Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Elkhart County election board proposes $784,200 budget for 2027, flags vote‑center staffing
Summary
The Elkhart County Election Board reviewed a proposed $784,200 2027 budget, noting increases to poll-worker pay, potential reductions tied to municipal versus countywide cycles and SB1, and the need to reassess vote‑center locations and staffing ahead of council budget hearings this fall.
The Elkhart County Election Board on June 24 reviewed a proposed budget of $784,200 for 2027 and discussed staffing needs for vote centers and an increase in poll-worker pay.
Patty Pickkins, a member of the Election Board, presented the estimate and said the proposal will be submitted to the auditor’s office and then to the county council for the public budget hearings in September, with final council approval typically in October. "What you have before you is my proposed budget for 2027," Pickkins said, adding that the proposal reflects a smaller election cycle next year and therefore a reduced baseline compared with some previous years.
Pickkins said last year’s total included nearly $90,000 that went unspent and that the board has aimed to bring the request closer to expected needs. She told the board she increased the poll-worker pay line to reflect approved pay-rate increases and said the county paid about $125,000 for election-day workers in the most recent full election cycle. "I doubled that [line item] because when we got the approval to increase those rates for this election cycle," she said, explaining the change was intended to make staffing more sustainable.
Board members discussed how the type of election (municipal versus countywide or presidential year) affects the number of vote centers that will be needed. One board member asked why the proposed budget is lower for the municipal year; Pickkins said municipal elections typically concentrate voters in cities and therefore require fewer vote centers countywide. She also referenced potential changes tied to "SB1" that could affect staffing or costs and cautioned that adjustments may be necessary when the board finalizes the vote‑center plan.
Pickkins described the election board’s fund source: fund 1143, which is generated by property taxes. She said unspent money in that fund rolls forward and remains dedicated to voter registration and election expenses. She noted the council prefers budgets that are close to projected need and that departments can request additional appropriations later if necessary.
Public comment on the budget came from Richard Giri, who identified himself as a city clerk-treasurer. Giri asked whether municipal elections are required to pay according to turnout and urged the board to consider the distribution of vote centers when municipalities have higher turnout. "If we're showing that we are having more people vote, it would be great if we could have that same level of service for our elections so that people in [my city] don't have to wait so long in line," Giri said, asking the board to review the statute and the vote‑center plan.
Pickkins asked Giri to email the statute reference so staff could examine it and said the vote‑center plan is a topic the board intends to review.
The board did not take a final vote on the budget at the meeting; the item will move through the auditor’s office and then be presented to county council at the scheduled hearings in September and for final adoption in October, with additional appropriations available if unforeseen needs arise.
Ending: The board approved prior minutes (as amended) during the meeting and will return to the budget at future public hearings before the county council.
