Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Engineers Club Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs redevelopment plan and tax‑abatement package for Engineers Club site on Lindell
Summary
The committee recommended a due-pass for board bill 1‑23, a redevelopment plan and tax‑abatement package intended to unlock redevelopment of the long‑vacant Engineers Club building on Lindell; the proposal offers up to 10 years at 90% abatement with a possible additional five years at 50% if affordable housing is included, and prompted both support and calls for tighter oversight.
The Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee on Jan. 27 recommended a due‑pass for board bill 1‑23, a redevelopment plan intended to move a long‑vacant Engineers Club building on Lindell into productive reuse through a tax‑abatement incentive package.
Alderman Browning framed the measure as a tool to activate a property that has sat vacant for years and currently generates no property tax revenue. The package presented by SLDC and LCRA staff would allow up to 10 years at 90% abatement for market‑rate redevelopment, or 10 years at 90% plus an additional five years at 50% if the approved proposal includes an affordability component. Paul Weatherford of the St. Louis Development Corporation said the package represents the maximum incentive the agencies will recommend and that proposed projects must still pass a community benefits and fiscal analysis.
Nicole Young, who said she previously served as the city planning commission’s advising engineer and as a past president of the Engineers Club, urged support and described the building’s condition as unsafe and “not viable in its current condition.” She said demolition, remediation and redevelopment require significant upfront capital that the private market will not provide without risk sharing. Supporters from the Engineers Club and neighborhood speakers described the property as a financial drain on the club and the city and argued incentives are necessary to unlock redevelopment.
Opponents and skeptical commenters raised oversight concerns. Dan Pate questioned pre‑approving a 90% abatement package before a specific developer proposal is presented and flagged MWBE (minority and women business enterprise) compliance performance on past projects and potential conflicts of interest in the incentive review process. Public commenters and some aldermen pressed SLDC and LCRA for stronger compliance and clearer public reporting.
After discussion and questions about the tax‑abatement structure and SLDC compliance work, the committee moved and seconded a due‑pass recommendation for board bill 1‑23; the clerk recorded four aye votes.
Next steps: the measure will move to the full Board of Aldermen, and any future developer proposal will be subject to SLDC’s community benefits and fiscal analyses and to LCRA scoring.
