2026 Property Tax Levy Error: Public FAQ
Olmsted County recently identified an administrative error that added an unintended $1.5 million to the 2026 property tax levy. The error was discovered internally, reported immediately, and publicly announced after consultation with the Minnesota Department of Revenue.
The Olmsted County Board of Commissioners has decided to….summarize Final board decision.
Please review the frequently asked questions below for more information.
What happened?
Earlier this year, Olmsted County identified an administrative error that resulted in an additional $1.5 million being included in the county’s 2026 property tax levy. The error was a duplicate entry connected to the county’s annual appropriation for library services.
How was the error discovered?
Olmsted County staff identified the error internally and notified county leadership. Leadership then contacted the Minnesota Department of Revenue (DOR) for guidance. After receiving guidance from the DOR, the county issued a press release to the public.
How much does this error affect an individual taxpayer?
The impact varies based on property type and value. For most homeowners, the impact will be between $10 and $30 for the entire year.
Residents can also look at Line 6 on their property tax statement and multiply it by 0.0106 to estimate the specific impact.
The 2026 county levy is approximately $143 million. The $1.5 million error represents about 1% of the levy.
How does the county plan to address the issue?—verify and update
Because tax statements have already been distributed and many mortgage servicers have incorporated the amounts into escrow systems, correcting the error requires balancing administrative feasibility, taxpayer clarity, cost, and fairness.
The county has evaluated several options. Any solution—except one—would cost taxpayers additional money, due to factors such as refund processing, staff time, postage, and administrative overhead.
Verify which option is chosen.
What other options besides the one chosen were considered? Determine which option to remove per decision above.
Three other primary options were considered, as explained below.
- Option 1: Reissue new tax statements
Recalculate taxes and mail updated statements to all affected taxpayers.This option has an added cost of approximately $70,000.
Because of the timing near the due date, this option would also cause potential added confusion, particularly working with lending institutions to correct more than 52,000 escrow accounts.
- Option 2: Recalculate tax for second-half payment
Keep first‑half bills as issued and apply any overpayment as a credit to the second‑half payment.
This option allows for more time but would still incur $70,000 added costs.
- Option 3: Apply second-half credits without mailing revised statements
Adjust internally and communicate updates online instead of mailing revised statements.
This option would not cost added funds, but taxpayers paying by mail would need to access their updated statement online. A significant number of accounts may show overpayments at year-end, which would require manual review of each account and introduces the potential for additional errors.
- Option 4: The least costly option for taxpayers overall is to apply the $1.5 million collected this year toward reducing next year’s levy. The county will set aside these funds in an interest-bearing account for the remainder of 2026. When the levy is set for 2027 and taxpayers are assessed again, this amount, with interest, will be applied to reduce the overall 2027 levy.
Was this a system failure or a human mistake?
It was a duplicate entry—described as a “genuine human mistake.” All systems used for levy certification were functioning as expected. The county has already reviewed and strengthened internal controls to prevent a similar error in the future.
Who is responsible for approving the levy numbers?
The county board has final authority for the levy amount. Staff in Property Records & Licensing finalize the numerical entries into required systems.
Has the county taken accountability?
Yes. The county board and county administrator have publicly accepted responsibility and emphasized the county’s commitment to transparency and community trust. Staff raised the issue promptly, and all steps have been taken to ensure accuracy going forward. Accountability is shared across the team and corrective actions have been taken to improve processes.
What is the county doing to prevent this from happening again?
The county has already strengthened internal controls within both Finance and Property Records & Licensing, adding additional verification steps and reviews. Leadership has expressed full confidence that these changes will prevent future errors.
What is the county’s commitment to residents?
Olmsted County remains committed to:
- Maintaining community trust.
- Being responsible stewards of public funds.
- Providing transparent communication.
- Continuing to deliver high quality services.
Olmsted County leadership acknowledges the seriousness of the issue and is committed to earning and maintaining the public’s confidence.