The Public Meeting Index

The Newport Planning Board met on September 18, 2026, at approximately 6:30 PM. All board members were present (a "full house," per the chair). The board unanimously approved the August 3, 2026 meeting minutes, unanimously continued two applications to October 5, 2026, and heard a staff presentation on the comprehensive plan open house results and the review timeline ahead. No public comments were made at the meeting; public feedback had been gathered through the earlier open house and online channels. Consent Calendar - Minutes: Motion to approve the August 3, 2026 meeting minutes passed unanimously (all in favor). - Continuances (unanimous): On the request of Jackson, representing both applicants, the board continued the following matters to the October 5, 2026 meeting because the applicant could not be available: - Plan 268 – 59 Washington Street, TAP 12 Lot 120 (unified development review for a minor subdivision). - Plan 2611 – 701 Bellevue Avenue, TAP 38 Lot 023, R-60 residential. Discussion Items - Reports of the Administrative Officer: Board members had reviewed the administrative matters; there were no questions or discussion. - Liaison Reports: One member had been away for the most recent meeting and could not report. The Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission liaison (Hayden/Aiden) was not present, and no board member is currently attending; the chair noted there would be future opportunities to serve as liaison. - Comprehensive Plan Open House and Review Timeline (presented by planning staffer Becky): - The open house drew 70+ attendees, plus 6 online comment submissions (2 by email, 4 through the online comment portal). - Activities included 12 engagement stations, a collaborative map on Broadway with a sign-in table staffed by a planning board volunteer, and 3 informational boards (also available online at Engage HQ as PDFs). - The team counted 2,650+ community touch points, with a plus sign added because some informal conversations and questions could not be measured. - The city had been told to aim for 400 surveys and not be disappointed with 200–400; the process more than doubled that target. - The consultant (Interface) prepared 10 key takeaways that framed the open house content. - In the "Newport Bucks" participatory budgeting exercise, the top-performing strategies (tied at 11 stars) included protecting and improving the harbor walk and its public access connections, followed by (tied at 10 stars) updating zoning to encourage housing units within existing buildings in keeping with local architectural character, and adopting zoning changes to encourage new housing unit production and preservation of existing units. - The strategy with the most bills (22 Newport Bucks) was to pilot micro-mobility programs such as bike share, golf carts, wayfinding signage, and bike safety education to encourage use of the Newport Access Hub and the Gateway Center. The strategy to create and preserve spaces for a diverse economy also drew many low-value bills. - 11 chapter stations allowed participants to place star stickers on preferred strategies. Other top goals included coordinating with Middletown and Portsmouth to share information, resources, and facilities to improve government efficiency, with additional ties in economic development and natural hazards/climate change. - The open house was the final large public engagement event. The project team is working with Interface to finalize the review schedule and order for the 2026–2027 planning board meetings, using a staggered, section-by-section draft review (3–4 chapters at a time) under Rhode Island General Law Title 45, Chapter 22.2. The final draft will be forwarded to the City Council with a positive recommendation. - Staff noted that collecting board comments section-by-section raises open meeting/quorum considerations: back-and-forth discussion in a non-public forum could violate quorum rules, and there are questions about whether feedback submitted to staff after a public hearing may be accepted. Board members may aggregate comments for staff, but the fine print of public hearing rules must be reviewed. - Board members offered informal reactions. One member stated they had expected people to be more negative and were surprised by the strong positive support for housing and by residents' sense of empowerment regarding zoning. Another appreciated that both dollar totals and number of bills were shown, because it indicates how strongly people felt about certain strategies. Multiple members praised Interface for being "dialed into Newport" and for exceeding expectations. - No formal analysis of the open house feedback has been completed yet; staff noted that different methods and venues (e.g., a Friday movie night event) produced different perspectives. Key Outcomes - Vote (unanimous): Approved the August 3, 2026 meeting minutes. - Vote (unanimous): Continued Plan 268 (59 Washington Street) and Plan 2611 (701 Bellevue Avenue) to the October 5, 2026 meeting. - No formal action was taken on the comprehensive plan. Staff will distribute the open house presentation PDFs to board members and will communicate the draft review order, format, and level of detail in the coming weeks.

The Newport Planning Board convened on September 18, 2026 at approximately 11:30 AM (the meeting concluded at 6:58 PM). The primary business was a certification of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application supporting the rehabilitation of Mumford Manor, a 34‑unit affordable housing complex for residents aged 62 and older. The board also received updates on demolitions, liaison reports, the Comprehensive Plan update process, and several transportation planning initiatives. Consent Calendar - Approval of Minutes: The board unanimously approved the minutes of the June 1, 2026 meeting. Motion carried without opposition. Discussion Items - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – Affordable Housing Round / Mumford Manor: Staff recommended a finding that the CDBG application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The application requests $750,000 from the Rhode Island Community Block Grant Program to rehabilitate Mumford Manor, a historic 1909 school building converted to 34 one‑bedroom affordable housing units for residents 62 and older (originally converted in 1982 by Church Community Housing Corporation). Stephanie Boko (representing the real estate development programming corporation, standing in for city CDBG administrator Bob Plain) answered questions. The funds will be used for utility upgrades, solar panel replacement, fire suppression system improvements, and other safety upgrades. Residents will not be displaced; existing vacancies and intra‑building relocation will be used during construction. The board voted to accept the staff report and then voted unanimously to find the project in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Administrative Actions - Demolitions: Two demolition permits were reported for information only: 46 East Bowery Street (demolish a 1.5‑story single‑family home to build a new single‑family home) and 194 Cogshaw (demolish a 2‑story single‑family home to build a new single‑family home). Both are one‑for‑one replacements. No board action required; no questions were raised. Liaison Reports - Tree and Open Space Commission: The commission continues its work on protecting trees and open space. Concern was noted about Newport’s relatively small tree canopy compared to comparable communities, highlighted in Comprehensive Plan data. Agitation about tree removal in development projects was mentioned. - Waterfront Commission: The commission has held two public hearings on Parate Park and will hold a third at the end of September. Feedback has been positive, but some public confusion remains; a public information campaign is being considered to explain the investment and benefits. - Energy and Environment Commission: The meeting was missed due to a time change, but minutes indicate discussions on the composting pilot, solar updates, and the theme plan update, aligning with Comprehensive Plan work. Comprehensive Plan Update - Focus Groups & Open House: Staff (Frederick and Sunny) reported that four second‑round focus groups (boiled down from 12–13 first‑round groups) were held at the library and Innovate Newport, with very good turnout and “real traction.” The consulting team (Interface) is now synthesizing feedback. An open house for the public is scheduled for August 27, 2026 at City Hall (starting at 5:30 PM, ending at 8 PM). If weather permits, the event will begin outside with ice cream or a Dels truck, then move into council chambers with informational stations by chapter. Planning board members are being asked to volunteer as “stewards” at stations based on their focus group participation or expertise; an RSVP and a pre‑workshop virtual session will be arranged. Advisory committee members (about 30 community members) will participate differently, sharing perspectives from their breakout groups. - Council Workshop: A workshop with the City Council revealed that long‑time council members felt past planning efforts had failed and asked how new strategies would differ. Board members stressed the need for creative, evidence‑based approaches and case examples, particularly for economic development alternatives to tourism and hotels. Staff indicated the upcoming advisory committee meeting will focus on such case studies. Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Commission / Transportation Updates - Safe Streets for All Grants: Newport is a beneficiary of two federal Safe Streets for All grants. A large $4 million island‑wide implementation grant (awarded last December) is being finalized; a five‑year completion clock will start once the agreement is signed. A second planning grant focuses on Third Street in front of the Navy Hospital, to augment the safety action plan and position the area for future funding. - One‑Way Street Study (Spring–Thames): Bowman Engineering was selected to study the system of narrow one‑way streets between Spring and Thames streets. The study will assess opportunities to adjust traffic patterns, add pedestrian and bike facilities, and address parking and safety issues (e.g., oversized trucks, sidewalk parking). A series of four public meetings is planned, with the first on August 18, 2026 (workshop style, with boards and engineers). - Federal Policy Concerns: A board member asked whether recent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance requiring grant oversight by a political appointee could affect these grants, given potential policy misalignment. Staff reported no impact to date; the grants passed review prior to the new guidance. One project on Narragansett Avenue now requires that transit lanes not be narrowed, but otherwise the program is proceeding. Multiple board members noted the strength of the island‑wide coalition as a factor in the grants’ survival. Key Outcomes - CDBG Certification: The board found the Mumford Manor CDBG application ($750,000) to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan (unanimous vote). - Demolitions: Accepted for information; no action required. - Comprehensive Plan: The August 27 open house and a pre‑workshop for board members are confirmed. Staff will provide slides and materials ahead of time. - Transportation Studies: The safe streets agreements are being finalized; the one‑way street study public process begins August 18. - The meeting adjourned at 6:58 PM.

The Newport Department of Utilities held a public workshop on September 18, 2026, to present a proposed stormwater fee based on impervious area (hard surfaces) per parcel. The goal is to replace the current funding model—where stormwater costs are buried in the sewer rate and based on water consumption—with a dedicated fee that more equitably allocates costs among properties contributing runoff. The workshop included a presentation by Rob Schultz (General Manager/Chief Engineer, Department of Utilities) and Katie Cromwell (Vice President, RAF Tellis). Approximately 10,000 notices were mailed to property owners with estimated fee amounts. Public Comments & Testimony - Several residents expressed concerns about the accuracy of notices, particularly for condominium units. One attendee reported that their notice showed the entire parcel's impervious area (62,000 sq ft), resulting in an inflated fee. Schultz acknowledged that about 500 notices had this error and said corrections would be made. - A resident argued that stormwater costs should be funded through property taxes instead of a utility fee, calling the consultant process "ridiculous." - Multiple attendees questioned the fairness and precision of the impervious area yardstick. One stated, "I disagree that it is wrong," arguing that the system's runoff contributions vary. Schultz responded that while not perfect, the method is "dramatically better" than using water use. - A resident asked about credit for rain barrels and pervious surfaces; Schultz confirmed a credit program would allow up to 50% of the fee to be credited for on-site stormwater management features. - Another attendee noted that seasonal residents only pay stormwater costs during summer under the current system, but Schultz said the fee would apply year-round. Discussion Items - Funding Problem: Current sewer rates include stormwater costs, but water use is a poor measure of runoff. Properties with large paved areas but low water use pay little; high water users (e.g., restaurants) overpay. The proposal would separate stormwater and sewer costs. - Proposal Details: The stormwater fee would be based on impervious area (roofs, pavement, sidewalks, etc.). An Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU) is defined as 2,400 sq ft of impervious area. Residential properties fall into tiers: small (0.5 ERU for 400–1,500 sq ft), medium (1 ERU for 1,500–4,200 sq ft), large (2.2 ERU for 4,200–7,555 sq ft), and very large (measured ERU). Non-residential properties are charged per ERU based on measured impervious area. Rates: $15 per ERU per month (example). Sewer rates would decrease: fixed charge based on meter size (e.g., 5/8-inch meter from $28.15 to $28.00), volumetric rate from $25.97 to $19.00 per thousand gallons. - Bill Impact Examples: Residential with 3,000 gal/month and 1 ERU: increase $6.06/month. Seasonal (low usage): increase $4.39/month annualized. Non-residential (1.5-inch meter, 32,000 gal, 5 ERU): decrease $129.36/month. Non-residential (5/8-inch meter, 2,000 gal, 3 ERU): increase $30.91/month. - Overall Impacts: 62% of residential properties would see a decrease; 37% increase, with 90% of increases under $25/month. Non-residential: 58% increase, 40% stayed same. - Credit & Appeals Process: A credit program (up to 50% of fee) for on-site stormwater management (rain barrels, rain gardens, pervious pavers). An appeals process will allow property owners to challenge impervious area calculations. - Next Steps: An ordinance will be presented to the City Council in October 2026 to enable the stormwater utility structure (does not set rates). If passed, stakeholder group will develop credit program, account reconciliation, and billing system testing. Earliest possible implementation is July 1, 2027. The council will also consider a traditional flat sewer rate increase as an alternative pathway during the budget process. Key Outcomes - No votes were taken; the meeting was a workshop for public input. - The Department of Utilities will correct errors in notices for approximately 500 condo units. - An ordinance to authorize the stormwater utility structure is planned for council consideration in October 2026. - A public survey and email inbox (ratestudy@newportri.gov) remain open for feedback. Additional public workshops may be held.

The DeKalb County Board of Ethics convened on September 18, 2026, at 11:00 AM. The meeting included adoption of the agenda, approval of previous minutes, committee reports, the Ethics Officer's monthly report, discussion of formal advisory opinions, and preliminary case reviews. The board dismissed two complaints, discussed potential code amendments for prosecutorial referrals, and addressed public comments on procedural issues. Consent Calendar - Adoption of Agenda: Approved with an amendment to Item 4B, changing the name to "Jade R. Cross versus DeKalb County Sheriff's Office" for clarity. - Approval of August 20, 2026 Minutes: Adopted unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - Mike Cooper (Stone Mountain resident): Noted confusion over the numbering of formal advisory opinions, pointing out that two different opinions are both labeled "2026-1" on the board's website. Suggested renumbering to avoid confusion. - Stephen Benny (Clarkston resident): Recommended State Representative Viola Davis as a legislative contact for proposed code changes. Discussed Commissioner Michelle Long Spears' recusal on Callanwald matters and raised concerns about the temporary employee loophole, urging the board to clarify that temporary employees are subject to the ethics code. Discussion Items - Committee Report on Code Amendment (Section 22K1C): The board discussed a proposed amendment to refer ethics violations exceeding $1,000 to the District Attorney or Solicitor General for prosecution. After debate, members simplified the language to end at "prosecution" and agreed to retain the clause covering elected, appointed, paid, or unpaid officials/employees. A final vote is planned for the October meeting before submission to the county legislative delegation. - Ethics Officer's Monthly Report: - Training: 1,111 new and transferred employees have received in-person ethics training; an additional year-in-training program with time-driven modules is being developed with HR. - Ethics Blast: Weekly emails focus on conflicts of interest and gifts; the website has an education section addressing these topics. - Pending Cases: Two anonymous reports – one involving a school district (outside jurisdiction, forwarded to superintendent) and one internal case. - Warning Letter: Commissioner Michelle Long Spears was advised to recuse herself from Callanwald-related matters; she apologized and agreed to do so. - New Appointment: Ward Howe's background check is complete; final appointment expected at the next meeting. - Formal Advisory Opinions: - 2026-1 (First Amendment speech policy): The Ethics Officer stated the request falls outside board jurisdiction but presented it for information. Board members noted specific code sections that might apply to employee speech. - 2026-2 (Temporary employees under Section 22A): The request from the Community Development Director asks whether temporary, non-benefited employees (average tenure 23 months) are covered by ethics restrictions. General Counsel Hakeem Hilliard opined that the code definition of "employee" does not exclude temporary workers, so they are covered. The board deferred final decision to the next meeting for further input. - Preliminary Cases: - Case 2026-12 (Heban v. Commissioner Messiah): Complainant alleged Commissioner Messiah denied a rezoning based on a conversation with Mr. Tolliver. The Ethics Officer found no evidence to support the claim and noted the commissioner's vote was unanimous against the project. Complainant did not cure deficiencies after a 10-day notice and 30-day extension. Motion to dismiss under Rules 4.5 and 5.4 carried unanimously. - Case 2026-17 (Cross v. DeKalb County Sheriff's Office): Complainant alleged excessive force (Fourth Amendment) during jail detention. The board lacks jurisdiction over constitutional claims, and the complainant failed to provide required information despite notice. Motion to dismiss carried unanimously. - Executive Session: The board moved into closed session to discuss legal and personnel matters. After reconvening, the executive session was adjourned and the open meetings affidavit approved. Key Outcomes - Dismissal of Case 2026-12: Unanimous vote to dismiss based on lack of evidence and failure to cure. - Dismissal of Case 2026-17: Unanimous vote to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and insufficient information. - Code Amendment Referral: Final draft to be voted on at the October 15, 2026 meeting, then submitted to the legislative delegation. - Next Regular Meeting: Scheduled for October 15, 2026; the November meeting location is uncertain due to room conflicts with a zoning board meeting.

The Leesburg Tree Commission met on September 18, 2026, to discuss routine approvals, staff updates, the tree benefits pamphlet, tree canopy mapping, HOA outreach strategies, and planning for the upcoming Treesburg tree giveaway event. Commissioners also provided updates on recent tree plantings and maintenance. Consent Calendar - Call to Order & Roll Call: Present: Alex, John, Tara, Katie, Frank, Bill; Absent: Earl (arrived late). - Approval of Agenda: Motion by Frank, seconded, passed unanimously. - Approval of Minutes from Previous Meeting: Motion, seconded, passed unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public were present. Brendan was noted as unable to attend due to another meeting. Discussion Items - Staff Updates – Department of Forestry Rewrite: Staff reported that the zoning ordinance currently points to a “black hole” because hyper-technical details were moved to the Design and Construction Manual without syncing publication. An interim compendium is needed. Future presentations will cover street tree requirements (soil volumes, species selection, parking lot requirements). - Adopt-a-Spot Tree Care: Staff provided an update on the adopt-a-spot planting: most trees are in, though a few dogwoods remain. Bartlett used an air spade to excavate girdling roots around a maple, removing about 30% of the girdling roots. Biochar, compost, sulfur, and liquid kelp were applied. The tree’s prognosis is uncertain. Commissioners discussed weekend watering duties and the need for a longer hose and better fitting. The lockbox code issue was resolved. The flag holder on Pie Island was discussed; commissioners decided to keep it. - Tree Benefits Pamphlet: The pamphlet draft was reviewed. Commissioners praised its design but suggested edits: replace red maple with a different species due to overplanting in Leesburg; add a QR code and “for more information” contact line (website and public works); replace stock photos with local images (e.g., from Tree Commission events, avoiding identifiable students). The process will involve a revised draft, review by the public information office, then a final commission vote. - Old Business – Tree Canopy Map: The tree canopy inventory is ongoing; contractors will finish ground inventory in November. The map currently shows only town property and right-of-way trees. Staff displayed a planning tool showing suitability for planting (red = high suitability based on low canopy, heat island effect, income, etc.). Commissioners discussed using this to target HOAs for outreach. - HOA Selection for Targeted Outreach: Commissioners considered selecting HOAs in high-suitability (red) areas for tree giveaway outreach. Concerns were raised about language barriers and reaching underserved communities. Staff noted bilingual flyers and ability to use public information office translation. Commissioners agreed to individually identify potential neighborhoods and decide at the next meeting. They also discussed using the town’s tree fund to support tree planting on private property via HOAs or 501(c)(3) organizations. - New Business – Treesburg Event Planning: The event is scheduled for November 7th. Staff has approximately $2,000 available. A list of potential tree species from a Maryland nursery was reviewed. Commissioners recommended avoiding large shade trees (e.g., bald cypress, oaks) and favoring smaller, colorful species that have been popular in past giveaways. They agreed to reduce quantities and focus on species like sweetbay magnolia, fringe tree, witch hazel, and black gum. The final order will be placed after council approval (expected October 6th). Commissioners will assist with setup on November 6th. - Commissioner Comments: - Alex: No further comments. - John: Noted a story about large fines for illegal tree cutting in California. - Earl: Reported that Penn State is closing its Mont Alto forestry program (since 1908) and moving it to another campus; shared a photo of an 1880s oak at the Mont Alto arboretum. Suggested changing the pamphlet’s “Tree Commission Annual Activities” to “Leesburg’s Urban Forestry Activities.” - Bill: Reported that two redbud trees (Harper Park and North Star) have died. The Harper Park redbud never leafed out (ambrosia beetles); the North Star redbud is dead but sending up root suckers. Commissioners discussed replanting with a smaller tree. Also noted that a river birch at Catoctin and the Mount Vernon tree are doing well. - Frank: Showed a photo of the dead redbud at Heritage High School. Key Outcomes - Approved: Agenda and minutes (unanimous). - Directive: Staff to revise the tree benefits pamphlet based on feedback (replace red maple, add QR code, use local images, adjust language) and submit to public information office before final commission vote. - Directive: Commissioners to identify potential HOA neighborhoods for targeted outreach by next meeting (October 20, 2026). - Decision: Treesburg event to proceed on November 7th with a reduced selection of small, colorful trees; final order pending council approval. - Next Steps: Replanting of failed redbuds to be coordinated by Bill and Phil; staff to provide updates on tree canopy inventory and forestry rewrite at the next meeting. - Next Meeting: Scheduled for October 20, 2026.

Note: The transcript indicates the meeting took place on Thursday, September 17, but the official system date is September 18, 2026. This summary uses the official date as instructed. A brief special meeting was held to approve the release of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the construction of a new 911 Central Communications building. The meeting lasted from 5:03 PM to 5:05 PM. One agenda item was considered, and a unanimous vote was taken. Discussion Items - Director's Briefing on Timeline: The director reported that the RFP should be posted the following week. Questions from bidders will be due in mid-October, with a bid closing date of November 4. A special meeting will be scheduled in November to obtain committee approval for financing, and then the item will go to the full council agenda in December. Key Outcomes - Approval to Issue RFP: A motion was made (by member Seb Juliano) and seconded to approve the contract documents and bid package (Bid No. 2026-017) for the new 911 Building Central Communications to go out for RFP. The motion passed unanimously (all in favor, no opposed, no abstentions). - Next Steps: The RFP will be posted; responses will be evaluated; and a subsequent special meeting is planned for November to seek financing approval.

The Rochester Police Civil Service Commission met on September 18, 2026, to handle routine personnel matters. All three commissioners—Bradley D Trahan, Courtney Dugstad, and Angela Halbert—were present, including newly welcomed Commissioner Angela Halbert. The meeting was held at the Rochester Police Department North Station, Room 164, 4001 W River Pkwy, Rochester, MN, or via MS Teams, and was called to order at approximately 3:00 p.m. The commission unanimously approved the agenda, the previous meeting minutes, and the appointment of one temporary sergeant. No public comments were made, and no other business was discussed. Note on the date: The agenda, minutes, and raw transcript date the meeting as September 17, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.; however, the meeting timestamp provided for this summary states 2026-09-18 09:00:00+00:00. This discrepancy is noted rather than silently choosing one version. Consent Calendar - 4.A Minutes: Motion by Courtney Dugstad, seconded by Angela Halbert, to approve the minutes from the last meeting. Approved unanimously by Bradley D Trahan, Courtney Dugstad, and Angela Halbert. Public Comments & Testimony - No members of the public spoke during the public comment period. The chair indicated that no one was present for public comments. Discussion Items - 5.A Temporary Sergeant: The commission considered the Chief's Request to Appoint Sergeant, which asked to authorize the appointment of one temporary Sergeant. Commissioners indicated they had reviewed the request and had no questions. Motion by Courtney Dugstad, seconded by Angela Halbert, to authorize the appointment was approved unanimously. Key Outcomes - Agenda approved unanimously by a motion from Courtney Dugstad, seconded by Angela Halbert. - Previous meeting minutes approved unanimously. - One temporary Sergeant appointment authorized unanimously. - Motion to adjourn made by Courtney Dugstad, seconded by Angela Halbert, and approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned with no other business.

This meeting of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen was held on September 18, 2026, at 10:00 AM, presided over by President Megan Green. The session began with an opening reflection on self-care led by Diana Lucas. The main celebratory item was the recognition of St. Louis as a two-star Certified Welcoming City by Welcoming America, with numerous organizational partners speaking in support. The meeting also featured a heated introduction of honored guests, where Alderwoman from the 12th Ward brought attorneys to warn against any attempt to censure her. Several board bills and resolutions were introduced and assigned to committees, including a call for financial audits of Homer G. Phillips Senior Apartments and a resolution to improve grass-cutting practices across the city. Consent Calendar - A motion to adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar was moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 5th, and passed by voice vote with no opposition. - A motion to adopt the perfection consent calendar (Board Bill 34 and Board Bill 66) was moved and seconded, and passed by voice vote with no opposition. Board Bill 66 gained an additional co-sponsor (Alderman from the 14th). Public Comments & Testimony - Betsy Cohen (founding executive director, St. Louis Mosaic Project): Expressed appreciation that St. Louis is now a two-star designated Certified Welcoming Community, one of 49 nationwide, and thanked the community for supporting the long journey. - Blake Hamilton (President CEO, International Institute; resident of the 5th Ward): Stated that the designation is the beginning of the next phase, not the end of a 13-year process. Emphasized the goal of creating systems for economic vitality and connectedness, and mentioned the Gateways for Growth Initiative to develop a welcoming plan. - Suzanne Sierra (Executive Director, St. Louis Mosaic Project): Called the designation a message that St. Louis has the infrastructure and commitment for international people to build careers and lives, and stressed the importance of retention through accessible services. - Unnamed speaker (from V4A organization): Celebrated the shared commitment and noted that the certification is a beginning, not a destination. Emphasized language access, belonging, and partnership. Quoted an African proverb about going far together. - Unnamed speaker (from the Mayor's Office of New Americans): Thanked the Board for partnership, stating that the certification demonstrates St. Louis as a national leader in building inclusive communities. - Unnamed speaker (historian?): Provided historical context about St. Louis's population decline from 50% immigrant in 1850 to less than half today, and argued that welcoming immigrants is essential for economic growth and reversing population loss. Discussion Items - Resolution 120 – Certified Welcoming City Designation: Alderwoman Velasquez (6th Ward) presented the resolution recognizing St. Louis as a two-star Certified Welcoming City. She noted that St. Louis has the most stars of any city in the state and challenged Kansas City to match. Multiple organizational partners spoke in support. Alderwoman from the 8th praised the strong ecosystem of organizations. Alderwoman from the 7th (ward containing International Institute, Mosaic Project, Casa de Salud) commended the work and the affirmation of city values. President Green emphasized the importance of protecting the immigrant community amid growing hostilities. The resolution was later embanked (all aldermen signed on as co-sponsors) and passed by voice vote. - Introduction of Honored Guests – Potential Censure Warning: Alderwoman from the 12th Ward introduced her attorneys, Mr. Randall Cahill and Mr. Gerald Christmas, and stated they were present for a forthcoming “illegal attempt to censure” her. She claimed that a three-year-old speech is being used against her, that she attended a meeting and defended President Green when others tried to censure her illegally, and that the board lacks the legal authority to censure. She warned that if censure proceeds, she will sue the board. She also mentioned having a media release and a complete tape of the original meeting. She noted that her comments were political speech protected under federal law. - Board Bills – First Reading: - BB 77 (Alderwoman Tyus): Honorary street name for Herschel David Parks Jr. - BB 78 (Alderwoman Devotee, Alderman Browning): St. Louis Works street improvement fund allocation. - BB 79 (Alderman Browning): Speed humps in the 9th Ward. - BB 80 (Alderman Aldrich): Lease consent for Homer G. Phillips apartments (sent to HUDS committee). - BB 81 (Alderman Odenberg): Zoning text amendment to define and regulate smoke shops (emergency clause); introduced via suspension of rules (roll call vote passed, with Alderman from the 14th later added as co-sponsor). - Resolutions – First Reading and Committee Assignments: - Resolution 122 (Alderwoman Tyus): Request for audited financial statements from EP V2 Dignity House LLCs for 2020-2026 regarding the 99-year lease of Homer G. Phillips Senior Apartments. Alderwoman Tyus stated that seniors currently lack air conditioning and that there has been 20 years of non-payment. She requested assignment to Health and Human Development Committee. Motion carried by voice vote. - Resolution 125 (President Green, Alderwoman Devotee, Alderwoman Sonnier): Call for a public apology and consideration of censure. Moved by Alderman from the 5th to send to Personnel Committee. Motion carried by voice vote. - Resolution 126 (Alderwoman Tyus): Regarding correcting and improving grass-cutting practices in the city. Introduced via suspension of rules (roll call passed with 12 votes in favor). Alderwoman Tyus cited poor grass conditions citywide and asked for it to be sent to Health and Human Development Committee. Motion carried by voice vote. - Announcements: - Thursday, September 24, 2026: Transportation Commerce Committee meeting, 9 AM, Kennedy Room. - Friday, September 25, 2026: Full board meeting, 10 AM, Chambers. - Alderman from the 9th: Public Infrastructure and Utilities Committee meeting, Wednesday, September 23, 2026, 3:30 PM, County Hearing Room (agenda: BB 75, 78). - Alderman from the 14th: 14th Ward Town Hall, Tuesday, September 29, 2026, 6-7 PM, 1421 North Jefferson, with SLPS superintendent discussing school closures. - Personnel Committee meeting, Thursday, September 24, 2026, 11 AM, Kennedy Room. Key Outcomes - Resolution 120 was passed unanimously by voice vote and embanked (all Board members as co-sponsors). - Roll call vote on suspending rules to introduce BB 81: Passed (voice vote tally not recorded individually; motion carried). - Roll call vote on suspending rules to introduce Resolution 126: 12 votes in favor (recorded as “12 I votes”), motion carried. - Minutes from September 11, 2026, approved by voice vote. - Committee assignments: Resolution 122 → Health and Human Development; Resolution 125 → Personnel; Resolution 126 → Health and Human Development. - Absences: Alderpersons from the 1st and 11th Wards excused for necessary absence, motion carried. - Adjournment: The Board adjourned until Friday, September 25, 2026, at 10:00 AM in the Board of Aldermen Chambers.

The Library Board of Trustees held a special meeting on September 18, 2026, at 5:30 PM to prepare for a joint meeting with the Select Board scheduled for September 26, 2026, at 6:00 PM. The primary agenda was to discuss the next steps for the Ramsdale Library renovation project following a critical September 8, 2026 letter from the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). Trustees debated whether to hire an independent historic preservation consultant, as recommended by MHC and PDR, and considered the financial, timing, and procedural implications. The meeting concluded with a plan to seek clarification from the Massachusetts Board of Library Commissioners (MBLC) and to gather supporting documentation from PDR and MBLC before the joint meeting. Public Comments & Testimony - Peter, a Great Barrington taxpayer, expressed strong concern about the MHC letter, describing it as "the most brutal and brutally honest communication from one governmental agency to another" he had ever seen. He argued that taxpayers deserve answers about how the town commissioned a report that MHC found to be "replete with factual misstatements" and lacking objectivity. He questioned who was responsible and suggested that PDR should redo the report on their own dime, not at taxpayer expense. - John Nelson, a member of the Ramsdale Building Committee, countered that MHC's letter itself contained significant factual errors. He urged the board to wait for PDR's forthcoming statement correcting those misstatements before making any decisions based on MHC's claims. Discussion Items - Purpose of the Joint Meeting: Chair Laura explained that the joint meeting with the Select Board would focus on next steps, specifically whether to hire a consultant and who would pay for it. A possible vote on the agenda is to authorize hiring a consultant. - Trustees' Positions on Hiring a Consultant: - Pat firmly opposed hiring an independent consultant, stating "Absolutely no" and questioning the qualifications of the MHC letter's author (an archaeologist, not an architect). He noted that the Ramsdale Building Committee already has a historic preservationist architect (Pam Sandler) who could advise at no cost. - Russell said he did not have enough information to decide, citing uncertainty about whether MHC's recommendations are suggestions or mandates. - Laura expressed skepticism, noting the cost (estimated $250-$500 per hour, with 20 hours costing up to $10,000) and the tight timeline (a possible MOU deadline by end of the year). She also pointed out that the building's 1930s addition contains little of historic value. - Frederica argued that PDR is qualified (they have historic preservation experience) and that the board should not react in a knee-jerk manner. She urged focusing on getting a letter from MBLC about their experience with similar situations and a letter from PDR addressing their capabilities. She felt that hiring an independent consultant might be a good idea if it gives time to build public support. - Warren (possibly the town manager or staff) noted that the meeting is not to dispute the MHC letter but to decide next steps. He emphasized that the letter's severity surprised even MBLC officials. - Key Questions Raised: The trustees brainstormed questions for the joint meeting, including whether the MHC letter is a mandate, whether it jeopardizes the building's historic designation, whether an appeal/factual response is possible, and whether MBLC will extend the grant deadline if a consultant is hired. They noted that losing the grant could mean forfeiting a significant amount (approximately $2 million from the town plus state funds). Key Outcomes - No formal vote was taken on hiring a consultant, but the consensus leaned against it at this time due to cost, timeline, and the belief that PDR is capable. - The board agreed to prepare a set of bullet points for the joint meeting, including questions to clarify the authority of MHC's letter. - They committed to seeking a pre-meeting answer from MBLC on whether MHC's letter is a mandate and whether an extension on the grant is possible. - They will request letters from PDR (addressing their historic preservation qualifications) and from MBLC (providing context on similar situations). - The meeting adjourned at 6:41 PM.