Morgan County Council accepts Deckers CF‑1 after rescinding amended return, citing tax impact

Morgan County Council on June 2 voted 7‑0 to accept a CF‑1 statement of benefits for Deckers Outdoor Corporation after rescinding an amended personal‑property return that would have sharply reduced the company’s 2024 tax liability.

The decision preserves a tax bill that county staff said would be about $110,680 for 2024 (payable in 2025) rather than the $18,917 shown on the amended return — a difference county staff calculated as roughly $91,763 less available to the county, school district, township fire department and library.

The matter began as an amended CF‑1 filing from Deckers that county staff and the council reviewed during the June 2 meeting. Rochelle Eisenman, who identified herself as representing Deckers for property‑tax purposes, told the council she had prepared an amended return after reviewing the company’s fixed‑asset listing and discovery of additional building and equipment costs. "I represent Deckers. I don't work for them personally. They're a client of ours for property tax purposes," Eisenman said.

County staff described differences between the originally approved benefits and the amended filing. Council discussion focused on two issues: whether the company had substantially complied with the statement of benefits that accompanied the original abatement and the immediate fiscal impact on local taxing units if the amended return were accepted.

Anne Cowgore, the county attorney, advised the council on the statutory review process and timelines under state law. She cited the statute for determinations and appeals and explained options the council had, including scheduling a special meeting or denying the amendment and setting a hearing. "Not later than 45 days after the receipt of the information ... the designating body may determine whether the property owner has substantially complied with the statement of benefits," Cowgore said, paraphrasing the statutory standard and the council’s procedural options.

Council members and staff laid out the math for local impacts. A county staff member said keeping the CF‑1 as originally approved would maintain a tax liability near $110,680; accepting the amendment would reduce the bill to $18,917, producing an estimated $91,763 shortfall to the taxing entities. Council members expressed concern about repeatedly changing abatement figures after approval. One member said the county wanted to continue attracting investment but not at the expense of unexpectedly reduced revenue to schools and other jurisdictions.

The council initially voted to table the matter to July to allow Deckers to provide further documentation, but later rescinded the tabling motion and voted to accept the CF‑1 while the amended return was rescinded. The final motions passed 7‑0. Council instructions included allowing Deckers the option to provide additional evidence or to appeal under the statutory process.

Next steps noted in the meeting: Deckers may supply additional documentation on head count or asset classification; if the council later finds the company not substantially compliant, the council would be required to provide written notice and a hearing date under the statute cited by the county attorney.