Madison County officials weigh switching 9-1-1 fee from landlines to water meters for unincorporated areas

Madison County Judge/Executive Taylor and county staff on Aug. 21 held a special called work session to review proposals to change how the county collects its 9-1-1 surcharge for the unincorporated areas, considering a shift from the current landline fee to a water-meter-based charge.

The court examined spreadsheet models showing three residential fee scenarios (roughly $3.00 to $4.50 per month) and various commercial rates; county staff reported a utility dataset of 18,705 active meters in the unincorporated area'17,831 residential and 874 commercial. Jill, a county staff member presenting the spreadsheet data, told the court, "we have a total of 18,705 meters, 17,831 of those are residential, and 874 of those are commercial." Judge Taylor cautioned that the proposed change is a potential methodology and that affected decisions would require interlocal agreement with the cities.

Why it matters: County officials said the current landline surcharge is becoming obsolete as more service moves off traditional landlines and that a meter-based approach could spread the charge more evenly across users. Judge Taylor emphasized legal limits on the fee'"it is in law that you can only use this money for 9-1-1"'and staff reiterated that any revenue collected must go to the 9-1-1 fund and lifecycle replacements for the communications center.

Key details from the discussion included: - Collection models and revenue: Staff displayed projected revenue under multiple scenarios. One model shown used a $4 monthly residential fee with a commercial fee adjusted to balance the budget; presenters calculated a scenario where a residential $4 fee paired with a $16.25 commercial fee would "make you whole," and raising commercial to about $18 produced a modest surplus in the hypothetical budget spreadsheets on the table. - Budget baseline and assumptions: Staff said the FY26 9-1-1 budget figures underlie the modeling. The court was told the county's portion of the 9-1-1 expense was based on the draft FY26 budget and that the interlocal cost split among jurisdictions could change year-to-year based on call-volume allocations. - Collections risk and growth: Presenters warned revenue tied to monthly utility bills fluctuates as meters come on and go off service; staff suggested planning for a percentage of uncollected revenue (they discussed 8' to 10' as illustrative) and noted growth in new meters could partly offset losses. - Equity concerns: Several magistrates raised equity questions about the meter approach'for example, whether large commercial users (AppHarvest and Central Kentucky Sheet Metal were referenced in discussion) would pay proportionately more than small businesses or exempt entities. Staff said utility-customer classifications (commercial vs. tax-exempt/residential) in each utility'not the court'would determine whether an account is charged the commercial rate. - Entities and exemptions: Schools, churches and tax-exempt entities would typically be classified as residential in the utility datasets because they do not pay sales tax; a property with no water bill (well or cistern) would not be charged under a water-meter model. Examples discussed included Eastern Kentucky University (EKU) and Boonesborough Elementary as jurisdiction-dependent cases. - Interlocal agreement and schedule: Multiple speakers said the county will not implement a county-only change until an interlocal agreement among Madison County, the City of Richmond and the City of Berea is finalized. Judge Taylor and staff said Richmond has already approved a payment commitment (the county was told Richmond approved approximately $2,388,000 this fiscal year to support 9-1-1) and that the county expects both cities to act on the amended interlocal agreement in September; staff said the earliest practical start for a new collection method would likely be January of the following calendar year. - State review: Staff noted the Public Service Commission has been involved in prior center funding matters and that a PSC filing or review would be necessary before full implementation.

What the court directed and what remains: The Fiscal Court did not adopt a fee ordinance at the work session. Instead, members asked staff to refine the modeled options and draft a formal ordinance for future consideration. Judge Taylor asked staff to "massage" the numbers and prepare a draft ordinance, and magistrates signaled a preference among several options (some favored keeping the existing $3.50 level where possible, others favored $4 residential with higher commercial rates). The court discussed including an automatic CPI escalator in the ordinance language but did not decide to include it.

Public-safety context: Jill explained the county's rationale for dedicated 9-1-1 funding: "there is someone sitting at a console, more than 1 person, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week that's answering that call... they're telling that responder where to go." Speakers repeatedly framed the fee as paying for call-taking and dispatch infrastructure rather than individual responses.

Next steps and timing: Staff will draft ordinance language reflecting the court's direction and present it at an upcoming meeting (the court scheduled a meeting for Aug. 26, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. and discussed preparing for a vote in the next month to six weeks). Implementation remains contingent on an amended interlocal agreement with the two cities and any required state review; staff estimated a realistic start date for collections could be January if approvals proceed.

The work session adjourned by motion at the end of the meeting; a roll call was requested, and the minutes do not record a separate final vote on the 9-1-1 methodology during this session.

Ending note: The issue will return to the Fiscal Court after staff drafts the ordinance and the interlocal agreement progresses; no ordinance was adopted at the Aug. 21 work session.