Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dickinson commission grants Sierra Ridge tax abatement, sets 2022–23 valuations at $27 million
Summary
After a contested abatement hearing, the Dickinson City Commission voted to set Sierra Ridge’s true-and-full value at $27,000,000 for tax years 2022 and 2023, altering the assessments and prompting a modest tax refund estimate.
The Dickinson City Commission on Dec. 3 voted to set the assessed value for the Sierra Ridge apartment property at $27,000,000 for tax years 2022 and 2023, granting the owner’s abatement request following a public hearing and staff presentations.
City Assessor Joel Hirschfeld presented the city’s appraisal approach and supporting income data, noting Vanguard’s commercial revaluation set a true-and-full value of roughly $26 million and explaining the office’s use of a three-year trailing income average and a nine gross-income multiplier to stabilize valuations. Sierra Ridge’s representative, Gabriel Ehlers, countered that the owner’s income-capitalization analysis and more recent financials supported a lower market value and argued that capitalization-rate changes between 2022 and 2023 warranted a $27,000,000 valuation for the years under appeal.
Commissioners asked staff whether abatements had been granted previously (staff identified a successful abatement in 2018 and unsuccessful requests in 2020–22), asked for estimates of the refund liability to city and county coffers, and debated whether a midyear sale should affect the prior year’s assessment. Assessor Hirschfeld estimated that a $27,000,000 valuation for the 2022 assessment year would generate a refund in the range of $25,848; other calculations referenced in the hearing produced similar modest refund estimates depending on the adjustment chosen.
Commissioner Frederick moved to adopt the owner’s requested valuation of $27,000,000 for both 2022 and 2023; Commissioner Riddle seconded. The commission recorded aye votes for Commissioners Frederick, Riddle and Oderman (recorded in the minutes with variant spellings) and the chair, and the motion carried. The commission did not debate an alternative numerical compromise at length and instructed staff to complete the administrative calculations necessary to implement any tax refund or accounting adjustments related to the abatement.
The decision changes the city’s assessed values for the two years under appeal and triggers the administrative process to compute any tax refunds and coordinate shares with county taxing authorities. The city attorney had reviewed contracts and the assessor’s presentation; no additional legal authority was cited during the hearing. The assessor and the property representative both said they would provide or rely on supporting financial data as the administrative process proceeds.
What happens next: staff will finalize the refund calculation and the county and city shares will be determined following standard property-tax refund procedures.
