Dunn County panel approves repurchase request in in-rem tax foreclosure; record shows inconsistent figures for repurchase amount

Dunn County’s Planning, Resources and Development Committee voted on Feb. 5 to approve a repurchase request from a former owner for a property taken through in-rem tax foreclosure. County staff recommended approval and an administrative fee (the ordinance allows up to 10% or $500).

“Dunn County, annually brings in in-rem foreclosure actions against properties with delinquent taxes,” County staff member Barbara told the committee, describing the request and the applicable ordinance and statute. The staff recommendation was to approve the repurchase and apply a minimum $500 administrative fee given the work involved.

During discussion, a supervisor raised an ethics concern and urged a larger fee to avoid giving the appearance of preferential treatment; Barbara said the request was handled as any other and that corporation counsel supports the recommended fee and sale. A second staff speaker noted that changes in state law (referred to in the meeting) require that sale proceeds in excess of back taxes and attributable costs be returned to the former owner, which limits the county’s ability to retain excess proceeds even if the property is later sold for substantially more than the tax judgment.

The record shows inconsistent numeric references in the discussion: staff initially cited the delinquent taxes as “$22,268,” then later the staff recommendation was read as “$222,768 and 16¢” (a likely transcription error), and subsequent committee remarks referred to both $22,268.16 and $22,768.16. The committee voted to approve the repurchase; the chair announced, “Motion carries and the sale is approved.”

The committee did not record a roll-call vote or a precise public tally in the transcript. County staff said the administrative fee requested is the ordinance minimum ($500) and that corporation counsel supports approval. If the committee did not approve a repurchase, staff explained, the property would go to general sale and state statute provisions would still require return of net proceeds to the former owner after allowable costs.

Because the transcript contains conflicting dollar amounts for the judgment and repurchase figure, the article does not assert a single precise repurchase dollar amount; the committee record should be consulted for the official figure and the final sale documentation.