St. Louis committee adopts prevailing‑wage amendment but delays final vote on Wyndham Foods abatement

Alderwoman Anne Schweitzer introduced Resolution 33 on June 2 to clear the way for a personal‑property tax abatement tied to an expansion at Wyndham Foods’ St. Louis plant. The Transportation and Commerce Committee adopted Amendment No. 1 to the resolution, which adds language that the project must meet the city’s prevailing‑wage requirements, but the committee declined to take a final vote and scheduled a continuation for Friday at 9 a.m. so the public could be given another chance to comment.

The St. Louis Development Corporation (SLDC) presented a community‑benefits scorecard that it said gave the project 32 points, “which makes the project eligible for 10 years of tax payment at 80%,” SLDC official Paul Weatherford told the committee. SLDC estimated the total abatement value at just under $3,000,000, with a net‑present‑value of about $2,400,000 using a 6% discount rate. Weatherford also said the scorecard awarded points for an expected 25 new jobs, total capital investment, a location in an economic‑justice index area, proximity to transit and outside state funding.

Company representatives described the planned expansion and the St. Louis plant’s operations. Bob Chapin, who identified himself as the plant’s operations lead, said the project would add new processing and packaging lines and “is expected to be right around 38 to $39,000,000 of equipment” and would employ about 25 new workers. The meeting record also contains an SLDC reference to “just over $46,000,000” in total capital investment; the transcript includes both figures.

During public testimony, Jerry Connolly opposed the resolution and urged the committee to hold the bill, saying he had been unable to join via the Zoom link on the public notice and that a public‑facing link (STL TV) was needed for adequate notice. Connolly also said SLDC had not presented a financial analysis to the Port Authority at its April 9 meeting and that the application did not disclose whether the project also benefits from Missouri state incentives (Missouri Works) and the value of any such credits. “I oppose the resolution,” Connolly said, urging the committee to table the matter.

Several aldermen, including Alderwoman Schweitzer, said they understood the notice concerns and supported scheduling an additional meeting this week so members of the public could participate. A motion to advance the resolution with a due‑pass recommendation was made and seconded earlier in the meeting, but the sponsors withdrew it so public testimony could be heard. The committee set a special continuation meeting for Friday at 9 a.m. to resume consideration of Resolution 33 as amended.

What was adopted and what remains pending: the committee adopted Amendment No. 1 clarifying prevailing‑wage compliance; the committee did not take a final vote on Resolution 33 itself and will reconvene to consider it after additional public notice. The SLDC presentation and company remarks remain the principal factual record on projected job counts, estimated abatement value, and capital investment figures.

The committee adjourned with the continuation set for Friday at 9 a.m.