Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Morton Grove approves Class 6b tax break for River Drive/Lehigh redevelopment; board enacts moratorium on future 6b applications
Summary
The Village of Morton Grove approved a Cook County Class 6b designation for redevelopment of a mostly vacant industrial site at River Drive and Lehigh Avenue — a $31 million, 170,000-square-foot project anchored by BBJ La Tavola — while simultaneously adopting a moratorium to limit future 6b applications as staff crafts a formal policy.
Morton Grove's Village Board on July 14 voted to consent to a Cook County Class 6b property tax designation for 8125–8145 River Drive and 8120–8140 Lehigh Avenue, clearing the way for a proposed redevelopment the village says will replace a long‑vacant office complex with a new industrial tenant and infrastructure improvements.
Village staff presented the project as a build-to-suit of roughly 170,000 square feet for BBJ La Tavola, a table‑linen fabrication and rental business planning to relocate its headquarters from Niles to Morton Grove. "This project will entail complete site redevelopment, significant tenant improvements, environmental remediation, and public infrastructure improvements at the developer's sole expense," village planner Zoe Heidorn said while summarizing the developer’s proposal and consultant projections.
Why it matters: staff and the village's independent consultant compared four scenarios — demolition, continued high vacancy, re‑occupancy at existing rates, and the proposed Class 6b redevelopment — and concluded the Class 6b option would stabilize the tax base in the near term and generate substantially more assessed value over the long term. Heidorn said the developer expects about a $31,000,000 private investment and roughly 250 jobs tied to the project; staff projected the property's tax bill could be about $614,000 in the first year under the redevelopment scenario and rise above $2,000,000 after the 12‑year incentive lapses.
Board and staff emphasized conditions: the approving resolution lists compliance milestones tied to Ordinance 26‑14, construction start and completion deadlines, reporting obligations and the village’s right to seek termination of the incentive if conditions aren’t met. Staff also said the resolution expresses the board’s intent not to renew the incentive once it expires. "We do not anticipate nor would recommend the renewal of this project," a village staff member told trustees during the discussion.
Public pushback: multiple residents urged caution. Christopher Mancks told the board he delivers mail to the building and accused the owner of deliberately vacating tenants: "They kicked everybody out...they don't care anymore," he said. Michael Tracy told trustees, "That's not the village's job, to pick winners and losers," arguing a large Class 6b would shift tax burdens onto local homeowners and businesses and noting he had not seen a signed lease. Owner representative Tim Larson countered that the ownership has tried for a decade to stabilize the property and has offered incentives to tenants, saying the property has been difficult to lease despite those efforts.
Financial analysis: the village’s consultant (Johnson Research Group) reported that, without the Class 6b incentive, the project’s internal rate of return would be roughly 2.2%, while the incentive would raise the IRR to about 13.3%, a number staff said is within the village’s acceptable range and supports the conclusion that assistance is necessary to make the project viable.
Concurrent policy action: the board also adopted Resolution 26‑42, a moratorium on new Class 6b applications while staff develops a board‑approved policy for future consideration. Staff explained the board retains the authority to rescind the moratorium but that the moratorium makes the default response to new applications a no.
Outcome and next steps: the board approved the Class 6b consent (Resolution 26‑41) and the moratorium (Resolution 26‑42) by voice vote; the recorded result was five in favor and one absent. Conditions in the resolution tie the developer to the subdivision and special‑use approvals in Ordinance 26‑14 and establish reporting and compliance steps the village may use to terminate the incentive if requirements are unmet. If the developer meets the village's conditions and county approval follows, construction and remediation work would proceed under the timelines in the approvals.
The board signaled it will monitor compliance and return if enforcement or termination is needed; staff will prepare the formal policy on future Class 6b use during the moratorium period.
