Property appraisal suit goes to court

Austin says properties are being appraised under market value.

Should the lawsuit filed by the city of Austin seeking the reappraisal of thousands of commercial and vacant land properties move forward?

Can the city also contend that two provisions in state tax law are unconstitutional? And who gets to be involved in the case?

Those were the key questions that arose in a threehour hearing Wednesday as the city’s appraisal challenge had its first day in court. State District Judge Tim Sulak did not say when he would rule on these issues.

The courtroom was filled with tax lawyers, staffers from politicians’ offices, representatives of industry groups and even a county commissioner.

The city’s unprecedented lawsuit against the Travis Central Appraisal District and others alleges commercial and vacant properties in Travis County are appraised under the market value. It also argues that provisions allowing property owners to protest that their appraisal was higher than the median value of comparable properties are unconstitutional.

Sulak first queried lawyers about a motion filed by Junk Yard Dogs, the owner of the Texas Protax building, to dismiss the city’s lawsuit.

Sulak asked Austin attorney Lorri Michel, who is representing Junk Yard Dogs, whether he could reject her request to scratch the part of the lawsuit dealing with local appraisals but accept her request to throw out the part of the lawsuit dealing with constitutional questions.

Michel said a court did just that in the recent Joaquin Independent School District v. Shelby County Appraisal District case.

Sulak also heard arguments related to a motion filed by the city that would remove thousands of commercial and vacant land property owners, who are currently named as defendants, from the lawsuit.

State law says that a lawsuit such as the city’s has to be brought against the appraisal district and the owner of the property involved.

Assistant City Attorney Michael Siegel said the city is challenging two categories of property and no one can own a category of property. It would also cost the city more than $100,000 to serve all the

commercial and vacant property owners, he said.

Sulak said one of his “major concerns” was that, if he doesn’t let the property owners be parties to the case, the city will invest time and money in the lawsuit — only to be told by an appellate court that the right parties weren’t in the case.

The city is also attempting to block six homeowners from intervening in the case.

Michel said homeowners rely on the part of state law the city seeks to overturn to protest appraisals, but city attorneys said there are other provisions that owners could use.