Austin City Council’s protest of property valuations will delay the city of Cedar Park’s usual planning and approval of a property tax rate and 2015-16 budget by a few weeks. Austin leaders decided to protest not to the Travis County Appraisal Review Board but to Travis County District Court, City Manager Brenda Eivens told Cedar Park City Council during a June 25 meeting. That means Cedar Park will need to wait longer for certified property values, though not as long as the months-long delay Cedar Park staffers first expected, Eivens said. “That puts us back in a timeline where we can present a tax rate and a budget to the city council,” before the city’s 2015-16 fiscal year begins in October, she said. Eivens said that after Austin leaders voted May 28 to protest the assessed values of commercial properties, Cedar Park staffers feared they would not be able to obtain certified property values in time to set their own property tax rates and budgets until November or December. A total of 117 taxing entities have affected properties located in Travis County, Eivens said. Usually the Travis County Appraisal District certifies all properties in July, but the district now plans to have its tax rolls certified by the end of August, she said, which will require City Council to vote on a new property tax rate in August and then schedule additional special-called meetings in September to hold public hearings and vote on the budget before the new fiscal year begins, Eivens said. City Council approved the following schedule, which was proposed by Director of Finance Joseph Gonzales:

  • Aug. 6—planning workshop for Cedar Park’s FY 2015-16 budget
  • Aug. 27—City Council votes on maximum property tax rate for FY 2015-16
  • Sept. 2-6—the city publishes notice of public hearings on the budget
  • Sept. 10—first public hearing on the budget
  • Sept. 14—second public hearing on the budget
  • Sept 17—possible city adoption of the budget
“We’ll be prepared for this timeline,” Eivens said, referring to city staffers. City leaders’ plans for a bond election would have also been affected by the tax challenge, Powell said June 2. “We would have to see if it’s even possible to do a bond election when you’re under such uncertainty,” he said, referring to the budget and tax rate. “You’d have to wonder philosophically, if you are being forced by another entity not to be able to set a budget, set a tax rate, and in essence create taxes … is that a wise time to turn to your voters [to vote on a bond election]?” Eivens said Cedar Park’s commercial properties located within Travis County limits amounted to about one percent of the city’s total commercial property tax revenue—meaning their values, if uncertified before budget planning, would not have been fiscally significant for the city. She also said if the city were unable to complete a new budget before a new fiscal year begins, the city can follow its previous budget and prorate expenses. “It obviously is not ideal,” Eivens said. “We start dealing with cash flows and things like that.”