Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement Redevelopment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs redevelopment and tax-abatement package for Engineers Club site on Lindell
Summary
The committee recommended Board Bill 123 to support redevelopment of the long-vacant Engineers Club building with a tax-abatement package (up to 90% for 10 years, plus up to five additional years at 50% if affordability is added); speakers representing the club urged demolition and reuse, while commenters asked for more oversight of LCRA and SLDC.
St. Louis — The Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee on Jan. 27 recommended Board Bill 123 with a due-pass recommendation, clearing a tax-incentive framework intended to unlock redevelopment of the vacant Engineers Club building at 4359 Lindell.
Alderman Michael Browning framed the bill as a tool to move a property that has sat vacant for years into productive use. Rebecca Loosely, president of the Engineers Club of St. Louis, told the committee the 100-year-old club can no longer maintain the building, describing structural failures, water intrusion and vandalism that make continued ownership untenable. “The club cannot continue to incur these costs indefinitely,” Loosely said.
Nicole Young, a former city planning commission appointee and past club president, urged approval and described demolition, remediation and redevelopment costs as a market barrier that the private sector will not bear without incentives. Several club members noted proposals and negotiations dating back to 2019 and argued the site’s highest and best use is multifamily housing.
Opposition and cautionary voices raised oversight concerns. Dan Pate (Ward 6) questioned preapproving a 90% abatement for 10 years before a developer is identified and urged the committee to ensure the St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) and other taxing jurisdictions have the opportunity to weigh in on the final deal. Pate also flagged the role of LCRA, noting potential conflicts where LCRA recommendations could influence abatement awards.
Paul Weatherford of SLDC said the package (10 years at 90% for market-rate, or 10 years at 90% plus five years at 50% with an affordability component) represents the maximum terms; he told the committee any proposal will still require community-benefits and fiscal analyses and compliance with MWBE requirements. Committee members pressed for enforcement and monitoring: SLDC staff said they perform annual reports and compliance tracking and that building permits and SLDC approvals are coordinated.
Vice Chair Schweitzer moved the due-pass recommendation; the clerk recorded four aye votes. The measure proceeds to the full Board of Aldermen for ordinance action and any final abatement terms will be refined through SLDC and LCRA processes.
