Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meade County denies full abatement request from Word of Truth Family Church, debates prorating and penalties
Summary
After hearing testimony from church representatives and staff, the county commissioners declined to abate property taxes for the 2022–2023 period in full; commissioners debated statutory standards for religious exemptions, whether to prorate to the date of transfer, and whether to waive penalties separately and deferred that penalty decision.
A request by Word of Truth Family Church for abatement of delinquent property taxes covering part of 2022 and all of 2023 was discussed and ultimately declined by the Meade County Board of Commissioners on Dec. 10.
Tony Randolph, a member of the church board, told commissioners the congregation purchased land in 2020, planted the church and constructed an enclosed building in late 2022; he said the property was used for parking, prayer and fellowship and that the pastor originally held title during development. County records staff said title transferred to Word of Truth Family Church on May 25, 2022. County equalization staff and the State's Attorney referenced South Dakota statute language on exemption for religious societies (noted in discussion as '10‑4‑9').
Commissioners debated whether the property met the statute’s requirement of being "exclusively used" for religious purposes during the tax years at issue and expressed concern about setting a precedent for other properties that are owned but not yet fully in use by religious organizations. Several commissioners said they supported relief only for the period when the church owned the property; others said failure to file exemption paperwork earlier and the length of delinquency counseled caution.
On a roll‑call, the motion to abate taxes for the period from the date of transfer (approximately mid‑2022) through 2023 and to forgive penalties failed. The board discussed but did not adopt a separate waiver of penalties at the meeting, with legal counsel advising that waiving penalties should be handled as a distinct action and could be scheduled for the next meeting.
Next steps: The church may pursue an appeal of the board’s decision under statutory appeal rights; the commission asked staff to prepare any separate action on penalty forgiveness for a subsequent meeting if members wish to revisit it.
