost of elections with the combination," which she said is mainly due to the need for more polling places and additional ballot styles. She said 50% to 60% of election costs are poll-worker pay.

Details and discussion

Martin reviewed revenue lines the office expects to keep minimal or zero in FY26. She said the office historically received fiscal-agent fees from some outside entities but plans to zero that line for FY26; any collection would be treated as a bonus. On other small revenues, Martin said the office sells voter lists and charges for absentee lists, but outside purchasers may also obtain lists from the Iowa Secretary of State's office.

On expenses, Martin said general-election years drive higher overtime and temporary extra-help costs; because FY26 lacks a general election, those categories are lower. However, she cautioned that proposed state legislation could change the picture. Several bills under consideration would require additional primary elections or change election procedures; Martin said those proposals would be expensive for Story County but that precise dollar impacts are hard to predict. She noted operational changes that would add cost and time, including a possible return to a three-envelope absentee ballot process that would increase material and processing time.

Martin also flagged one-time and indirect costs: a countywide mailing tied to changes in voter-file maintenance drove a marked increase in postage in the prior year, and she said the county may face similar publication and mailing costs if districts or other changes are enacted. She told supervisors that the $85,000 shown in the election budget line does not represent all election-related costs: "There's about $20,000 of other costs in other line items" such as billable staff time that appear elsewhere in the county budget.

Supervisors asked follow-up questions about how potential legislative changes would affect primary costs and whether a shift to supervisor districts would require a new mailing to update voter records. Martin said a shift in districts would create more ballot styles and would likely increase publication and mailing costs because voter registration records would be updated, producing new voter cards and associated publication expenses. She emphasized the uncertainty: the county can estimate some impacts but cannot produce a single definitive cost until legislation is finalized.

No formal budget motions or votes were taken during the work session; supervisors heard the auditor's office presentation and asked clarifying questions.

Ending

Martin said the auditor's office and county staff are tracking possible legislative changes and working with statewide groups and auditors to refine fiscal-impact estimates. She closed by noting that many election costs depend on turnout, election type and final legislative actions, and that the county will continue to present updated figures as new information becomes available.