Owens Corning seeks $1.36M city tax abatement and Texas Enterprise Zone nomination for Houston plant expansion

Senior Staff Analyst Andrew Busker of the Mayor—s Office of Economic Development presented details on a proposed incentive package for Owens Corning Roofing & Asphalt, which would add a new manufacturing product line at an existing Houston facility and require local and state incentives to be competitive with two out-of-state alternatives.

Busker said Owens Corning is proposing about $39,000,000 in total investment at 8360 Market Street (District B), including roughly $33 million in machinery and equipment; the proposal would retain 105 jobs and create 75 new jobs over a roughly three-year ramp-up (00:27:48). He told the committee the company had applied for a state Texas Enterprise Fund (TEF) award and was awarded $750,000 by the governor's office in July; the local tax abatement was being considered as the required local incentive for the TEF package.

Staff outlined eligibility under the city—s tax-abatement ordinance (ordinance 2024-624): a project must provide economic benefit (city property-value increase of at least $1 million), create/retain permanent jobs and meet ordinance eligibility to receive an abatement up to 90% on eligible costs. Busker said the estimated total abatement available to Owens Corning would be about $1.36 million over a 10-year period; staff—s projection based on current property values anticipates the company would receive approximately $1.22 million over ten years unless additional investment or faster value growth accelerates the cap.

Councilmembers raised multiple questions: why Houston wage estimates for the new jobs appeared higher than comparable sites in Aiken, South Carolina and Fort Smith, Arkansas; whether Harris County would grant a county-level abatement; and when construction would begin. Busker said the wage and annual payroll numbers were provided by the company and reflected local market conditions and competition for manufacturing labor; he confirmed the county had not committed to a county abatement (the county—s abatement ordinance had lapsed) and that the company had not yet begun construction (construction was projected to begin late 2025 in staff materials) (00:40:12).

Staff outlined next steps: the committee had approved a motion in the prior week to set a public hearing (scheduled Nov. 12) and two ordinances (reinvestment-zone creation and the abatement agreement) were scheduled for the Dec. 3 city-council agenda.

Ending: Staff said they would follow up with detailed wage breakdowns and additional documentation from the company as requested by councilmembers; no formal council action occurred at this meeting.