Hamilton County commissioners voted to adopt Resolution No. 25 authorizing a property‑tax rebate for calendar year 2026 after an extended public hearing and debate on the county’s recommended budget.

The administration’s recommendation — a much smaller rebate than the 30% residents have sometimes received in past years — was presented as part of the recommended 2026 budget. Administrator Jeff told commissioners a full 30% rebate in 2026 would “essentially eliminate” the reserve in the riverfront sales‑tax fund used for stadium debt service, stadium maintenance and the property‑tax rebate program and could force the county’s general fund to act as a backstop. Jeff estimated the full 30% PTR would be about $32.8 million depending on sales‑tax receipts.

During public comment, homeowners and housing‑sector representatives urged the board to restore or preserve larger PTR payments and reject a proposed $1 increase in the property transfer tax. Jason Kunkel of the Realtor Alliance and other speakers warned that a transfer tax increase combined with a reduced PTR would add transaction costs, reduce mobility and put pressure on homeowners. Several speakers described personal hardship connected to property‑tax increases.

Commissioner arguments split along fiscal‑prudence and relief lines. Commissioner Summer Adumas said rebuilding fund reserves after a one‑time full PTR in 2025 is a “prudent strategy” to avoid bankrupting the stadium fund and exposing the general fund. Commissioner Reese advocated for restoring the full 30% PTR, saying many long‑time homeowners face foreclosure risk and pledging to launch a petition drive.

The board put Resolution No. 25 on the floor and the votes were recorded as follows: Commissioner Driehaus — Yes; Commissioner Samardumis — Yes; Commissioner Reese — No. The resolution passed 2–1.

What’s next: Jeff said the administration was operating under an auditor deadline to adopt a PTR for 2026 and anticipates the commission will finalize other budget details by mid‑December. The board also scheduled additional budget hearings and promised follow‑up materials and analyses for levy and program trade‑offs.

(Reporting note: direct quotations and vote tallies are taken from the public record of the Dec. 2 board meeting.)