Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget And Cip topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beaufort County elections board approves FY26 operating budget, presses county on stalled capital projects
Summary
The board approved its FY26 operating budget to meet county submission deadlines and urged county officials to prioritize two stalled CIP projects — ballistic‑resistant windows and an emergency generator for Election Central — citing safety and election‑continuity concerns.
The Beaufort County Board of Voter Registration and Elections on Jan. 15 approved the board office’s FY26 operating budget and used the meeting to press county leaders to accelerate two capital improvement projects that remain unstarted.
The finance committee presented a budget recommendation built on assumptions of up to four elections in fiscal 2026 (three municipal contests and one statewide primary). The committee said personnel costs largely follow county HR schedules, printing costs are assumed similar to last year and maintenance contracts include support for ES&S hardware (DS300 scanners) and a new badge system that the committee estimated at about $26,000.
After discussion of prior‑year actuals, staffing and line items, the board moved and approved the operating budget so staff could submit the request to the county before the Feb. 14 system deadline.
Board members then turned to two capital improvement projects the board said were funded but have not progressed: installation of ballistic‑resistant windows at Election Central and procurement of a standalone emergency generator. Mr. Ford, the facilities committee speaker, called both items “life safety issues” and urged they be treated as high priority. In the meeting, a board member said the window and generator work are “two absolutely critical issues” and offered to meet directly with county officials to explain the urgency.
The board asked staff to arrange a meeting with the county administrator and relevant department heads (facilities, IT and purchasing) to seek a status update and to press for scheduling and execution. The board agreed that, while CIP and operating budgets are separate processes, coordination with the county was needed to move approved projects into active implementation.
Board members also expressed interest in better feedback from the county on where projects sit in the CIP prioritization and requested a follow‑up report for the board.
