PORTERDALE, Ga. — Though the City of Porterdale had given considerable time to learning the ins and outs of Tax Allocation Districts (TADs) at their recent meetings, the prospect of creating one in Porterdale has been taken off the table for the time being.

On Dec. 1, the city council shared that Safe Future Real Estate, the company pushing for a formal TAD, had withdrawn its request. The reasoning was attributed to public input.

“They [Safe Future] were here at the last public hearing, and they did not feel like it was in the best interest at this time to move forward,” said Mayor Michael Patterson at the Dec. 1 meeting. “They heard the citizens loud and clear.”

In July 2025, the city council members were asked if they would be open to considering a TAD in Porterdale. TADs are brought forth by applicants who are frequently local companies that see TADs as being mutually beneficial in their future exploits.

Porterdale’s TAD consideration was at the behest of Amir Peleg, partner at Safe Future, the company behind the Cedar Shoals development in Porterdale. Safe Future brought in KB Advisory Group to explain what a TAD is and show the council what that could look like for Porterdale.

Gary Mongeon, vice president at KB Advisory Group, gave a “TAD 101” presentation in order to help the city and its citizens better understand what a TAD is.

A complex undertaking, a TAD is defined as a geographic area that consists of specific identified tax parcels within a Redevelopment Area where the city can use tax increment financing in order to stimulate private investments in properties that are underdeveloped or blighted, Mongeon explained.

A TAD can only be established following the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan. It also requires the establishment of intergovernmental agreements with the county and school board after being adopted by the city. Its revenues can be used for several things, including new construction, historic restoration, parks, public infrastructure and transit facilities.

Throughout the recent months of the TAD’s discussion, some of Porterdale’s residents voiced their concerns on social media.

Among them, city councilman-elect Bruce Carter coined the phrase “Bad TAD,” citing issues with the district boundary and losses to the general fund. A Nov. 20 public hearing brought other community concerns to light. 

“The project, to me, seems like a bunch of people got together, bought some land, and now they’re looking for funding,” one resident said at the Nov. 20 public hearing. 

“If the future tax revenue is diverted into the TAD, how will the city fund increased demand to essential services such as police, fire, water, sewer and sanitation?” another resident asked. “Especially given that our current system is already strained.”

A second public hearing and subsequent council vote were on the agenda for the city’s Dec. 1 meeting. However, that did not progress as planned when it was revealed that Safe Future had withdrawn the request for TAD consideration.

It would be possible for Safe Future or another group to reintroduce a TAD proposal to the city next year, but there is no formal indication this is being considered as of now.