Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads Engineering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Claiborne County approves $2.27 million road package amid dispute over county engineer and cash availability
Summary
The Claiborne County Board approved purchase orders totaling $2,269,170 for road work and adopted a 2025 road plan produced by IMS engineers, but the decision sparked heated debate over whether the county has available use‑tax funds and whether terminating the prior state‑aid engineer followed proper contract and statutory procedures.
The Claiborne County Board of Supervisors on July 7 approved purchase orders totaling $2,269,170 for road work after a presentation from IMS, which the board asked to list its recommended Phase 2 roads.
IMS representative Rod Hill told the board the firm had made “very good progress” on recently started jobs and presented two purchase orders — $1,312,033.75 to Central Asphalt and $750,837.50 to Dixon — to cover additional roads. “They're about nine blocks and complete,” Hill said in the presentation, and he asked the board to move forward with the phased work.
President Jones put the IMS plan and the purchase orders to a motion; the motion was moved and seconded and carried. Immediately after the vote, however, members entered a prolonged debate over the budget and the county’s cash position. Supervisor 10 challenged whether the county had the $2.27 million in the use‑tax budget. “If we don't know the budget, how are we able to approve $2,000,000?” the supervisor asked during the meeting.
The county’s finance representative (identified in the meeting as the county treasurer) told the board, “Those funds are not available. I will not be signing a check with those funds,” raising a practical barrier to executing the contracts until accounting and available balances are clarified.
The approval also followed an earlier, contentious set of votes and motions regarding county engineering services. The board moved to terminate the services of Hunter Arnold as county (state‑aid) engineer and to engage IMS for county engineering tasks. Several supervisors and the county attorney said the board needed to confirm contract termination clauses and whether state aid appointment rules required additional approvals.
Supervisor 11 criticized the prior engineering work, saying the previous firm’s output had quality problems and arguing the county should pursue the most cost‑effective options. “The work that Wagner engineers have been doing is not quality work,” the supervisor said. Other supervisors praised IMS’s efficiency; one said, “For 17 or 18 rows … at the cost of only $2,000,000 … that's fantastic.”
County Attorney (on the record but not named in the minutes) said they would need to review Wagner/AJA contracts and the applicable statutory requirements for state‑aid engineer appointments before opining on termination legality and next steps.
Where it stands: the board formally approved the road purchase orders and adopted the IMS‑generated 2025 road plan; however, the county treasurer publicly stated funds were not available and declined to sign checks, and the county attorney said further review is needed to confirm whether state‑aid engineering appointment rules and contract termination clauses were properly followed. The board recorded the motions as approved but work cannot move forward administratively until the treasurer’s concerns about available cash and contract termination clarity are resolved.
