Olmsted County opts to correct $1.5M tax levy error in next year’s levy after weighing reprints vs. administrative cost

Olmsted County staff told the Board of Commissioners that a calculation error resulted in an approximately $1.5 million overstatement on property‑tax statements mailed this spring. After reviewing four corrective options and receiving guidance from the Minnesota Department of Revenue, the board voted to correct the error by reducing the 2027 levy by the overpaid principal plus interest — a remedy recommended by the Department of Revenue under state statute 275.075.

Property Records Director Mary Haft described how the error occurred: resolution language that ambiguously described the levy combined with a follow‑up email sent to a small set of staff produced two different numbers circulating internally; a cross‑check that should have flagged the discrepancy also failed before numbers were entered into the tax‑statement system. "That email was sent to three individuals, not an entire team," Haft said in explaining the process gap.

Staff presented four options:

• Option 1 — immediately recalc and reissue roughly 74,000 corrected statements (estimated printing/postage and contractor costs about $70,000 and a compresssed three‑week turnaround).

• Option 2 — recalc and have everyone pay first half under issued statements and adjust second half by credit; still carries roughly the same printing/postage cost and introduces administrative complexity.

• Option 3 — do not reissue statements, accept first‑half payments as issued and manually reconcile later (no immediate printing cost but creates manual workload and potential confusion for mail‑payors).

• Option 4 — follow Department of Revenue guidance under Minnesota Statute 275.075: hold the funds, invest them to earn interest, and apply principal plus interest as a reduction to the 2027 levy. Staff recommended option 4 as the least risky administratively and consistent with state guidance.

Wilfredo Roman, the county’s chief financial officer, told the board that investing the held funds until next year could earn roughly $53,000–$60,000 in interest at current market rates, which would be credited back to taxpayers as part of the 2027 levy reduction. "Our intent is as soon as possible to purchase a term investment so we can secure that period and apply principal plus interest to the 2027 levy," Roman said.

Commissioners split in discussion. Several favored reissuing corrected statements to restore public trust despite cost; others argued spending an estimated $70,000 to reprint statements and mailings would waste public funds and that the Department of Revenue’s option provided a lawful, less disruptive path that ultimately benefits taxpayers when interest is added. The board voted to adopt option 4 and directed staff to invest the funds and document the correction for the 2027 levy.

Staff said corrective actions to prevent recurrence will include revising levy‑resolution templates, broader distribution of clarifying communications, a director‑level cross‑check before entries are finalized, and a standardized data form aligned to the county’s tax software.

What taxpayers should know: impact varies by property; staff produced examples showing the annual overcharge ranged from under $40 for smaller residential parcels to a few hundred dollars for higher‑value commercial properties, with most homeowners seeing a modest monthly escrow impact. Affected taxpayers may contact the Property Records office for parcel‑specific estimates and next‑year credit details.