Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tax Levy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council readopts corrected county levy rate after Gateway glitch

Floyd County Council · January 7, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Floyd County Council readopted a previously advertised levy rate for the CCD/Development Fund after an auditor discovered the DLGF Gateway site failed to populate the line on official adoption paperwork; the council closed the public hearing and approved the readoption by voice vote.

Floyd County Council on Jan. 7 held a public hearing and readopted a corrected levy rate after county auditor staff discovered a transcription error in the DLGF (Department of Local Government Finance) Gateway system that omitted the Community Cultural Development (CCD) rate from the adoption paperwork.

Auditor Diana Taube told the council she received a Form 1782 notice on Dec. 29 and found that the advertised CCD rate had not translated from the Form 3 into the county's Form 4 (adoption paperwork) due to a Gateway glitch. "There was a glitch inside the system where it didn't translate to the 4b or form 4," Taube said, adding that IC 6-1.1-17-16 provides an exception allowing a readoption to correct published paperwork so the county's budgeted obligations for that fund are preserved.

Taube said the error reduced the CCD's published budget nearly in half on the adoption form even though the county's budget process had correctly included the intended rate. She recommended a public hearing and then a vote to readopt the originally advertised rate to align the adoption paperwork with what the county had processed during the budget season.

After closing the public hearing with no public comments, the council moved to readopt the rate. One council member voiced opposition to what they described as a doubling of a particular rate, but the motion to readopt carried by voice vote (the transcript records the motion carried but does not include a roll-call tally).

The council noted this action corrects the county's filing and preserves the income assumptions for the CCD fund; Taube said the correction does not change the county's underlying budget figures beyond restoring the intended rate to the official adoption paperwork.

Council staff said they had worked with Baker Tilly and DLGF to resolve the issue and that readopting the advertised rate would avoid a larger penalty to the fund's income. The council moved on to additional agenda business following the vote.