Council is scheduled to take a final reading on a 0.415613 city tax rate, while the city’s incentive records use separate accounting buckets that should not be combined into a single annual cost.
The proposed rate is 0.006677 higher than the prior 0.408936 city rate—about 0.67 cents more per $100 of taxable value. The city identifies the higher figure as its no-new-revenue rate, and the Sept. 10 presentation describes it as a proposal awaiting a second reading.
For an average taxable homestead, the city presentation estimates the proposed rate would add $13 a year to the city property-tax bill. That estimate covers the city portion—not the resident’s combined bill from the city, county, school district and other taxing entities.
Four Labels, Different Accounting Paths
The city’s Economic Development Transparency Star page organizes agreements by program and calendar year. It says the New Braunfels Economic Development Corporation administered nine incentive agreements in calendar 2024, while the city administered five Chapter 380 agreements—three directly and two through Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone No. 1. That inventory identifies contracts; it is not the same thing as an audited fiscal-year expense total.
The FY 2025 audit answers a different question. Its sales-tax reconciliation lists $1,759,882 in abatement payments for the fiscal year: $20,054 through the General Fund and $1,739,828 through the Economic Development Corporation. The same note separately lists $145,979 in taxes abated under a 15-year manufacturing agreement, down from $164,616 in fiscal 2024. Adding those figures to calendar-year charts would mix periods and tax streams.
The manufacturing disclosure describes a roughly 240,000-square-foot facility, an $80 million investment, taxable-value thresholds of $35 million and $50 million, and payments equal to 80%, 60% and then 50% of city property taxes across a 15-year schedule. Those distinctive terms align with the archived CGT U.S. Limited agreement. That comparison is an inference from matching records; the audit disclosure itself calls the recipient only “the Developer.”
The CGT contract also shows why labels matter. It requires the company to pay its property taxes before receiving a cash grant calculated as a percentage of those taxes. The agreement explicitly says that mechanism should not be construed as a Chapter 312 tax abatement. The audit, following financial-reporting rules, includes the arrangement in its broader tax-abatement disclosure.
A newer city announcement uses still another structure for Aumovio, formerly Continental Automotive Systems. The city says the expansion agreement provides a 65% property-tax abatement on new expansion for 10 years, replaces the previous Chapter 380 rebate and includes a building-and-impact-fee rebate whose final cost would be set later. The announcement separately lists $5.8 million on an NBEDC investment timeline; that multiyear figure is not an annual tax loss.
What Residents Can Check Next
The useful comparison is agreement by agreement: the public payment, the reporting period, the tax or fee involved, and the performance condition attached to it. The city’s agreement index lets residents inspect the contracts, while the annual audit shows how selected abatements and TIRZ adjustments flow through citywide tax reconciliations. Neither should be substituted for the other.
The final budget and tax-rate reading is scheduled for Sept. 14 as part of the regular City Council meeting. After the vote, the next useful records will be the adopted tax ordinance and final budget order, which can be compared with the city’s updated budget page and Comal.News’ earlier tax-rate report.