Madison County supervisors met in a work session to review candidate items for an upcoming budget amendment, focusing on training costs, legal expenditures and election equipment financing. Speaker 1 opened the session by saying the board needed to consider departmental 'asks' amid nearly a year of disruption and incomplete month‑ and year‑end reconciliations, and expressed concern about current cash balances.

Board members agreed to create a standing line item under department 99 to cover required open‑meetings and open‑records training for appointed members. Speaker 2 proposed $500 annually for that catch‑all account to cover bulk training costs and occasional higher participation; the board discussed typical per‑person costs at about $50 and noted one past bulk training cost under $200.

The board also reviewed outside counsel and legal/court‑related spending. Speaker 2 said $15,000 had already been spent from one line and recommended consolidating legal costs under a single legal line so the department's legal and court services budget would reflect actual expenses. After discussion the board agreed a $70,000 total legal line (combining previously spent amounts and an additional requested allocation) would make accounting cleaner.

Election administration drew extended discussion. Speaker 2 reported the county received a bid from vendor Adkins for new scanners and ADA‑compatible voting tablets and that the vendor offered three‑year financing at 0% interest. The quoted total was presented to the board as roughly $94,000 spread over three years. Speaker 3 relayed constituent questions about equipment security; Speaker 2 replied the tabulators are stand‑alone counters and not connected to external election management systems (stating they are not connected to Dominion software) and said the county had coordinated with the Secretary of State on technical diagrams and security questions.

Speakers also flagged smaller but immediate needs: absentee envelope purchases and short‑term overtime in elections administration, where Speaker 2 said roughly $3,500 had been spent on envelopes. The county expects to bill cities and school districts for special‑election costs (Speaker 2 estimated about $21,000 to be billed back), but Speaker 1 warned the board not to double‑count that revenue if it was already included in the fiscal‑year revenue assumptions.

A point of tension arose over staffing in the auditor’s office. Speaker 2 requested a net amendment totaling about $78,675 to cover staff needs and other items. Speaker 1 objected to cutting a currently employed staff member’s hours (citing that the person had been hired at a certain number of hours) to make the budget fit, and the two exchanged concerns about past public reactions to staffing requests. The board discussed alternatives including payroll software and asked staff to provide clearer cash‑balance figures before finalizing amendments.

No formal vote was taken on the budget amendment during the work session; supervisors directed staff to finalize amendment entries, post required notices and return the amendment to the board for formal action at the scheduled hearing. Speaker 2 said the amendment would be posted to the county site and a notice placed in the newspaper ahead of the public hearing.

The meeting concluded with the board scheduling budget workshop dates and asking staff to ensure the amendment would be ready for the next formal meeting cycle.