Committee backs due-pass recommendation for Winland Foods tax abatement after public critique

The Transportation and Commerce Committee voted June 5 to pass Resolution 33 as amended, recommending an 80% personal-property tax abatement for 10 years for Winland Foods’ proposed plant expansion in South St. Louis. The measure passed out of committee with a due-pass recommendation after a motion and second by committee members.

The Alderman from the 1st introduced the resolution and invited company representatives to join remotely. Bob Chapin, who identified himself as part of the family that operates the plant, told the committee the project would be roughly a $38.5 million expansion to add a specialized processing line and two automated packing lines. He said the work would create about 25 skilled and semi-skilled positions and would allow the plant to produce specialty pasta items it does not currently make. Chapin said the expansion preserves the plant after an earlier risk of closure and framed it as a long-term commitment to the South St. Louis community. "My name is Bob Chapin...the project that we are planning is to expand the plant about a 38 and a half million dollar expansion," he said.

During discussion, the Alderman from the 1st noted SLDC presented terms and a scorecard in a prior meeting and framed the Board of Aldermen’s role as recommending Port Authority participation for qualifying abatements. The clerk reported there was no written testimony submitted for the resolution.

Public commenter Jerry Connolly urged more scrutiny. Connolly said SLDC staff did not provide a financial analysis to the Port Authority before its April 9 meeting and that when the resolution came to the Board of Aldermen it lacked the financial analysis that is customarily included with incentive-related bills. He described the resolution as proposing an "80 percent 10 year tax abatement for the personal property" and asked whether equipment had already been purchased — a point he said would affect whether the package functions as an incentive or is effectively a post hoc award. Connolly urged amending the resolution to a 20% abatement to preserve city revenue, arguing the current terms would substantially reduce funds available for other needs. He also noted projected water-rate increases and placed the present-value cost of the abatement at about $2,500,000 in his remarks; those figures were presented as Connolly’s calculations and assertions rather than committee findings.

There was no substantive back-and-forth response from SLDC staff captured in the record. The Alderman from the 4th moved to pass Resolution 33 as amended with a due-pass recommendation; the motion was seconded by the Alderman from the 8th and the committee passed the resolution out of committee. The committee then moved to adjourn.

Next steps for the resolution (for example, any Port Authority action or full Board of Aldermen votes) were not specified in the transcript.