# Property tax exemptions in UT Austin student housing

## *2025 account ledger and public benefit analysis*

Research cutoff November 1, 2026 in Austin. Official account observations were retrieved November 2 UTC. Annual amounts use tax year 2025, not projected 2026 bills.

The strongest finding is that a building’s name, advertised affordable rooms and owner’s nonprofit status do not reveal its tax treatment. Separately assessed legal interests do. A church can own land beneath a taxable student tower; a small ministry or parking condominium can be exempt beside it. A cooperative can be exempt through a student-governance provision without making the income-restricted bargain required of a newer public facility corporation.

We can price $8.77 million a year of exemption value on identified accounts associated with two UT acquisitions, the core College Houses and ICC residences, and Bridge at Northwest Hills. This is a defined subtotal. It excludes unpriced UT campus housing, co-op ancillary parcels, church ministry and parking interests, and Scottish Rite Dormitory, which is a useful supplement outside the original catalogue. Dobie’s matched account includes retail. These are static 2025 tax calculations, not a claim that repeal would recover the same amount.

| Priced group | 2025 assessed value | Annualized exemption |
| ----- | ----- | ----- |
| 2400 Nueces | $200,227,244 | $4,097,621 |
| Dobie housing and retail account | $91,228,324 | $1,866,974 |
| Core co-op residences across 14 parcels | $75,916,883 | $1,553,628 |
| Bridge at Northwest Hills | $60,957,867 | $1,247,494 |
| Priced subtotal | $428,330,318 | $8,765,716 |

Source: 2025 tax-office assessed and net-taxable values, calculated at adopted rates. Direct account links and separate jurisdiction calculations are in the accompanying ledger. Amounts above are rounded to whole dollars. [2](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search) [16](https://www.austinisd.org/sites/default/files/dept/budget/docs/2026_Taxpayer_Impact_Statement_2025_Tax_Rates.pdf) [17](https://www.austintexas.gov/budget-excellence/tax-rates) [18](https://www.traviscountytx.gov/planning-budget/tc-taxpayer-statement) [19](https://www.centralhealth.net/about-central-health/finance/) [20](https://offices.austincc.edu/finance-and-administration/property-taxes/)

# What the existing work established

The starting literature already answered much of the statewide policy question. UT Law’s December 2025 updated report counted 152 tax-exempt private partnership properties in Travis County, more than 34,800 apartments and roughly $109 million in annual tax savings on 2024 values. Its inventory, legal classification and discussion of overlapping subsidies provide a stronger starting point than a search for the phrase “student housing PFC.” Those countywide totals must not be relabeled as a UT student-housing estimate. [3](https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2025/12/2025-Univ-of-Texas-Housing-Policy-Clinic_Tax-Exempt-Private-Partnership-Properties.pdf)

Austin Monitor reporting traced the controversy over public sponsors granting exemptions and the subsequent PFC reform. Houston Chronicle reporting examined the incentives of small outside sponsors. The Daily Texan has covered UNO and students’ difficulty finding genuinely usable affordable housing. Those accounts establish the mechanisms and questions. They do not provide a reconciled, account-level tax ledger for this 161-entry catalogue. [4](https://austinmonitor.com/stories/2021/07/tax-break-proposal-prompts-call-for-changes-to-countys-public-private-partnerships/) [5](https://austinmonitor.com/stories/2024/03/council-gets-briefed-on-improved-path-to-affordable-housing/) [6](https://thedailytexan.com/2026/05/01/student-led-initiatives-highlight-housing-concerns-in-west-campus/)

The published partnership inventories screened in this research produced one catalogue match: Bridge at Northwest Hills. UT Law’s inventory classifies it under the Chapter 392 housing-authority route, rather than Chapter 303 PFC or Chapter 394 HFC. Its current account-specific exemption grant code was not obtained. No other reviewed catalogue entry matched those inventories. This is a bounded screening result, not proof that an unlisted transaction cannot exist. Direct tax-account checks provide the stronger test for the towers. [3](https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2025/12/2025-Univ-of-Texas-Housing-Policy-Clinic_Tax-Exempt-Private-Partnership-Properties.pdf) [25](https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/housing-finance-corporation-compliance-monitoring) [26](https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/public-facilities-corporation-compliance-monitoring)

The extension here is the join: catalogue identity to official address points and parcels, parcels to identified separately assessed interests, interests to 2025 taxable values, and those values to the relevant public bargain. Older co-op materials had discussed property-tax savings, so this report makes no claim that co-op exemption pricing has never been attempted. The contribution is a common, deduplicated ledger across legal routes.

# The taxable object is a legal interest

The toll-road investigation’s separation of title from financial claims applies closely to housing. A marketed building is a place a student recognizes. The tax system may recognize several condominiums, a land interest and separately owned improvements. Conversely, three marketed buildings may occupy one assessment. The unit of measurement must follow the taxable interest before it returns to the building name. [33](https://sulayman-bowles.dev/markets/who-owns-texas-toll-roads)

| Student property | Taxable residential assessment | Other interests and scope |
| ----- | ----- | ----- |
| Union on San Antonio | $172,000,000 | Residential 92% interest is taxable |
| Ion Austin | $75,000,000 | ULSC 2.87% interest is also taxable at $2m |
| The Callaway House | $99,796,628 | Church parking $1,766,806 |
| Inspire on 22nd | $66,620,000 | Ministry/commercial $2,213,253 |
| Moontower | $102,220,000 | Church 3% interest $2,527,284 |
| GrandMarc Austin | $37,600,000 | No reduction on reviewed residential account |

Callaway’s residential figure adds $7,532,174 of land and $92,264,454 of improvements on separate accounts. Omitting the improvements would erase most of its tax base. The three identified exempt nonresidential interests total $6,507,343 in assessment, or about $133,172 in annualized relief. It would be wrong to describe that amount as an exemption for the student bedrooms. [2](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search)

St. Austin’s published development case study is consistent with this separation: its developer’s obligations include property taxes on the land and residential tower. Tax-exempt financing is another question again; it does not prove a property-tax exemption. The current tax record also matters more than a proposal: Ion’s small ULSC interest is taxable in the displayed 2025 record despite older descriptions of the project’s intended treatment. [8](https://realestate.nd.edu/assets/488598/cpi_casestudy_staustin_short.pdf)

This also defeats a simple operator-level accusation. Lark, Torre, Waterloo, Rise, Rambler, Union on 24th, the Standard and the Mark all have reviewed residential accounts with assessed value equal to taxable value. Their 2025 exemption value on those accounts is zero. Several advertise restricted or SMART plans. An affordability label does not establish that a private operator obtained a whole-building property-tax exemption. [1](https://sulayman-bowles.tech/housing/data.json) [2](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search)

# University acquisitions are the largest priced component

2400 Nueces has a $200,227,244 assessment and zero net taxable value in all five relevant jurisdictions. Its annualized exemption value is $4,097,621. The matched Dobie account has a $91,228,324 assessment and zero net taxable value, worth $1,866,974 on the same basis. Together these two identified UT acquisitions account for $5.96 million of the priced subtotal. [2](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search)

The history matters because “a private building leased to UT” is not a durable description of ownership. UT’s own announcements and regent records document acquisitions of 2400 Nueces and Dobie. The public-property route depends on ownership and qualifying public use, with special treatment for university student and employee housing. An unrelated commercial use or separate private interest requires its own analysis. [9](https://news.utexas.edu/2021/10/12/ut-austin-adds-student-housing-options-to-increase-campus-access-affordability/) [10](https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/7-2018AB.pdf) [7](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/TX/htm/TX.11.htm)

Dobie’s amount covers the matched housing-and-retail parcel. Its acquisition included other property, including a garage, which this figure does not price. A historical bed count cannot turn that mixed-use assessment into a clean tax subsidy per dorm bed. For 2400 Nueces, historical sources also use different capacity figures. This report does not manufacture a per-bed result from mismatched dates or scope.

The catalogue has 21 UT entries. Two have separately identified, priced account coverage here; the remaining 19 include shared or unresolved university parcels and the planned Whitis replacement. Their housing-specific annual values remain unknown. Assigning the entire central-campus parcel to Jester, then again to Kinsolving or another hall, would create an enormous fictitious subsidy. The right missing record is UT’s parcel-to-building allocation and component valuation, not another sum of campus land. [1](https://sulayman-bowles.tech/housing/data.json) [2](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search)

Whitis illustrates another classification trap. Regent minutes authorize a ground lease to 2033 Higher Education Development Foundation with university financing and public-purpose safeguards. That structure should not be casually labeled a PFC or a private taxable tower. Nor should a future hall’s construction budget be reported as its 2025 assessed value. The current granted tax treatment of any separately assessed foundation interest remains unverified. [28](https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/board-minutes/2-2024Meeting1242.pdf)

# Cooperative exemptions buy a different public benefit

All fourteen identified core residential co-op parcels have zero net taxable value in the five jurisdictions reviewed. They cover fifteen catalogue communities because Halstead and Nueces share the Super Co-op parcel. Their $75,916,883 combined assessment produces $1,553,628 in annualized relief. The exemption is therefore substantial even though the individual houses are small. [2](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search)

| Core residence or shared parcel | 2025 assessed value | Annualized exemption |
| ----- | ----- | ----- |
| College Houses Super Co-op | $28,937,175 | $592,195 |
| Taos Co-op | $8,224,743 | $168,318 |
| Pearl Street Co-op | $8,213,939 | $168,097 |
| Opsis Co-op | $2,505,648 | $51,278 |
| 21st Street Co-op | $8,794,745 | $179,983 |
| Arrakis Co-op | $1,331,840 | $27,256 |
| Helios Co-op | $1,951,192 | $39,931 |
| New Guild Co-op | $2,495,324 | $51,066 |
| Eden Co-op | $1,346,560 | $27,557 |
| House of Audre Lorde | $1,943,056 | $39,764 |
| Royal House Co-op | $1,010,501 | $20,680 |
| French House Co-op | $1,539,600 | $31,508 |
| House of Commons Co-op | $2,171,400 | $44,437 |
| Ruth Schulze Co-op | $5,451,160 | $111,557 |

The supported mechanism is the student-cooperative provision in Tax Code section 11.18(d)(20), together with the organization and use requirements of section 11.18. Its distinctive bargain concerns qualifying student membership and member governance. It is not intrinsically a promise that a fixed share of beds will meet an AMI rent ceiling. Current account-specific exemption grant codes were not exposed by the tax-office pages; the mechanism is supported by statutory and organization-specific historical evidence, rather than a newly obtained grant letter. [7](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/TX/htm/TX.11.htm) [11](https://www2.traviscountytx.gov/commissioners_court/agendas/2006/10/text/vs061024_HFC.asp)

College Houses does offer income-verified rates in the catalogue. Those commitments should be documented and evaluated separately, rather than assumed to be the legal consideration for every dollar of the student-co-op exemption. In 2006, the county HFC discussion explicitly distinguished College Houses’ existing property-tax exemption from the bond financing under discussion. A bond issuer appearing in a project’s history does not identify its property-tax route. [1](https://sulayman-bowles.tech/housing/data.json) [11](https://www2.traviscountytx.gov/commissioners_court/agendas/2006/10/text/vs061024_HFC.asp)

Three additional College Houses accounts total $6,304,942 in assessment and $129,030 in annualized relief. Their exact residential contribution is not established, so they sit in an ancillary category. Another naming hazard appears in ICC records: an owner display beginning “University of Texas” can continue as an inter-cooperative council. It must not be silently classified as state ownership. The private owner called UT Bungalows LLC is another reminder that the letters UT do not establish university title.

# Bridge requires following both the exemption and the public cash claims

Bridge at Northwest Hills is the clearest catalogue example of the public-private tax structure the initial question anticipated. Its 2025 account shows $60,957,867 assessed and zero taxable value, producing $1,247,494 in annualized relief. Its housing-authority mechanism under Chapter 392 is legally distinct from the Chapter 303 and 394 routes that dominate discussion of the recent reforms. [2](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search) [3](https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2025/12/2025-Univ-of-Texas-Housing-Policy-Clinic_Tax-Exempt-Private-Partnership-Properties.pdf)

Contemporaneous reporting describes 314 apartments and a commitment to reserve 51 percent for households earning at most 80 percent of area median income. That is a reported transaction commitment, not a verified current rent roll or executed land-use restriction agreement. Applying 51 percent to 314 implies at least 161 apartments if the obligation rounds up. Dividing the tax figure by that illustrative denominator gives roughly $7,748 a year per apartment. It is not a verified subsidy per affordable student bed, and it is not evidence of an equal rent discount. [15](https://www.connectcre.com/stories/bellwether-enterprise-secures-50m-financing-affordable-housing/)

The public side has cash and equity claims as well as an affordability commitment. HACA’s financial statements describe a 99-year ground lease with $3.77 million prepaid ground rent. That gross receipt is not a measured net public benefit; acquisition outflows and contractual uses have not been reconciled. Its 2025 statements list a 10 percent joint-venture interest and a $1,022,043 investment carrying value. That value is an accounting balance, not an annual payment or a market valuation. The roughly $38,081 recognized annually in an earlier audit is amortization of prepaid rent, not fresh yearly cash from the developer. [12](https://www.hacanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251016-HACA-Packet.pdf) [13](https://www.hacanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20241017-HACA-Packet.pdf) [14](https://www.hacanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/20211021-HACA-Packet.pdf)

These distinctions prevent a misleading subtraction. Annual tax relief minus estimated tenant discounts does not equal private profit. Ground rent, public equity, financing, operating costs, improvements and the value capitalized on resale all affect who keeps the benefit. The missing documents are the executed covenant and ground lease, the occupied restricted-unit rent roll including mandatory fees, and actual public distributions or payments to taxing jurisdictions. Without them, the proposed “owner gets more than the student” headline remains unproven.

# Condo buildings contain ordinary household exemptions

The complete condo censuses found no wholly exempt legal interest in the twelve groups below. Some units carry ordinary homestead reductions, one confirmed unit also has a senior label, and a small number of current deductions lack a confirmed category. These are distinct from project-wide housing exemptions. A building’s appearance in a student-rental catalogue does not establish that every unit was rented in the relevant tax year or that a homestead is improper. [2](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search)

| Condo group | Accounts | 2025 assessment | Annualized reduction |
| ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
| The Nelly | 12 | $4,111,807 | $18,308 |
| Keystone | 10 | $1,942,376 | $0 |
| Hemphill Oaks | 20 | $3,928,650 | $0 |
| The Jocey | 42 | $7,832,076 | $1,680 |
| Croix | 111 | $36,785,289 | $7,833 |
| University Quarters | 42 | $8,769,289 | $1,668 |
| Sunchase | 54 | $14,585,610 | $7,746 |
| St Thomas | 36 | $9,328,572 | $3,823 |
| Orange Tree | 102 | $29,844,347 | $16,485 |
| Bungalows at the Forty Acres | 52 | $16,385,328 | $0 |
| Delphi | 25 | $6,405,633 | $0 |
| Texan Shoal Creek | 79 | $27,685,022 | $7,832 |

The reductions are jurisdiction-specific: a school homestead deduction need not match the city, county, health district or college deduction. Texas voters’ 2025 approval raised the school homestead exemption to $140,000 for that tax year. We use the observed deductions, including fractional amounts, instead of forcing every account to the standard statutory amount. Original bills confirm many categories, but amended current assessments can differ from the original bill. [30](https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/newsletter/vol35-jan26.php) [31](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SJ00002F.HTM) [7](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/TX/htm/TX.11.htm)

Duval Court adds an even smaller route: an explicitly labeled solar exemption removes $4,834 of taxable value in each jurisdiction, worth $98.93 a year at these rates. It is an energy exemption, not a rent covenant. The census also uncovered a source inconsistency: Orange Tree has all 102 distinct unit numbers, but the printed common-interest shares sum to 100.575 percent. That discrepancy is retained and flagged; it was not normalized away. [2](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search) [7](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/TX/htm/TX.11.htm)

# Who absorbs the forgone levy

At the adopted 2025 rates, removing $1 million of taxable value in the five-jurisdiction Austin ISD area removes $20,464.85 of gross annual levy. Austin ISD is the largest line, but that does not make it the ultimate bearer of the entire school amount. The table gives the statutory rate calculation, not a forecast of spending cuts or future tax increases. [16](https://www.austinisd.org/sites/default/files/dept/budget/docs/2026_Taxpayer_Impact_Statement_2025_Tax_Rates.pdf) [17](https://www.austintexas.gov/budget-excellence/tax-rates) [18](https://www.traviscountytx.gov/planning-budget/tc-taxpayer-statement) [19](https://www.centralhealth.net/about-central-health/finance/) [20](https://offices.austincc.edu/finance-and-administration/property-taxes/)

| Taxing jurisdiction | Rate per $100 | Per $1m exempt | On priced subtotal |
| ----- | ----- | ----- | ----- |
| Austin ISD | 0.925200 | $9,252 | $3,962,912 |
| City of Austin | 0.524017 | $5,240 | $2,244,524 |
| Travis County | 0.375845 | $3,758 | $1,609,858 |
| Central Health | 0.118023 | $1,180 | $505,528 |
| Austin Community College | 0.103400 | $1,034 | $442,894 |

AISD’s $9,252 per $1 million can be decomposed into $800 at eight golden enrichment pennies, $1,230 for debt service, and $7,222 of other maintenance and operations levy. Golden-penny revenue and the debt levy are not recaptured in the same way as the other M\&O revenue. In a fixed-rate, fixed-entitlement scenario, with the exemption recognized in state values and AISD still above applicable recapture thresholds, part of the gross reduction can become lower recapture or greater state cost. Calling the full $9,252 an AISD operating-budget loss would therefore be wrong. [21](https://www.austinisd.org/propa)

The $7,222 is a recapture-sensitive amount, not an estimate of reimbursement. Timing, state property-value recognition, attendance and entitlement formulas, collections, and local rate choices determine the actual marginal effect. Multiplying a building’s school levy by AISD’s average recapture percentage is not a substitute for modeling that marginal change. The Legislative Budget Board’s statewide PFC study explicitly identifies added state school-finance cost and cautions that repeal savings are uncertain because alternative exemptions may apply. [22](https://www.lbb.texas.gov/Documents/Publications/Policy_Report/8750_Public_Facility_Corporations_HB2071.pdf)

For the city, county, Central Health, ACC and school debt service, a smaller tax base creates a choice over time. Holding rates fixed lowers collections; maintaining a target levy places more pressure on the remaining tax base, subject to legal constraints. Services, reserves and other revenue can also absorb the adjustment. There is no automatic, equal building-specific surcharge imposed on every other Austin taxpayer.

The ledger follows the actual school jurisdiction. Several East Riverside properties in the catalogue are in Del Valle ISD, so an AISD rate must not be applied to them. Their reviewed accounts are taxable; zero observed exemption value does not require pretending the AISD rate applies. Sponsor fees and prepaid public ground rent are also tracked separately from payments in lieu of taxes to the affected taxing bodies.

# How to measure the affordability actually purchased

The useful comparison is incremental resident savings per public tax dollar. For each occupied restricted bed-month or apartment-month, compare the actual all-in restricted charge with a credible, comparable all-in market charge. Match the same room privacy, unit layout, utilities, mandatory fees, lease term, concessions and amenities. Add the positive differences over occupied months. A price ceiling above the actual market price produces no observed savings in that month.

Use the appropriate denominator. A property tax account covers real estate, a statute may count apartments, and a student lease may sell individual bedspaces. Dividing a four-bedroom apartment rent cap by four is legitimate only when the program and household rules support that treatment. A nine-month dorm contract with meals cannot be compared directly with a twelve-installment private bedroom lease. A co-op’s labor requirements belong in the comparison too. [1](https://sulayman-bowles.tech/housing/data.json)

Then ask what the tax deal added beyond obligations already binding on the property. UNO exchanges development rights for affordability commitments; a property-tax exemption exchanges annual tax capacity for a separate qualifying use or covenant. If the same rooms already had a binding UNO restriction, their entire discount is not automatically an additional benefit purchased by the later exemption. Valuing the height bonus itself requires a development and residual-land-value model, not the annual tax formula used here.

The seed catalogue also needs a more precise restriction field. Its generic restricted flag includes graduate enrollment and other eligibility limits, as well as income-verified or SMART plans. The ledger preserves that raw flag and the stated eligibility rather than turning every flagged plan into an income-restricted affordable bed. A campus residence restricted by gender or student status is not thereby an AMI-restricted unit. [1](https://sulayman-bowles.tech/housing/data.json)

For the central hypothesis, the evidence now supports an explicit open question: is the incremental realized resident benefit smaller than the public tax expenditure at Bridge or another verified partnership? It does not support assigning a zero benefit merely because the rent roll is missing. Nor can a raw comparison between co-op, university and luxury-tower asking rents identify tax pass-through; location, age, amenities, lease design and resident eligibility differ.

# The legal comparison must include the 2025 reform

HB 2071 changed the PFC route in 2023. For newer nonexcepted deals, its rules include deeper income targeting, rent restrictions, local approvals, tenant protections and audits. Acquisition deals have a particular rent-reduction underwriting test; it is not a universal annual test for every PFC project. Earlier deals can retain different substantive requirements, while the law still applies audit requirements. A grandfathering conclusion therefore needs the transaction date and applicable exception, not just the building’s opening date. [23](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB02071F.htm)

HB 21, effective in May 2025, separately changed the HFC route. Its rules address geography, local approvals, income targeting, tenant protections and a public-benefit test, with transition rules for older properties. Some older out-of-area properties face a local-approval deadline before January 1, 2027. Other economic requirements have different triggers or longer transition periods. It would be out of date to explain today’s HFC deals solely by contrasting them with the 2023 PFC reform. No catalogue property is labeled grandfathered here without a verified deal and route. [24](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB00021F.htm)

An additional distinction matters for future audits. TDHCA’s current HFC rules can recognize an imputed benefit during vacant restricted-unit months. That compliance measure values availability of a restricted rent; it is not identical to cash savings realized by an occupying household. The earlier voucher-rent calculation issue was corrected in 2026, so a stale form should not be used to allege current double counting. These are statewide measurement cautions, not allegations about an identified UT property. [25](https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/housing-finance-corporation-compliance-monitoring) [27](https://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/archive/June192026/Adopted%20Rules/10.COMMUNITY%20DEVELOPMENT.html)

Finally, a housing authority under Chapter 392 is a separate branch of the legal map. Bridge should not inherit a Chapter 303 or Chapter 394 restriction merely because all three routes can produce a zero property-tax bill. The legal route determines which bargain must be tested. [3](https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2025/12/2025-Univ-of-Texas-Housing-Policy-Clinic_Tax-Exempt-Private-Partnership-Properties.pdf)

# What the ledger proves and what remains open

The monetary measure is the tax office’s displayed assessed value minus its displayed net taxable value for each jurisdiction, multiplied by that jurisdiction’s adopted 2025 rate divided by 100. Each monetary group is counted once. The resulting number holds assessment and rates fixed. It excludes penalties, unpaid balances, appraisal-cap savings, additional tax-ceiling benefits and construction sales-tax relief. A zero balance due is never treated as proof of exemption.

The inventory starts with all 161 catalogue entries, including networks, shared sites and a planned hall. The workbook separates that familiar list from the unique interests used in the calculation and from the component-account evidence. Shared Quarters and co-op parcels are explicitly labeled. Legal descriptions and condo common-interest checks prevent a partial street-address search from masquerading as a building census. The 141 entries with priced account coverage include a nonadditive ICC network rollup. Nineteen UT entries and Avalon Pointe have no complete priced allocation. [1](https://sulayman-bowles.tech/housing/data.json) [2](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search) [34](https://gis.traviscountytx.gov/server1/rest/services/Boundaries_and_Jurisdictions/TCAD_public/MapServer/0)

Avalon has a verified $1.65 million taxable office/development parcel candidate, but its residential address and complete tower coverage are unresolved. Pinnacle 31 has a verified account whose legal description identifies common area. A search of its observed account prefix returned only that account; its value is not a certified whole-building total. Several other GIS records allocate all assessment to land and zero to improvements. These are disclosed coverage flags, not evidence that an exemption exists or that the properties are vacant.

The most reliable observations are current 2025 assessed and taxable amounts on a matched account. The statute, organizational identity and transaction documents establish the supported legal mechanism, but they are not always a substitute for TCAD’s exact grant code. Scottish Rite illustrates that boundary: its $53,895,190 assessment and total exemption are verified, producing $1,102,957 in annualized relief, while the exact statutory section remains unverified. It is shown as an outside-catalogue supplement. [2](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search) [29](https://www.srd.org/)

An execution-environment interruption removed original working captures after the main account review. Exact values and aggregate checks retained in the research transcript were reconstructed and labeled; missing component fields remain blank. Simple building records and the geographic crosswalk were re-retrieved. The evidence archive distinguishes fresh captures, transcript-recovered observations and incomplete fields. Recovered numbers are not represented as newly downloaded raw files.

The remaining records that would materially change the conclusions are specific: TCAD exemption applications and grant codes; component valuations for shared UT parcels; a complete assessed-interest match for unresolved new-development identities; Bridge’s executed restriction agreement, lease and current rent roll; actual PILOT or public cash-distribution schedules; and pre-existing UNO covenants for any later tax-exempt deal. Owner profit requires operating, financing and disposition evidence as well. These gaps are documented rather than filled with a nominal zero.

The investigation thus changes the target of the question. The first task is to identify the legal interest receiving relief and the bargain attached to that relief. Only then can a rent comparison show who gained, and only a fiscal model can distinguish a smaller local levy from a loss borne by Austin residents, public services or the state school-finance system.

# Sources

**1.** [Published UT housing catalogue and identity records](https://sulayman-bowles.tech/housing/data.json). 161 entries; source dates and plan eligibility retained in the workbook.

**2.** [Travis County Tax Office public account search](https://tax-office.traviscountytx.gov/properties/taxes/account-search). 2025 entity details are the monetary source. Each account has its own direct URL in the ledger.

**3.** [UT Housing Policy Clinic updated TEPP report December 2025](https://law.utexas.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2025/12/2025-Univ-of-Texas-Housing-Policy-Clinic_Tax-Exempt-Private-Partnership-Properties.pdf). Countywide analysis and Appendix 2 inventory; different scope and tax year from this ledger.

**4.** [Austin Monitor on public tax partnerships July 2021](https://austinmonitor.com/stories/2021/07/tax-break-proposal-prompts-call-for-changes-to-countys-public-private-partnerships/). Prior local reporting on the public bargain.

**5.** [Austin Monitor on the PFC reform March 2024](https://austinmonitor.com/stories/2024/03/council-gets-briefed-on-improved-path-to-affordable-housing/). Prior reporting on implementation of HB 2071.

**6.** [Daily Texan on student housing initiatives May 2026](https://thedailytexan.com/2026/05/01/student-led-initiatives-highlight-housing-concerns-in-west-campus/). UNO and student affordability context.

**7.** [Texas Tax Code Chapter 11](https://tcss.legis.texas.gov/resources/TX/htm/TX.11.htm). Public property 11.11; homesteads 11.13; student co-ops 11.18(d)(20); religious uses 11.20; solar 11.27.

**8.** [Notre Dame Church Properties Initiative St Austin case study](https://realestate.nd.edu/assets/488598/cpi_casestudy_staustin_short.pdf). Ground lease, residential tax obligations and financing are separate claims.

**9.** [UT announces purchase of Dobie October 2021](https://news.utexas.edu/2021/10/12/ut-austin-adds-student-housing-options-to-increase-campus-access-affordability/). University acquisition and housing purpose; not a present bed-count audit.

**10.** [UT System July 2018 agenda](https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/agenda-book-full/7-2018AB.pdf). 2400 Nueces acquisition authorization and history.

**11.** [Travis County HFC College Houses discussion October 2006](https://www2.traviscountytx.gov/commissioners_court/agendas/2006/10/text/vs061024_HFC.asp). Officials explained that College Houses already had a property-tax exemption independent of proposed bond financing.

**12.** [HACA audited statements in October 2025 board packet](https://www.hacanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/20251016-HACA-Packet.pdf). Packet page 72, statement page 30, Note B.5: Bridge at Northwest Hills 10% joint-venture interest and $1,022,043 book balance.

**13.** [HACA audited statements in October 2024 board packet](https://www.hacanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/20241017-HACA-Packet.pdf). Bridge ground lease and $3.77 million prepaid rent.

**14.** [HACA audited statements in October 2021 board packet](https://www.hacanet.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/20211021-HACA-Packet.pdf). Prepaid ground rent and annual accounting amortization; not a new annual cash payment.

**15.** [Connect CRE transaction report January 2019](https://www.connectcre.com/stories/bellwether-enterprise-secures-50m-financing-affordable-housing/). 314 apartments and reported 51% at 80% AMI commitment; not an executed current covenant.

**16.** [Austin ISD adopted 2025 tax rate statement](https://www.austinisd.org/sites/default/files/dept/budget/docs/2026_Taxpayer_Impact_Statement_2025_Tax_Rates.pdf). Adopted total rate $0.9252 per $100.

**17.** [City of Austin tax rates](https://www.austintexas.gov/budget-excellence/tax-rates). 2025 City rate $0.524017 per $100.

**18.** [Travis County taxpayer statement](https://www.traviscountytx.gov/planning-budget/tc-taxpayer-statement). FY2026 budget / tax year 2025 rate $0.375845 per $100.

**19.** [Central Health finance](https://www.centralhealth.net/about-central-health/finance/). 2025 rate $0.118023 per $100.

**20.** [Austin Community College property taxes](https://offices.austincc.edu/finance-and-administration/property-taxes/). 2025 rate $0.1034 per $100 and homestead provisions.

**21.** [Austin ISD school finance explanation](https://www.austinisd.org/propa). Golden pennies, recapture and the distinct debt levy.

**22.** [Legislative Budget Board PFC fiscal report December 2024](https://www.lbb.texas.gov/Documents/Publications/Policy_Report/8750_Public_Facility_Corporations_HB2071.pdf). State Foundation School Program cost and limitations on estimating repeal savings.

**23.** [HB 2071 enrolled text 2023](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/html/HB02071F.htm). PFC requirements and section 10 transition rules, including audits.

**24.** [HB 21 enrolled text 2025](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/HB00021F.htm). HFC restrictions, public benefit test, approvals and transition rules.

**25.** [TDHCA HFC monitoring](https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/housing-finance-corporation-compliance-monitoring). Current monitoring material and property inventories.

**26.** [TDHCA PFC monitoring](https://www.tdhca.texas.gov/public-facilities-corporation-compliance-monitoring). PFC inventories and compliance requirements.

**27.** [Texas Register HFC rules adopted June 2026](https://www.sos.state.tx.us/texreg/archive/June192026/Adopted%20Rules/10.COMMUNITY%20DEVELOPMENT.html). Effective June 24, 2026; distinguish compliance benefit calculations from realized tenant savings.

**28.** [UT System February 2024 meeting minutes](https://www.utsystem.edu/sites/default/files/offices/board-of-regents/board-meetings/board-minutes/2-2024Meeting1242.pdf). Pages 81–82: Whitis foundation ground lease and university financing structure.

**29.** [Scottish Rite Dormitory official site](https://www.srd.org/). Housing identity and mission; the exact granted exemption section remains unverified.

**30.** [Texas Comptroller January 2026 property tax newsletter](https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/newsletter/vol35-jan26.php). Voters approved the $140,000 school homestead exemption in November 2025.

**31.** [Texas SJR 2 enrolled text 2025](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/html/SJ00002F.HTM). Temporary provision applies the increased school exemption to tax year 2025.

**32.** [Austin AHFC and AHPFC partnership policy](https://www.austintexas.gov/housing/ahfc-ahpfc-partnerships). Current local policy is distinct from state statutory minimums and grandfathered agreements.

**33.** [Who owns the toll roads in Texas](https://sulayman-bowles.dev/markets/who-owns-texas-toll-roads). Methodological reference for separating title from economic claims.

**34.** [Travis County public appraisal parcel service](https://gis.traviscountytx.gov/server1/rest/services/Boundaries_and_Jurisdictions/TCAD_public/MapServer/0). Parcel identity and geometry; not proof of exemption. Full query receipts are in the evidence archive.


## Supporting data downloads

The public package contains curated, dated aggregate snapshots, dataset definitions and source notes. Its Excel workbook contains values, rather than the original editable formulas. The source and formula notes describe the reproducible scope.

- [Curated data, definitions and source notes (ZIP)](/research/deep-research/data/ut-student-housing-property-tax-support.zip)
- [Curated tables, values only (Excel)](/research/deep-research/data/ut-student-housing-property-tax/support.xlsx)
- [Primary comparison table (CSV)](/research/deep-research/data/ut-student-housing-property-tax/priced-subtotal.csv)
- [Dataset definitions (JSON)](/research/deep-research/data/ut-student-housing-property-tax/definitions.json)