Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State election machine ownership forces new election costs for city; council adds $200,000 for 2025 municipal election
Summary
Council members were told recent state legislation clarified that certain voting machines are owned and controlled by the State Board of Elections, changing prior cost arrangements with the county; city officials added $200,000 to cover new charges while terms of a new MOU remain unknown.
Get email alerts on the Elections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The council considered an amendment adding $200,000 to the elections budget for the 2025 municipal election after staff described a change in state law that alters the city's relationship with voting equipment formerly accessed through the county.
Legal and elections staff said that past practice relied on an agreement with the county to use the county's election machines at little or no charge. New state legislation clarified that the machines are owned and controlled by the State Board of Elections and therefore any access agreement must be with the state rather than the county. As a result, the city can no longer rely on the county arrangement and staff expect charges under a new memorandum of understanding with the state. "We still don't know the actual charges yet," a staff member said, describing the estimate in the amendment as a "rough order of magnitude" that could prove too low.
Why it matters: Elections are on the calendar and costs that were previously borne by county arrangements could now become direct city expenses. Finance staff added the $200,000 amendment to the FY26 budget as a precaution, but told aldermen that the final price and terms depend on the State Board of Elections furnishing the new MOU.
Council discussion: Aldermen asked whether the legislation's effective date and timing could be raised with the city's state delegation because the change takes effect during an active election cycle. Staff said the state had contacted the city for information about the likely local impacts when the law was under consideration. Council members asked staff to pursue details from the state so the actual costs can be refined before the final budget vote.
Ending: Staff told the council they would seek the new MOU terms from the State Board of Elections and update the council when more precise cost information is available.

