Elections office forecasts three 2026 ballots, cites $80,000 security grant and rising software costs

Elections staff told Franklin County commissioners at a budget workshop that the department expects up to three elections in 2026 and outlined estimated revenue and cost drivers for the election budget.

“...we have 3 coming up election in 2026,” elections staff Salima said, summarizing the department’s forecast. She said a possible February 10 election (pending resolutions from city and school districts by December 14) would produce roughly $319,000 in billed revenue if jurisdictions participate. An anticipated August election tied to local filings was estimated at about $275,000, and the mandatory November general election was also estimated at roughly $275,000 based on current assumptions about races on local and state ballots.

Salima said voter-registration invoicing to second-class cities and other districts is an annual charge and has risen; the spreadsheet estimate shown to the board put that amount at roughly $3,025 for 2026. The elections department estimated an additional approximately $25,000 in filing-fee revenue if at least two candidates file in contested races.

The department reported $982,000 in combined election-related revenue in the working budget versus a higher internal planning total; commissioners were shown aggregated totals that include revenues and expenditures across fund lines. With the department’s proposed adjustments, overall election expenditures were projected to rise modestly; elections staff asked for $8,350 in additional operating funds in a $964,000 expense budget.

Security and equipment were central topics. Staff said the department expects to receive and record an $80,000 grant line (Fund 104) that will be used entirely for security-related items. “We have $80,000 that you will see in the 104 once we get there … and it goes, entirely towards security,” Salima said. The grant is already being applied to annual licenses and to camera and monitoring subscriptions at the elections center.

Staff also described recurring software and maintenance costs for tabulation equipment and vendor support. One line item discussed was an annual maintenance/licensing expense for tabulation equipment (the figure mentioned during discussion was approximately $41,748); staff explained those charges cover software maintenance, remote support and, when needed, on-site vendor assistance during an election. The department also budgeted recurring subscriptions for security monitoring services and an “angle cam” app subscription so cameras at the annex can be monitored.

The elections office asked commissioners to note that some election-related revenues are billed back to districts (PUDs and the state are billed directly), so the net county share differs from the invoice totals. Staff said the county typically bills jurisdictions for the direct costs of special or local elections and absorbs only a county portion of the expenses.

Commissioners questioned safety for staff walking to cars after late shifts; elections staff described cameras, key‑card doors, and close coordination with Pasco Police and courthouse security. The department said it has used available grants to add cameras, monitor equipment, and other safety measures.

Ending: Elections staff said they will circulate the detailed spreadsheets that support the revenue and expense estimates, and commissioners thanked the elections team for running “a good ship.”