Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Equalization denies abatement request for Amazing Grace Church property
Summary
The Dickinson Board of Equalization voted to deny a prior‑year abatement requested for property used by Amazing Grace Church after city staff said the parcel is not owned by an exempt entity and an Attorney General opinion requires church ownership for a tax exemption.
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
On April 29, 2025, the Dickinson City Board of Equalization voted to deny a prior‑year tax abatement application related to a property used by Amazing Grace Church after city staff said the site did not meet state law requirements for a religious exemption.
City assessing staff told the board the parcel had been occupied by Amazing Grace Church and the church had sought an exemption for a parsonage and for the church building. Assessing staff said the specific parcel before the board is not owned by an exempt entity and therefore is not eligible for the exemption being requested. "We have an AG's opinion that in order for a church to have an exemption, the property must be owned by the church themselves," city staff said during the meeting.
City legal staff reiterated the assessor’s summary and said the exemption requires both ownership by the religious organization and utilization for religious purposes. "There is an attorney general's opinion on point on this issue that says that in order for a religious organization to have a tax exemption ... they also have to use utilize it for religious purposes," the city's legal advisor said.
A motion to deny the abatement application was made and seconded and the board voted in favor; the motion carried. The board recorded the motion as denied under state law, and the assessor said the property’s value will remain subject to taxation for the prior year. The vote was recorded as unanimous in favor of denial.
The city staff noted the applicant retains the right to pursue further review with the county equalization board if they choose to appeal the decision.
Ending: The board moved on to the year’s valuation discussion after the abatement vote; staff said any further individual appeals would proceed through the normal abatement and county appeal processes.

