Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison County Fiscal Court adopts FY 2025‑26 budget; magistrates warn of road funding shortfalls
Summary
The Fiscal Court approved the FY 2025‑26 budget on second reading. Magistrates used the debate to highlight limited asphalt funding, the long resurfacing cycle for county roads, and a state gas‑tax reduction that officials said will reduce road funding.
Madison County Fiscal Court voted unanimously on June 24 to adopt the fiscal year 2025‑26 budget (Ordinance 2025‑008) on second reading.
County Treasurer Sarah reported the county's financial snapshot as of May 31, 2025: a total fund budget of $46,964,975.29; general fund revenues at 122.48% and expenditures at 38.97%; road fund revenues 76.9% with expenditures at 74.6%; jail fund revenues 84.74% and expenditures 85.99%; LGEA and other special funds with varying percentages. The treasurer confirmed one remaining payroll posting would go into the health fund for the fiscal year.
During the budget discussion magistrates repeatedly raised concerns about inadequate asphalt funding for county roads. One magistrate said Madison County maintains nearly 500 miles of paved roads and noted resurfacing cycles ranging from about 28–35 years depending on construction and use. The magistrate estimated the top 10 most‑needed road repairs (about 4% of the road mileage in a sample district) would cost roughly $600,000 while the district had only about $200,000 in asphalt money in the proposed budget; that shortfall would leave top needs unfunded for several years.
Magistrates proposed several options including bonding, transfers from surplus, or continued advocacy at the state legislature. County officials and magistrates noted a reported 1¢ reduction in the state gas tax will reduce statewide Blacktop funding by an estimated $30 million, a change local officials said will further squeeze road budgets across Kentucky. Several magistrates urged advocacy to Frankfort for restoration of road funding rather than relying solely on county borrowing.
A question from the bench clarified that a pending contract cost increase for the county jail provider (discussed separately) was not included in the adopted budget; county staff said the court could later authorize adjustments and cover overages from surplus if needed.
The ordinance was approved by roll call. The judge and county staff thanked department heads and finance staff for a multi‑month budget process.
Ending: Several magistrates urged continued legislative advocacy and suggested a future work session to explore options for road funding and potential bond scenarios; officials said they would collect data for further discussion.
