Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects extension of 6B tax incentive for 333 Howard Avenue after debate on subsidy and recent rooftop solar investment
Summary
The council voted down a request to extend a Cook County 6B incentive for 333 Howard Ave after members questioned renewing a 12‑year tax break for a relatively new building that recently received major roof and solar investments.
The Des Plaines City Council on March 16 declined to support an extension of a Cook County Class 6B real‑estate incentive for property at 333 Howard Avenue, rejecting a resolution that would have granted a renewal to the property owner.
Kevin Griffin, tax counsel for the owner, and representatives from Prologis outlined a revised application and said the tenant would commit to adding 55 full‑time positions (a 33% increase required under local policy) and pointed to recent investments including a roof replacement and a roughly $4.6 million solar installation. "Ownership made a $20 per square foot investment less than two years ago," Griffin said, describing recent capital work that, he argued, should be considered in the city's evaluation.
Why it mattered: Council members voiced concern that the property has already benefited from a decade of tax relief and that an extension would effectively subsidize a relatively new building. Alderman Moylan and others characterized the request as a potential subsidy when the local policy’s intent is to spur reinvestment in older properties.
Council discussion focused on the net fiscal trade‑offs, the labor commitment, and the value of the community‑solar benefit described by the applicant (a subscriber model that the applicant said would yield about a 10% discount for subscribers). City staff explained the county's role in final approval and how the local employment criterion ties to projected net economic benefit.
The vote: On roll call the extension request (resolution R‑51‑26) failed. Several aldermen who spoke against the measure cited prior years of tax relief and the property's recent private investment.
What’s next: The applicant may choose other paths, but the council’s decision means the property will not receive local support for a 6B extension at this time. The county makes final determinations on Class 6B applications and typically requires municipal support to proceed.
Quotes used in this article come from the council record and are attributed to speakers who appear in the transcript: Kevin Griffin (tax counsel), Prologis representatives and multiple aldermen.
