The Garland Tax Increment Financing (TIF) board voted to recommend that the City Council extend the termination date of TIF No. 2 by 20 years, expand the TIF boundary to include additional parcels around Harbor Point, and approve an updated project-and-financing plan for the zone.

The board’s recommendations followed a detailed presentation by consultant David Pettit and a review by Matt Watson, chief financial officer for the City of Garland. David Pettit, who advised the board on the TIF rules and the proposed amendment, said, “A TIF is not a new tax. It’s essentially you redirect a portion of the taxes generated from new development and new increment within a designated zone.” Matt Watson described the proposal’s purpose as protecting a portion of General Fund revenue for public-safety related needs while reserving the other half of captured increment for economic development inside the zone.

Why it matters: The board heard that the original TIF, created in the mid-2000s, generated about $14 million in increment to date (roughly $12.1 million attributed to city collections and about $1.9 million attributed to county collections) but for many years paid debt service tied to earlier projects. Board members were told the TIF’s taxable base grew from an initial base of about $75 million to roughly $415 million in current taxable value, and that the amendment would capture appreciation and existing base in newly-included areas to generate additional incremental revenue over the next 20 years.

Key details and discussion
- Proposed changes: The board was asked to recommend that the City Council (a) expand the TIF boundary to add Harbor Point and adjacent parcels, (b) extend the TIF term so that the termination date would be Dec. 31, 2045, and (c) adopt an amended project-and-financing plan reflecting those changes and projected revenues. David Pettit and city staff presented maps showing the existing district (red) and the proposed expansion (blue), and identified a “donut hole” parcel that the presenters proposed excluding because of planned right-of-way (George Bush extension) impacts.
- Revenue projections: Presenters used a conservative 3.5% annual growth assumption (consistent with the state’s M&O cap mechanics discussed in the presentation) and projected that the combined expansion and extension could increase the TIF’s potential receipts substantially over the 20‑year term. Pettit told the board that, under the conservative assumptions presented (no new construction beyond routine appreciation), the amendment could produce roughly $112 million of additional increment over the next 20 years after accounting for amounts already generated to date.
- Use of funds and statutory constraints: Board members questioned whether TIF funds could be used for ongoing public-safety operations. Pettit cited Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code (the TIF statute) and Chapter 380 of the Texas Local Government Code, explaining that the TIF creation/amendment process and the project-and-financing plan define eligible expenditures. He said cities may include economic-development grants and certain project categories that, in his view, could be structured to “benefit the zone and stimulate business and commercial activity,” but that the board’s earlier draft language needed tightening. Matt Watson said the city’s intent was to transfer 50% of captured city increment each year to the General Fund for public-safety initiatives subject to conditions and tracking mechanisms; Pettit and staff agreed such transfers would require clear rules and documentation, and would be subject to the board’s and council’s later approvals.
- Oversight and controls: Board members pressed for auditing and tracking requirements if increment were transferred to the General Fund for public-safety uses. Pettit said annual reporting to the state comptroller and the attorney general’s oversight, together with internal allocation and time-tracking for staff positions paid in part from TIF funds, would be used to demonstrate compliance with the law and the project-and-financing plan.

Board action and votes
- Boundary expansion (Item B): The board voted to recommend the proposed boundary expansion (the blue overlay added to the existing red district). Vote: 5 yes, 1 no; motion passed.
- Extension of termination date (Item A): The board voted to recommend extending TIF No. 2’s termination date to Dec. 31, 2045. Vote: 5 yes, 1 no; motion passed.
- Updated project and financing plan (Item C): The board voted to recommend the updated/amended preliminary project-and-financing plan that reflects the boundary and term changes; the recommendation passed unanimously.

Context and next steps
- Process: Pettit reviewed the two-step statutory path used in Texas: (1) amend the TIF creation ordinance and hold the required public hearing(s), and (2) finalize and approve the amended project-and-financing plan, after which any specific grants or reimbursements would require the board’s recommendation and City Council approval. He emphasized that amendments to boundary, term or city participation are legislative actions by the council that follow the board’s recommendation and public hearing process.
- Timing: Staff and the consultant said they planned to publish required notices, present the amended creation ordinance and hold the city public hearing on Nov. 18, with the board scheduled to consider final approval of the amended project-and-financing plan within days after council consideration. The presentation and documents will be made available to the public ahead of those hearings.
- Questions remaining: Board members requested clearer, written language for how any transfers to the General Fund would be conditioned, tracked and audited; they also asked staff to circulate the Harbor Point master plan referenced in the presentation.

What the votes do and do not do: The board’s votes are recommendations to the City Council. Any final changes to the TIF’s ordinances, the project-and-financing plan, or allocations of funds will require subsequent Council action and, where applicable, formal agreements documenting conditions, uses and reporting requirements.

Ending note: Board members split on whether to extend the TIF or let it expire and allow the city to capture 100% of future tax growth, but the majority concluded the amendment would better position the city to fund infrastructure and targeted economic development in the South Garland/Harbor Point corridor while providing a structured path for conditional transfers to address public-safety priorities.