Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rural Secondary Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Madison County fiscal court approves FY2026 rural-secondary resurfacing plan; declines flex funds for state routes
Summary
The Madison County Fiscal Court voted to accept the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s FY2026 rural-secondary resurfacing recommendations but chose not to apply flex funds to state-maintained roadways, preserving those dollars for county roads.
Get email alerts on the Rural Secondary Roads topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
MADISON COUNTY, Ky. — At its April 22, 2025, meeting, the Madison County Fiscal Court voted to accept the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet’s recommended list of rural-secondary resurfacing projects for fiscal year 2026 and to retain the county’s flex allocation for county-maintained roads rather than apply it to a state-maintained route.
The action came after a presentation by Casey Smith of the cabinet’s District 7 planning office and brief discussion among court members. The court adopted Resolution 2025-028, accepting the recommended resurfacing projects and voting “no” on applying flex funds to a state-maintained roadway; the roll-call vote recorded five “yes” responses (Master Lockmuller, Master Hughes, Master Bakken, Master Combs and Judge Taylor).
The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet presented the rural-secondary program as a KRS-mandated funding stream (KRS 177.32–177.36) supported by a percentage of the fuel tax and distributed to counties using a formula that includes population, area and lane mileage. Casey Smith said the county’s FY2026 rural-secondary allocation is projected to include a 15% flex allowance — a level tied to a “level C” maintenance rating — representing a projected $271,188 available for flexible use.
Smith and his staff identified roughly 122 miles of rural-secondary roads in Madison County and recommended three resurfacing projects for FY2026: Kentucky 499 (Crooksville Road/Brasfield Road), Kentucky 595 (from Kentucky 876 to Dry Branch Road) and a 0.6-mile section of Barnes Mill Road that connects to KY-595. The cabinet’s preliminary cost estimate for the orange-diamond resurfacing recommendations was shown as $620,185; the state also recommended, if the court used flex dollars on a state route, applying them to Kentucky 1983 (Minnaless Road) — a 0.649-mile section estimated at $105,000.
Smith noted a resurfacing cycle has been reintroduced after prior years’ removal; Madison County’s resurfacing cycle is now in the 14-to-19-year range. He also said the FY2026 available balance for RS projects (after flex considerations) was shown as about $913,529, including a carryforward of approximately $194,275 from FY2025 due to a prior-year overrun/adjustment.
Members of the court asked about localized problem spots and recent storm-related damage. A magistrate who inspected the Barnes Mill Road segment urged the cabinet to consider extending resurfacing slightly to address a sharp curve where the pavement is breaking up; Smith said the resurfacing pot shown in the presentation is for resurfacing projects, but lower-cost shoulder work or shouldering could be considered to stabilize problem spots between major resurfacing projects. Clyde Newcomer, a cabinet resident engineer on the team, confirmed the cabinet was tracking storm-triggered slope failures and slides (noting multiple slides reported on River Road/old U.S. 25), and that crews had submitted data for those slide locations for FEMA review.
After Scott read the resolution language identifying the candidate routes and the flex-fund question, the court moved to approve the recommended routes and to deny applying flex funds to a state-maintained route, which retains the flex share for county roads. Judge Taylor said the county would forward the signed resolution to the Transportation Cabinet after the meeting.
The court’s vote accepts the cabinet’s recommended resurfacing list for FY2026 and preserves the county flex allotment to address county-maintained roads.
The cabinet materials provided to the court described the projects, included a map of past authorizations and a preliminary cost schedule; officials warned all figures were estimates and subject to award outcomes and overruns.

