Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Exemptions topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies Amazing Grace Church abatement, approves exemptions list with one removal
Summary
The Dickinson Board of Equalization denied an abatement request for a church-occupied parcel that is owned by a for-profit entity, citing an attorney general opinion requiring ownership and use by a religious organization for exemption. The board also approved the city's 2025 exemptions list with the single parcel removed.
At the April 29 meeting of the Dickinson City Board of Equalization the board denied an abatement application relating to a property occupied by Amazing Grace Church and approved the city’s 2025 exemptions list after staff recommended removing one parcel that does not qualify for tax-exempt status.
Background and staff finding: The assessor’s office and city legal staff told the board the parcel occupied by Amazing Grace Church is not owned by an exempt religious organization and thus does not meet the state standard for a religious property exemption. “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 the property must be owned by the church themselves,” the staff attorney said during the meeting, and added that the property must also be used for religious purposes to satisfy the two-part test.
Board action: A motion to deny the abatement application was moved and the board voted in favor. The board then considered the annual exemptions list and approved it with the staff-recommended removal of the parcel in question. Commissioners recorded “aye” votes for the abatement denial and for the exemptions list approval.
Why it matters: Owners and occupants who believe they are eligible for exemptions must meet statutory requirements on ownership and use; where the occupant is a religious entity but the legal title is held by a for-profit or nonexempt owner the exemption does not apply under the cited attorney general guidance. The assessor’s office noted the property owner retains the ability to seek further county review if they wish.
Votes and next steps: The assessor’s office will remove the exemption from the roll for the identified parcel, add the parcel’s taxable value back into the city’s roll (the staff cited a taxable-value increase tied to that parcel of $18,890 on a true-and-full value of $377,800), and notify county officials and the property owner. The property owner may consult county staff or pursue further legal review.
Ending: The board emphasized property owners may still present additional information and are not prevented from pursuing county-level equalization or legal remedies.
