������Ƶ

But the debate over what are commonly called community benefit agreements doesn’t appear to be going away, with one organization warning that imposing a moratorium on such private agreements could be illegal.

The proposed $6.4 million, 26-unit apartment building in the Tower Grove South neighborhood has received an unusual amount of scrutiny, in part because of the property tax abatement bill’s sponsor, Alderman Megan Green. Green has been one of the more vocal critics of , and aldermen on the committee now that she was seeking one.

But Green had also pointed to an associated agreement, negotiated among the developer, the Tower Grove Neighborhood Association and the Tower Grove Business Association, that required the developer to contribute $60,000 toward affordable housing programs. Green said constituents had pushed for such agreements when developers sought incentives, and her support of the abatement had been contingent on a deal among the parties.

But aldermen on the Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee criticized the approach, with Alderman Scott Ogilvie suggesting such arrangements could “open a Pandora’s box” for “abuse.” Members of the committee said they wanted to see language barring outside community benefit agreements until a larger city policy on the matter was developed.

Green said the neighborhood and developer had agreed to void the private agreement, and the bill that was passed out of committee Wednesday instead authorized a slightly smaller tax abatement of 90 percent for 10 years. It also included the new language barring the community benefit agreement.

However, Glenn Burleigh, a representative for the Metropolitan St. Louis Equal Housing and Opportunity Council, said that language was “problematic on a number of fronts.”

“Attempting to inject the local government into these privately negotiated contracts would almost surely be defeated, if legally challenged,” he told the committee.

Committee Chair Joe Roddy, though, said the goal wasn’t to permanently bar the agreements, just put them on hold until a larger policy was crafted. He and other aldermen have negotiated similar arrangements to fund infrastructure and other neighborhood projects, but he said he saw why such arrangements could lead to trouble.

“We can’t be having third parties collecting quasi-public money without proper record keeping,” he said.

There are two citywide community benefit bills pending, and one sponsored by Board President Lewis Reed. Reed’s staff has said he is meeting with outside groups and aldermen to develop the policy.

In the meantime, the abatement bill for the apartment building on Morganford Road still needs the full board to pass it. There still is some opposition: Reed made a point to show up for Wednesday’s committee meeting, where he said he wasn’t convinced the abatement was necessary for the project.