Lubbock County Commissioners Court received a presentation on April 14 about a proposed Tax Increment Financing (TIF) reinvestment zone for the North Park area of Lubbock. The presentation described a TIF boundary of approximately 333 acres and proposed public improvements including a 3.6 million dollar park project (Plow Lake/Claude Parker Park). No vote or action was taken; the item was for presentation only.

Consultant Benjie Sneed summarized actions the City of Lubbock had already taken: petition thresholds met, a public hearing held, an ordinance creating the reinvestment zone adopted and a board of directors partially appointed. Sneed said the area is "about 333 acres, generally bounded by Erskine Street to the North, North Winston Avenue to the East, West Loop 289 to the South, and Frankfort Avenue to the West." He described estimated new taxable value the city expects after development and provided projected revenues: roughly $41 million in new real property tax revenue for Lubbock County and $48 million for the city, for a combined projected increase of about $88 million; an estimated final appraised value of roughly $610 million over the life of the financing was cited.

Sneed described the proposed park improvements as costing about $3.6 million and said the county's share would be proportionate to the county tax rate ("a little less than half of that number," he said). He also noted the city expects to issue bonds tied to the TIF with a 30‑year maximum term while estimating the park portion could be paid off and the TIF dissolved in about seven to 10 years if revenues materialize as projected.

Commissioners asked questions about who would serve on the TIF board, the county's single seat on that board, whether the county would be able to influence dissolution decisions, and the mix of property types within the district. Sneed said the county would have one appointed seat and that board recommendations would come back to the court; he could not confirm whether a county vote could override board recommendations and said the court could be asked to decide in the future.

Because this item was presentation only, the court took no formal action. Commissioners indicated they would consider the information at a future meeting when a request for county participation is presented.