Pittsburg commissioners direct staff to explore refunds or budget cuts after county valuation error raised mill levy

Mayor called a special public-input segment of the Jan. 13 meeting to allow county and city staff to explain a sudden increase in the mill levy that has prompted widespread citizen concern. Crawford County Treasurer Joe Verzalano told the commission his office collects and distributes tax dollars and that a software delay briefly held back tax statement printing; he emphasized that the total tax dollars taxing entities requested did not change but that shifts in assessed valuations can alter the mill levy calculation.

The matter drew sustained public comment. Multiple residents and commissioners outlined a sequence in which high‑value parcels — including hospital property and a cluster identified as 'Block 22' — were inadvertently included in preliminary assessed valuations, then removed before final certification. That correction, speakers said, produced a higher mill levy than residents were told they would face when the commission voted on budgets in mid‑2025.

"There's nothing nefarious going on here," Treasurer Joe Verzalano said, explaining the administrative steps the county uses to certify values and why reissuing tax statements or issuing refunds would require significant programming and manual work between nonintegrated systems.

Speakers debated possible remedies. Options discussed included county‑issued refunds or credits to taxpayers who already paid, issuing reduced second‑half bills or credits, and instead reducing the city's budget for next year (a "carryover" approach). County staff estimated administrative costs (printing, postage and staff time) could be roughly a few dollars per taxpayer and offered a preliminary countywide estimate order‑of‑magnitude of tens of thousands of dollars to process refunds; residents said informal polling showed strong public preference for refunds even if there is an administrative cost.

Commissioners and members of the public stressed legal and operational constraints. City staff said the process would require coordination with the county clerk, county treasurer and, potentially, the Kansas Department of Commerce or state municipal budget authorities to confirm whether amendments after certification are permissible under state statute.

On a motion to "look into this further and work with the county toward a resolution on what to do with the overage," the commission voted in favor and directed city staff to return with options showing how different dollar amounts of reductions or refunds could be implemented, the legal feasibility of each option, and estimated administrative costs. The motion passed by roll‑call vote of commissioners present.

The commission did not set an immediate refund amount or order checks; instead it asked staff to bring back concrete scenarios (for example: no refunds and carryover into next year; partial refunds with administrative costs deducted; or full refunds if legally allowed and fiscally feasible) and to consult county counterparts and the state on legal authority and timing.

Next steps: staff will prepare cost estimates, legal analysis and draft budget scenarios for a future agenda item so the commission can choose between reissuing statements/refunds or making targeted budget reductions in the coming fiscal year.