Madison County officials defend square-foot 9-1-1 fee as public raises zoning, billing and fairness concerns

Madison County Judge-Executive Reagan Taylor and county staff held an extended public discussion of Ordinance 2024-O7 on the new Madison County 9-1-1 fee, explaining why the fee uses property classifications and square footage and answering resident concerns about incorrect zoning, wrong square footage values and financial impacts.

The county presented the change as an update to a decades-old funding system that relied on landline fees. County staff said the new model divides the 9-1-1 budget across property classes based on actual 9-1-1 call-for-service data so that large commercial users or high-occupancy properties pay a larger share than a modest single-family home. “Using square footage as the basis is much more balanced and justified,” said Jill (county staff member), summarizing the task force’s rationale.

Why it matters: county officials and 9-1-1 staff told the fiscal court the current and projected costs for emergency communications — including radio infrastructure maintenance, tower upkeep and NextGen GIS work — cannot be sustained on declining landline revenues. Officials said the state-collected 70¢ monthly wireless 9-1-1 charge returns roughly 29–30¢ per line to the county, producing about $350,000 a year, while the county-level fee is intended to cover the remainder of a multi-million dollar operations and capital budget.

Officials and staff walked through the most common public questions: (1) why many mailed notices listed multifamily zoning or incorrect square footage; (2) whether the state wireless fee covers local needs; and (3) how the county arrived at the class rates. Jill said parcel-level errors mostly came from combining city/county zoning maps and PVA (property valuation administrator) data into a single export for 9-1-1 use for the first time. That merge produced legacy classifications — for example, neighborhoods developed under older commercial codes that now effectively function as single-family areas — and produced some listings that do not reflect how a property actually is used. “If you were labeled multifamily and you tell us you’re not, you will be transitioned to the single-family rate when that is verified,” Jill said.

Wendy (9-1-1 director) described what state KRS allows the county to use 9-1-1 fee revenues for — personnel, GIS upgrades, training and other PSAP (public safety answering point) needs — and emphasized state auditing of those funds. Wendy also explained that the state wireless fee is not the same as the local fee: the state collects the 70¢ wireless charge and distributes a portion back to counties; the county’s share is a projection and not guaranteed.

Corrections, appeals and outreach: staff said they have already corrected the data source that had pulled total square footage instead of “improved” (finished living) square footage and that those corrections have been applied to the county’s ~39,000 parcels. Jill said roughly 3,000–3,200 appeals or inquiries have been processed so far, and the county extended the appeal window (the outreach notice deadline moved toward mid‑July) so residents and property owners can confirm or contest classification or square-foot entries. Staff said citizens who file appeals will receive at least two emails: an acknowledgment and then a confirmation after any correction is made.

Budget and system costs: county staff and technical leaders detailed several recurring and capital costs the fee will support. Chris (IT/operations staff member) described a projected radio maintenance and tower program modeled on comparable counties: a maintenance projection in the low hundreds of thousands annually (county material referenced a $700,000 maintenance line in projections) and a long-term replacement target the county estimates could approach $25 million when the full system lifecycle replacement is considered. Judge Taylor told the public the county’s financial model factors in interest income on any reserve and that the fee formula is recalculated annually based on actual budget needs.

Public reaction: dozens of residents and business owners spoke during the public-comment portion. Small-business owner Adam Arvin said his notice listed a $1,047 fee and said that level would “consume months of rent” for his small commercial storefront. Resident Glenda Dryden asked why the county did not adopt a single flat annual fee for residences; officials showed a comparison that a flat fee to cover the same budget would be substantially higher per parcel than the proposed graduated model. Several commenters urged more public notice and more time for appeals; officials said they had posted meeting information, invited local media and set up assistance at the emergency operations center and county offices to help owners submit corrections.

Decision vs. discussion: the fiscal court did not record a vote adopting the ordinance during the public session excerpted here; several court members said they supported proceeding with the ordinance and the outreach and appeal processes already in place. Judge Taylor asked for direction; multiple magistrates said they were comfortable moving forward with the current structure while remaining open to adjustments based on appeals and data changes.

Votes at a glance: the fiscal court held two separate procedural votes at the start of the session unrelated to the ordinance. The court approved payment of claims and transfers for fiscal year 2024–25 and then approved payment of claims and transfers for fiscal year 2025–26; both motions passed on unanimous roll calls recorded in the minutes.

What’s next: staff said the county will publish an interactive lookup map so property owners can review parcel classification and improved square footage and will accept appeals through the publicly announced deadline. Staff also said the Public Safety Advisory Board established under the interlocal agreement will handle appeals that cannot be resolved administratively.

Ending note: county leaders repeatedly asked residents to use the appeal process and to visit county offices, the emergency operations center or online tools for help; officials also said the fee is revisited each year and could be adjusted downward if actual costs are lower than projected.