Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the 911 Budget topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Paducah-McCracken 9-1-1 board projects $466,470 shortfall for FY 2025-26; city and county to split gap

2993247 · March 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Paducah-McCracken 9‑1‑1 administrative board reported a projected $466,470 shortfall for fiscal year 2025–26 and presented a budget that would require the city and county to each cover about $233,000 of the deficit; presenters said one-time radio-project purchases drove last year’s higher costs.

Jeff Parker, chairman of the Paducah–McCracken 9‑1‑1 administrative board, told the Paducah City Commission on March 25 that the system’s proposed 2025–26 budget includes a projected $466,470 shortfall and would require the city and McCracken County to split the gap.

Parker said the administrative board’s expense total for fiscal year 2024–25 was about $3.8 million and that the 2025–26 proposed budget is $3,342,970. “Fiscal year ’24, ’25 expenses basically 3,800,000,” Parker said. He told commissioners the one-time purchases for a radio project drove last year’s higher spending and that reducing those one-time costs accounts for much of the year‑to‑year decrease.

The budget presentation showed expected revenue of roughly $2.9 million for 2025–26 and identified a projected shortfall of $466,470. Parker described the likely obligation as “rounding off numbers, you’re both gonna be liable for about, what, 223,000 or $233,000 each,” and said the 9‑1‑1 fee itself is expected to bring in about $2.4 million.

Parker and commissioners discussed revenue sources the board counts on, including a telephony/landline charge that has been eliminated and state allocations based on cell‑phone fees (referred to in the presentation as “CR CMRS” fees). Parker described the state’s formula for distributing cell‑phone funds as unfavorable to local PSAPs (public safety answering points).

Parker also said the board expects to see clearer benefits from the new system in subsequent years and that appeals and a year‑end “true‑up” could change the final numbers. He said the first year’s operational data and appeals process will likely require an amendment to the budget at year‑end. “I really do think that by what we’ve been been looking at that when it all washes out, say, in year 2, you’ll see the fees level out a little more,” Parker said.

Commissioners and presenters also discussed fee collection timing; Parker said much of the 9‑1‑1 fee revenue arrives late in the calendar year. Chief Bridal Laird and Assistant Chief Anthony Coleman were named in the presentation as staff involved in the transition to the new 9‑1‑1 system, and Parker thanked city employees and the finance department for pulling the first‑year budget together.

The presentation did not propose a formal vote on city appropriations during the meeting; Parker said any required city‐county cost‑sharing would be handled through the interlocal agreement and future commission actions.

The 9‑1‑1 board members Parker listed included Randy Warmoth, Bruce Watson, Mike Carnes and Philip Madison. Ariana Kitty was introduced as the 9‑1‑1 director involved in standing up the new system.