Madison County holds first reading to repeal 2024 9-1-1 funding ordinance after Richmond adopts alternate plan

MADISON COUNTY, Ky. — At a special called fiscal court meeting July 29, Madison County held the first reading of Ordinance 20-25-009, a bill that would repeal Ordinance 20-24-07 (the 2024 9-1-1 funding ordinance) and reinstate the prior ordinance 07-11. County staff presented the timeline, call-data and funding models that led to the 2024 ordinance and to an interlocal agreement the three governments signed in January 2025; the court did not vote on the ordinance at the first reading and directed staff to develop funding scenarios for follow-up consideration.

The move matters because local officials say the county will lose federal CSEP/CSIP funding in 2025 and must identify a sustainable local funding source for the Madison County Emergency Communications Center (MCECC). County staff and the task force presented call-volume data and budget figures they said underlie the funding choices and described Richmond's recent decision to adopt an alternate, city-specific funding approach as the immediate reason to reconsider the earlier, joint funding ordinance.

Judge Taylor, the county judge executive, opened the meeting by reviewing the multi-year task-force process that produced the 2024 ordinance and the interlocal agreement signed by Berea, Madison County and Richmond in January 2025. "I'm huge on facts. I'm huge on documentation, not speculation," Judge Taylor said, explaining why the court asked staff and the task force to present the record before the body decided whether to repeal the county's ordinance. Jill (county staff) led a slide presentation that summarized the task force charter, membership and the public meetings that informed the recommendation.

Task force composition and timeline

County staff identified the seven-task-force members and their roles: Rose Beverly (Berea city administrator at the time), Sean Sandlin (task-force chair; formerly Berea fire chief), Tim Gray (EMA/CSEP director and fire chief), Chris Israel (chief information officer), Rob Meinrich (Richmond city manager), Rodney Richardson (Richmond police chief) and Wendy Lynch (Madison County 9-1-1 director, described repeatedly as the subject-matter expert). The group met repeatedly beginning after a September 2023 joint resolution and worked through spring 2024 to develop a recommended funding method.The interlocal agreement referencing Ordinance 20-24-07 was finalized and signed by all three governments in January 2025, county staff said; the county described those approvals as unanimous.

Call-data, budget and allocation presented

County staff and task-force presenters told the court they matched 9-1-1 call records to parcel categories and produced a proposed overall budget figure used in the analysis. Chris Israel (chief information officer) presented call-distribution figures the task force used: business/commercial calls accounted for roughly half of interactions, single-family/farm dwellings about a third, and multifamily and industrial uses smaller shares. Israel summarized the modeling results: "48,000 calls, which is 51% of the 9-1-1 calls" tied to business parcels in the dataset, and he said the county share of the modeled budget would be roughly $1,018,000 based on last year's call volumes (presentations cited a working total budget base in the $4.28 million range and made example allocations for Richmond and Berea). Those numbers were presented as task-force calculations during the meeting and staff described them as the basis for proposed per-parcel or usage-based rates.

Why the repeal was presented

Officials said Richmond subsequently voted to adopt a different approach for city residents (described in the record as a city order that the county attorney said was inconsistent with the county's 2024 ordinance and the interlocal agreement). Judge Taylor and other magistrates said that change alters the shared funding framework and that, for 2025 at least, the three governments will likely be responsible for their own shares rather than a single joint collection method. County staff described the possible amendment to the interlocal agreement moving forward so each jurisdiction would be responsible for its allocated dollar share of the regional 9-1-1 budget.

Public comment and appeals

The court opened public comment. Residents asked when appeals to the county's square-footage mailing would be resolved and whether those appeal outcomes would be affected if the ordinance were repealed. County staff told speakers that, if the ordinance were repealed, the letters and the current appeal process tied to that funding methodology would be nullified: "If we repeal this ordinance, then the letters that were sent out are null and void," a county official said during the public Q&A. Several residents who signed up to speak described ongoing confusion about timetable and communications; staff said they would post the presentation materials and links on the county transparency page after the meeting.

Court action and next steps

The court conducted a first reading of Ordinance 20-25-009 (repeal of 20-24-07 and revival of 07-11); under county practice a first reading requires no vote. County staff told the court they will develop funding scenarios for the next meeting, including water-meter and revised land-use models that staff said are the two most-tested approaches in Kentucky. Magistrates and staff discussed holding a second reading as early as the following week but did not set a final adoption date during the session.

Quotes and tone

Jill (county staff) framed the choice in public-safety terms: "There are not a ton of things in local government that are life and death. But this is one thing that is a life and death decision." Chris Israel summarized the call-data analysis and the distribution of service demand across parcel types; Judge Taylor emphasized the intent to base decisions on documentation rather than speculation.

What the court did not decide

At the first reading the court did not adopt any changes to the interlocal agreement's advisory-board structure (the ordinance as presented affects the funding mechanism rather than the advisory board or department status established by the interlocal). No final vote on the repeal occurred at the July 29 session; county staff will return with scenario modeling and suggested language for how the interlocal would be amended if each jurisdiction is made responsible for its portion of the budget.

Ending note

Court members asked staff to post the presentation materials and the ordinance text to the county website and to provide modeled scenarios (water-meter and revised land-use approaches) for the next consideration. The matter remains subject to a formal second reading and any required adoption vote at a future meeting.