Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trumbull County elections officials say current budget leaves them roughly $257,000 short for two 2025 elections
Summary
Trumbull County Board of Elections officials told commissioners the office needs about $2,071,242 for 2025 — roughly $257,000 more than the county approved — and warned commissioners the shortfall puts fall election operations at legal risk if not addressed.
Trumbull County elections officials told the county commissioners on record that the office lacks roughly $257,000 to run two 2025 elections and asked the board to consider additional appropriations or other funding to avoid operational shortfalls.
At a special presentation, Mark Alberti, speaking for the Trumbull County Board of Elections, said the board’s requested 2025 total was $2,071,242 and that the county-approved appropriation of $1.6 million leaves an estimated shortfall of about $257,403 once fixed and variable costs are counted.
Alberti broke the figure into “fixed costs” — salaries, contract software, equipment maintenance and leasing — which he said total about $1,749,742, and variable items such as postage, operational supplies and temporary staffing that add roughly $321,500. He told commissioners those figures “are not arbitrary” and reflected the board’s recent experience running elections.
“We can't fund two elections in Trumbull County just based on those fixed costs,” Alberti said, adding that the county board of elections recently received a state grant of about $209,000 to help pay poll workers in the primary. Even with that grant, he said, the office will be short by about $257,000.
Commissioners pressed for specifics on timing and contingency plans. Alberti said the office could run out of funds before the November election and that the office was trying to avoid repeated intra-budget transfers from other county accounts.
Commissioner (name not specified) noted that elections are a mandated function and said if necessary the board may consider using reserve funds. Other commissioners said they expected to review county-wide projections first in a midyear budget meeting with the budget commission, the auditor and the treasurer before committing additional money.
Throughout the discussion Board of Elections members described cost-control steps they had taken: adjusting staffing patterns, consolidating polling locations where authorized, delaying starts for extra help, and limiting overtime and training runs to reduce costs while maintaining election integrity.
Board members also responded to auditing questions raised earlier this year about pay practices and timesheet approvals. Alberti and the board said the audit-review noted procedural improvements and that the board has implemented a three-step review and approval process for timesheets.
The commissioners did not vote on an appropriation at the meeting. They agreed to convene a budget-commission meeting to review updated revenue projections and to consider requests from multiple departments at a follow-up meeting.
The board of elections’ presentation and the commissioners’ comments concluded with repeated remarks that elections are legally required and that the county must identify funding to ensure statutory compliance and prevent litigation or court intervention.
Ending: Commissioners agreed to schedule a budget commission meeting (including treasurer, auditor and prosecutor) to review updated revenue projections and the board of elections’ request before making a funding decision.
