Board approves 2025 city valuations, limits revaluation increases for affected properties

The Dickinson City Board of Equalization on April 29 accepted the assessor’s 2025 valuations and approved a temporary procedural limit on unusually large single‑year revaluation increases for properties in the current revaluation cycle. The board recorded true and full valuations of $1,307,198,088 for commercial property and $2,036,856,000 for residential property, for a combined valuation of $3,344,054,088. The board also approved a cap on single‑year revaluation increases for affected revaluation parcels; the board recorded the cap as 15% for eligible revaluations while excluding new construction and sales within the prior 24 months from the cap.

Why it matters: The vote comes after a lengthy assessor presentation describing how valuations are calculated and why some long‑unchanged properties experienced large increases. The decision aims to reduce sudden "sticker shock" for property owners who saw large revaluation increases while preserving the assessor’s duty to produce true and full values. Commissioners and dozens of residents said they were concerned about rapid increases in assessed values and the impact on homeowners on fixed incomes.

What the assessor told the board City assessing staff presented an overview of the assessment process and the revaluation program, emphasizing assessors “don’t set tax rates” but “determine the values” used by taxing bodies. The assessor explained the office uses market sales, property characteristics and a computer‑assisted mass appraisal system to derive values. He detailed the city’s six‑zone revaluation plan and said staff identified 1,059 houses to visit during this revaluation cycle.

The assessor also summarized statutory and legislative context. He told the board that House Bill 1176 (described in the meeting as the governor’s tax bill) included provisions now before the legislature that would increase the primary residence credit (discussed during the meeting as moving from $500 toward a larger credit) and would cap taxing entities’ budget increases at roughly 3 percent. The assessor and legal staff cautioned those measures could limit the practical tax impact of valuation increases because taxing jurisdictions would be restricted in how much revenue they could seek.

Sales ratios, grading and commercial adjustments Staff reported the median sales ratio for commercial properties at about 85.7% and residential at about 84.8% before adjustments, and explained how grading (a 1–6 quality scale) and correction of long‑unchanged record cards can create large percentage increases when properties that were previously undergraded are corrected to meet market comparisons. The assessor said the office had increased apartment and hotel values to bring those classes within statutory tolerance and that reductions in vacancy factors and other technical changes contributed to larger apparent increases for some parcels.

Board debate and policy decision Commissioners debated whether to limit single‑year increases on revalued parcels. Some commissioners argued for a cap that would let the city ‘‘catch up’’ to true market values over several years; others cautioned against stepping outside the statutory equalization process. The board discussed several cap levels and the trade‑offs between faster catch‑up and legal exposure. After discussion the board voted to approve a procedural cap on single‑year revaluation increases for eligible revalued residential parcels at 15%, with explicit exemptions for (a) new construction and (b) properties with an arm’s‑length sale within the previous 24 months. The board instructed staff that the assessor must still certify the true and full values for the record and that the cap represents a phased implementation approach to avoid extreme, single‑year shocks.

Public comments and appeals More than a dozen residents and property owners spoke during the public comment portion, describing sudden increases in assessed values and asking the city to soften the change or to provide additional appeals options. Examples included: • Mason Simons: “I bought 4 houses in the in the last 4 4 or 5 years… every single time, I’ve been significantly… off on the city's valuation compared to what I paid.” • David Steinbach: “The price of my home, they valued it at 45% over what it was.” • Diane Butcher (representing a seller): presented market comparables and a recent sale she said did not align with the assessor’s model for a large residential parcel. • Gary Ramsey: appealed vacant lot valuations he described as landlocked and asked the city to re‑examine those lots individually.

The board accepted public testimony and told residents that those with formal protests should use the abatement/appeal procedure; staff invited property owners to schedule a property review if they believed property cards contained factual errors (missing/remodeled garage, incorrect square footage, etc.). The assessor’s office told residents staff would follow up on specific clerical or measurement errors and that formal abatement forms and county appeals remain available.

Next steps and administrative notes The board approved the 2025 valuations subject to clerk‑recording of corrections that result from accepted abatement requests; the assessor will forward formal changes to the county equalization process as required by state law. Staff said that if property owners cannot resolve concerns at the city level they may pursue county and then state review.

Ending: The board then approved the remainder of the agenda and adjourned. The assessor’s office said it will continue one‑on‑one meetings with property owners who requested reviews and will submit the certified valuations and any adjustments as required by statute.