JEFFERSON — Ashtabula County voters could have up to 27 fewer precincts in which to vote if the Ashtabula County Board of Elections is successful in a cost-cutting plan presented to the Board of Commissioners on Thursday.

Board of Elections Director Duane Feher and deputy director Carol Lovas, along with three board members, met with the commissioners board and the five-member citizens budget review committee on Thursday. The purpose of the meeting was to review the Board of Election’s 2011 budget request.

Feher said reducing the number of precincts would have a cost-saving effect on the general fund but it would take a couple of years for that effect to kick in. The Board of Election’s target is to implement the reduction by 2012.

Each precinct has four precinct “judges” who cost the board $101.50 each. Thus, for every precinct eliminated, there would be a cost savings of at least $405 per election. In addition, there would be savings from building rent and election materials.

The county has 127 precincts, and Feher said the board would like to possibly as few as 100. He said most of the mergers would be in the urban areas.

Lovas stressed that the project would be done in a manner to ensure voters will not be discouraged from casting their vote because the polling location has been moved too far from their residence.

“The last thing we want is someone to get up on Election Day and say, ‘I’m not going to vote because I don’t want to drive all those extra miles in a snowstorm,’” Lovas said.

While the board began looking at the process this year, Feher and Lovas said it will be a long complicated effort because of many factors that must be kept in mind. For example, the Board of Elections must make sure that liquor issues are not merged in precincts without liquor sales. Also, per state election law, individual precincts are limited to 1,400 voters.

Ashtabula County has about 65,000 registered voters, Lovas said.

The work has to be done in conjunction with the Secretary of State and with regard to U.S. Census tract boundaries. Lovas and Feher said it will take months to do, but they feel the payoff could be beneficial to both the county budget and local governments, which are assessed election costs in odd years.

The Board of Elections is seeking an increase of about $68,000 in its appropriations over this year’s $635,571 budget. Highlights of the Board of Elections 2011 budget request are:

n A $48,390 annual recurring expense for licensing and preventive maintenance of election voting machines. The license and maintenance costs for the first five years were included in the purchase price of the machines. The board is now in its sixth year of ownership and must pay those costs from this point forward;

n Supplies for the upcoming presidential election. Although it is still two years away, the board is anticipating a March 2012 primary election, which will require it to make purchases of petitions and other supplies in the fall of 2011;

n Computer replacement. The board presented a proposal to purchase a new server and rent 10 new computers for the office. The computers will run the proprietary voter-tracking software. Cost is $15,351 for the first year. The board needs to upgrade the technology immediately, and Lovas said it hopes to squeeze the expenditure out of this year’s appropriations.

Commissioner Daniel Claypool strongly urged the board to present the proposal to the county’s data board and see if the cost could be brought down by drawing upon the county’s site licenses for the operating systems and office software.

“The balance of this stuff (after the voter software) is off-the-shelf stuff,” he said.

Commissioners board members, however, pointed out that the Board of Elections must follow the Secretary of State’s narrow list of recommended software and hardware vendors; and

n The Board of Elections’ budget does not allow for any pay increases in 2011. Unlike many other departments, Board of Elections employees did not take furlough days in 2010. As a board member pointed out, however, the office is required to maintain an equal balance of Democrat and Republican employees in the office at all times.

Feher noted in his proposal that the budget does not include any expenses for special elections that could occur in February or August 2011. These are reimbursed by the entity placing the issue on the ballot, but the county has to pay the costs up front. The budget does not allow for any new state mandates, either.