Madison County board debates and approves FY2026 funded road plan amid lawsuit; retains outside counsel
Loading...
Summary
After heated debate over allocation of road funds favoring the City of Madison, the Madison County Board voted to approve the FY2026 funded road plan, rescinded a Dec. 15 plan and authorized executive-session actions to defend a lawsuit brought by the City of Madison; the board also retained outside counsel and a process server.
The Madison County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 5 debated the county's FY2026 funded road plan and voted to approve a version of that plan despite a pending lawsuit challenging the Dec. 15 vote. County attorney Mike told the board a lawsuit had been filed within the 10-day appeal window after a 3'to'2 vote on the December plan and advised the board to discuss litigation in executive session. He submitted a memo and cited published opinions from the Mississippi Ethics Commission and the Attorney General stating that taking up items not on a printed agenda is not per se a violation of the Open Meetings Act.
The meeting turned into an extended exchange over the distribution of road spending. Greg, the county's presenter on capital spending, said the county's records show $69.4 million was spent within municipal limits for 2023'25, which he characterized as roughly 84% of the county's municipal-limit spending in that period; including the proposed 2026 plan drops that share slightly. Several supervisors disputed the geographic framing and whether projects such as Reunion phases 2 and 3 and the Bozeman projects should be counted as enriching the City of Madison.
Following presentations and public comments, the board voted to rescind the road plan adopted Dec. 15 (vote reported as 5'0). Members then considered a motion to approve the FY2026 funded road plan. Board discussion included a substitute motion to table the item until after executive session; that substitute motion failed and the primary motion to approve the funded plan was taken and passed by the board in open session amid vocal opposition from several supervisors.
Because the earlier Dec. 15 decision had generated litigation, the board later retired to executive session and subsequently authorized the board attorney to hire a process server to contact heirs of property involved in related litigation and retained attorney Robin D'Ambrino to represent the county in the lawsuit filed by the City of Madison v. Madison County.
Why it matters: Supervisors repeatedly raised equity concerns, arguing that district-level impacts differed from the municipality-based accounting presented by staff. The dispute led to both immediate policy action (approval and rescission votes) and legal steps that could affect spending and contracting tied to the road plan.
What's next: The board directed staff and counsel to proceed as authorized in executive session; several supervisors suggested tabling future contract approvals tied to funds singled out in the lawsuit until the litigation is resolved.
