The Morgan County Council voted unanimously to adopt the property-tax scenario presented by Reedy Financial Group that adjusts the county levy for budget year 2026, the council announced after a brief called meeting.

Tyler of Reedy Financial Group told the council the higher tax rate shown on the state 1782 notice results mainly from a sharp slowdown in assessed-value growth in 2026. "So that is the main reason you are seeing that property tax rate increase," Tyler said, explaining that the county's assessed-value growth has "shot up high" in prior years but is now plateauing around under 1 percent while the growth quotient used in the formula remained higher.

Why it matters: the 1782 notice is the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) step that certifies the county's gateway submission; it shows the tax-rate implications of the county's approved budget. Tyler walked the council through four scenarios, including a level-tax option that would take less levy now but would lower cash balances and likely force larger rate increases in later years, and a "no-deficit in the general fund" compromise intended to protect core operations while moderating the rate.

The presentation also called out the effect of recent state law changes. "SEA 1, which was signed into law in 2025, . . . increases the supplemental deduction on homesteads and 2% properties until 2031," Tyler said, adding that the rising deductions lower net assessed value and put upward pressure on tax rates.

Council members asked about trade-offs. Tyler warned that reducing the 2026 levy would also lower part of the 2027 income tax distribution to the county because the formula uses the 2026 levy amount. He also noted the county could choose to allocate less levy to the EMS fund, but because EMS uses a different (lower) assessed-value base, shifting levy into EMS increases its tax rate more than adding levy to the general fund.

During discussion the group referenced figures in Reedy's pages: the maximum property-tax levy shown on the 1782 materials was about $25,480,000 and Tyler's no-adjustment projection included about a $2,500,000 positive balance in the general fund projection. Council members also noted past practice of transferring funds to the rainy-day fund; Tyler said his 2026 scenarios assume no transfer and that a roughly $4,000,000 transfer had occurred in 2025.

After brief public comment, Rick Durnall, the county deputy assessor, told the council "nobody in my office is surprised by this turn of events," pointing to the Shifler litigation, SEA 1 deductions and tax-increment financing (TIF) district impacts on usable net assessed value. Durnall invited residents to the assessor's office to discuss individual assessments.

The chair moved the proposed scenario (the exact motion language was not read into the record); the motion was seconded by Miss Green. With no public speakers and no further discussion, the chair called the roll and said, "Motion passes unanimously." The council thanked Tyler, closed the public comment period and adjourned.

Next steps: the 1782 notice will remain part of the county's record for the budget year 2026; the council will implement the levy changes it approved and staff will reflect the decision in subsequent budget monitoring and communications to taxpayers.