On Aug. 5, Universal City council voted to approve the first reading of ordinances for both Reunion District Reinvestment Zone No. 1 and Aviation District Reinvestment Zone No. 1 to become abatement zones.
Council was unanimous on the Reunion District zone, while council member Bernard Rubal was the lone dissenting vote against the Aviation District.
The background
On July 15, council voted to allow new and existing properties to become eligible for an abatement program.
According to the Texas Comptroller, an abatement program is an agreement between a taxpayer and local taxing unit that exempts at least part of the increase in the value of the property from taxation.
To receive abatement, a property must create at least one new full-time employee and have up to $500,000 in added value as assessed by an appraisal district, according to previous agenda documents.
What happened
City Manager Kim Turner said establishing abatement zones is the next required step after council set the guidelines on July 15. Turner said there is no guarantee of abatement for any one entity, and that city staff and council can hear abatements on a case-by-case basis.
According to previous reporting by Community Impact, the Reunion zone was approved by council in 2024 after council and the Economic Development Corporation, or EDC, selected Reunion Development Partners to move forward with the 43-acre development in 2022.
The Aviation zone is part of a goal for the space in the East Aviation District to serve as a commercial thoroughfare that is south of Pat Booker Road and a gateway into Randolph Air Force Base, according to previous reporting by Community Impact.
Offering input
Rubal asked that if Reunion Development Partners was accepted for an abatement application on owned land, would the abatement remain if Reunion were to sell off the property.
Turner said abatement “does not travel from one owner to the next.”
“It’s only property under their direct ownership ... so it might be for 43 acres initially, but if they turn around and they sell that property, the abatement goes away on that property,” Turner said.
Turner said there are differences between Reunion and Aviation, specifically that plans for the Aviation District also include residential property, which aren’t covered by abatements.
“I would imagine because the lots are smaller and the buildings are smaller [in the Aviation District], that the capital improvement is going to be less, we’re going to assume you’re going to give them less abatement than you would if it was in the Reunion, because now we’re talking very large investments,“ Turner said.
Council member Bear Goolsby asked if properties submitting for abatement can “double dip” with EDC incentives. Turner said staff would highly discourage the tactic unless it is a unique proposition, and said that council should direct properties turned down for abatement to the EDC.
Next steps
The two abatement zones will come back for a second and final reading Aug. 19.
