The board will now come to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Alderman Aldenberg.

I heard a mother.

Uh uh.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman Narry.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sonier.

President.

Alder Woman Cox Answee.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Present.

Alder Woman Boy.

Alderman Aldrich.

President Green.

Present.

Alder Woman Sweiser.

Alderman Call.

Alder Woman Velazquez.

Alder Woman Boy.

11 present.

You have Quorum.

Accorum being present, we will dispense with line items three and four.

Any introduction of honored guests.

Any introduction of honored guests.

Alder Woman from the 10th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I would like to have as my honored guests this morning the beloved spirits of our gone but never forgotten teacher, Miss Kooska.

And gone way too soon, Miss Alexandria, the families, the teachers, of not only Central Vision Performing North, but Collegiate Academy, who experienced the shooting three years ago today.

And there will be a lot of memories and ceremonies for them.

But as we continue to stand in solidarity with Keisha and Ms.

Kuska's family and Dr.

Shaheed and so many others, you can't even begin to name the children first and foremost.

I would ask that we have a moment of silence in remembrance of the shooting at Central Vision Performing Arts three years ago today.

Thank you.

Need further introduction of honored guests, Alderman for the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board.

So if we can make them feel welcome, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you.

Alderman from the 9th.

Thank you.

For my honored guests, uh, I'd love to have my wife, uh Sarah.

Uh today we're celebrating our 11th uh wedding anniversary.

Um happy anniversary.

Any further introduction of honored guests, alder woman from the 11th.

It's blinking.

Maybe try shutting it off and turning it back on.

Okay.

All right, awesome.

Good morning.

Thank you, madam president, and members of the board.

My honored guest today is my mother, whose birthday was yesterday.

My mother um transitioned in 2016.

And so yesterday, I uh was fortunate to have a meeting at Egg restaurant on Locust, which is in the elevated 11th ward, and I had them to make my mother's special breakfast for me.

And that special, I want them to put it on the menu actually, but they saute onions and then saute spinach, and then they put in two eggs and scramble it all together.

And I got her breakfast yesterday in memory of her, but to be honest, every time I go to egg, I always get that.

So if you guys have an opportunity to go buy egg, remember my mother's recipe for breakfast.

Thank you.

Any further introduction of honored guests.

Seeing none, alder woman from the 10th, you're recognized on the approval of the minutes from Friday, October 20 uh 17th, 2025.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move that we approve the minutes from Friday, October 17, 2025.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th.

We approve the minutes from Friday, October 17, 2025.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Report of city officials.

Report of city officials can be found in A, B, C, and D of the agenda and has been placed in the Google Drive for your review.

Dear members of the board, I have the pleasure to submit the following individual for appointment to the Developmental Disabilities Resource Commission.

The appointment of Katrina Adams, who resides in the first ward.

I respectfully request your approval of these appointments.

Sincerely, Cara Spencer Mayer.

Alderman from the 9th, you are recognized on Mayor Spencer's appointment to the developmental disabilities.

Alderman from the 9th.

Thank you.

I'd move that we send this appointment to the Health and Human Development Committee.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 9th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th.

That we send the mayor's appointment to the Developmental Disabilities Resource Commission to the Health and Human Development Commission or Health and Human Development Committee.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Anyone wish to take any bills or resolutions off of any of our informal calendars?

Anyone wish to take any bills or resolutions off of any of our informal calendar?

Seeing none, first reading of board bills.

Board Bill 86, sponsored by Alder Woman Cox Antweed, pursuant to ordinance number 7033 as amended by ordinance number 71394.

An ordinance directing the director of streets to install speed humps to calm the floor traffic on various blocks in the eighth ward.

Board Bill 87, sponsored by Alderman Aldrich, President Green and Mayor Spencer.

An ordinance amending ordinance number 70846 to modify the required times of cooperation agreement with land reutilization authority to manage the Prop NS program, which uses funds raised through general obligation bonds, adjusting the caps on the amounts of bonds proceeds available per property for future bond issuance and requiring consumer price index adjustment to such caps.

Board Bill 88, sponsored by Alderman Browning, President Green and Alderman Devotee.

An ordinance updating the Title II election of Municipal Code of the City of St.

Louis, updating, clarifying, and removing outdated language within the election code, including filing fees, the certificate for nominations, and containing procedures in the event of a tie.

Board Bill 89, sponsored by Alderman Browning, Alder Woman Sweitzer, Alder Woman Clark Cover, and Alderman Orion.

An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service of the City of St.

Louis, establishing multiple public works and improvement projects for the CAS Avenue Multimodal Court Corridor Transform Phase 1, traffic management enhancement phase nine on Skinker McCauslin and Christy Greenway phase two within the city of St.

Louis containing an emergency clause.

That's the extent of first reading of board bills.

Reference to committee of board bills.

To public infrastructure, Board Bill 86 and 89 to HUDS Committee, Board Bill 87, and to the Special Committee on Reducing Red Tape, Board Bill 88.

That's the extent of reference to committee of board bills.

Second reading report of standing committees.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item 14.

Report of special committees.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item 15.

Board bills for perfection consent.

Board Bill 63, sponsored by Auto Woman Cox Antwerp, an ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission on June 17th, 2025 to change the zone in the property as indicated on district map from F neighborhood commission commercial district to C multiple family dwelling district and city block 141A, so as to include the described parcel land in city block 1418 containing an emergency clause.

Board Bill 80, sponsored by Ottawana Clark Hubbard and ordinance to repeal ordinance number 69056 concerning the city's participation in the property assessment clean energy act and enacting a new ordinance regarding the same to enable the city to join Missouri Clean Energy District in order to provide an additional authorized entity through which owners of property within the city may obtain financing for energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements to their property pursuant to Missouri's property assessment clean energy act stating the steps to be taken by the city in connection wherewith an activity such district may conduct in the city as a member of such district.

Board Bill 67, sponsored by Alderman Browning, pursuant to ordinance number 7033 as amended by ordinance number 71394 and orders directing the director of streets to install speed humps to calm the floor of traffic in the ninth ward.

That's the extent of board bills for a perfection consent calendar.

Alder woman from the 10th, you're recognized on the motion to adopt the board bills for the perfection consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I move that we adopt the board bills for perfection consent calendar.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the 10th, seconded by the alderman for the 14th, that we adopt the board bills for the perfection consent calendar.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Board bills for perfection.

Board Bill 53, sponsored by Auto Woman Keys and ordinance directing the director of streets to install speed humps pursuant to ordinance number 7033 as amended by ordinance number 71394 to calm the floor of traffic on the 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, and 4600 blocks of Quarter Avenue.

Alder Woman from the 11th, you're recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 53.

Good morning again.

Thank you, Madam President.

So I would like to uh amend board billder woman.

First, you need to make a motion to perfect.

Oh, I'm sorry.

We can amend.

Okay, I would like to make a motion to perfect board bill 53.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the 11th seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we perfect board bill uh 53.

Alder woman, you now may proceed with your amendment.

Thank you.

I would like to amend board bill 53.

Would you like to make a motion to amend?

I'd like to make a motion to amend bill 53.

Second.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 11th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we amend Board Bill 53.

Alder Woman, you may proceed in explaining the amendment.

Thank you.

So in my excitement to um try to get uh speed humps for the blocks of Carter Avenue that are in the elevated 11th ward.

I encroached upon the 12th ward's territory.

And so that is the reason for the amendment.

Okay.

It's been uh moved by the Alder Woman from the 11th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th.

That we adopt amendment number one to Board Bill 53.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Alder Woman, you are now recognized on the perfection of board bill 53 as amended.

Thank you so much.

So Board Bill 53.

Um seeks to have that I think I can hear you.

Okay, good.

Thanks for so much.

So this board bill, Board Bill 53, seeks to have speed humps placed along a busy street in the elevated 11th ward on Carter uh Avenue.

And so would you like to make a motion to perfect Board Bill 53 as amendment?

I would like to have Board Bill 53 perfected.

Thank you.

It's been moved by the older woman from the 11th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th, that we perfect Board Bill 53 as amended.

Is there any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Madam President, can you hear me?

Because I've been saying second, second, second, and I didn't know if you could hear that.

I was we okay.

I have just the 14th has been first.

Okay, no problem.

I just didn't know.

I rise in support of this bill.

Um because we are getting ready to put down the 45 and the 46 and 4700 blocks of Carter.

So this will really work well because Carter has become a place that people speed up and down.

Once uh Natural Bridge was uh uh they placed a big median in the middle of natural bridge, it didn't it necessitated that most of the Kingsway East neighborhood, much of the Pinrose neighborhood, must much of the Greaterville neighborhood, and even the O'Fallon neighborhood had to get speed humps because the people uh moved to get off of natural bridge um and to get onto the side streets.

So uh Carter was one of one of them, and it is one that I share with the Alder Woman from the 11th.

And so ours should be going down any day now or soon.

And uh ours got passed back in uh 2024.

So we welcome this addition.

Uh to uh it's unfortunate that we have to have the humps, uh, but we do.

So this will be uh a good connector between the 11th and the 12th ward, and I rise in support of the bill.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, it's been moved by the alder woman from the 11th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we perfect board bill 53 as amended.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed motion carries board bill 53 has been perfected.

Board bill 62 as amended in committee, sponsored by Alderman Devoti.

An ordinance regulating the operation of golf courts up on the streets, alleys, and public right-of-way within the city of St.

Louis.

Alderman from the fifth, you are recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 62 as amended in committee.

Yes, madam president, I would move that we perfect Board Bill 62 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the fifth, seconded by the Alderman from the 9th that we perfect Board Bill 62 as amended in committee.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Uh yes, madam president, members of the board.

Uh this particular board bill has two purposes.

Uh purpose number one is to legitimize to make legal the operation of golf carts on city streets.

The second purpose is after doing so to put in place common sense regulations with respect to that operation, both in terms of equipment use as well as means of operation or places of operation.

Is there any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Alderwoman from the eighth.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Um, I want to start today uh by saying uh thank you to the alderman for proposing this legislation.

I think it's really important that we do have Alder Woman.

If you can make sure you speak into the mic so we can hear you.

It's a little short.

How do I okay?

I'll just do this.

Um I think it's really important that we do have um baked within our city code an approval to use utilize golf carts in the city of St.

Louis.

I completely Alderman that we do need to have approval.

Thank you, Shane.

Um, for golf cart usage, because I recognize this is uh a very important mode of transportation to many people in our city in the eighth ward in particular.

Uh we have a number of golf cart recreational organizations uh that utilize golf carts, celebrate golf carts, um, and have uh camaraderie built around golf carts usage in our city.

So I agree with the alderman that this is important.

Where I have concerns on this legislation is that I think um some of the restrictions that the alderman is proposing are counterproductive to that usage.

And what I want to raise today is that I think this legislation is very important, but I think it's important that we also get it correct and that we get it correct so that we can keep the golf cart camaraderie that we currently have.

Um so will the alderman from the fifth please yield for questions.

The alderman from the fifth yields questioning from the alder woman from the eighth.

I yield.

Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Alderman.

Um, I want to start by first talking about uh some of the safety recommendations that you have in this legislature.

Um I think in the current text, you outlined some requirements for safety uh recommendations, including headlamps, mirrors, um, and other restrictions.

Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

With headlamps in particular, I think it's um known to many golf cart users that some golf carts come equipped uh with a light bar that is in the front of a golf cart.

And I know this is something that we've talked about again, just thinking about all of the uses that would fully encompass Garf cart registr legislation.

Um, and so I know uh you and I had discussion on this.

Would you be willing to accept a friendly amendment to add not only headlamp but or a front fracing uh equipment like a light bar to your bill?

So you're asking specifically with if I would agree to amend Section 2, subsection A, to essentially state two headlamps and then add or a light bar.

Yes, that is correct.

I I would agree to that friendly amendment.

There would be no objection.

Okay.

Thank you, Alderman, and I really appreciate you accepting that.

Again, I think this is just example of where we may have some oversight and some of the equipment you that golf carts use.

So I appreciate you accepting that amendment.

I want to raise uh a couple other questions for you.

Do you have that amendment written out?

We need to vote on the amendment.

Um I can get it written.

If it's if it's a friendly amendment, we can take it, but we're still gonna need a motion and a second to be able to adopt the amendment.

Okay.

Yeah.

Are you accepting it as a friendly amendment and then I can circulate out a copy of that text really quickly?

Okay.

So Madam President, can I move to adopt uh amendment one adding or light bar to board bill number uh sixty point of order?

Uh Alderman from the fourth, please state your point of order.

Excuse me, there's an amendment number one in the drive already.

Okay.

So just to make sure that we don't have overlap there.

Correct.

So do we want to how many amendments do we currently have in the drive?

Only one that I'm aware of right now, uh Alderman.

That's that is all I'm aware of also.

Okay.

So if you would like to name it amendment number two.

Yes.

I would like to name it number two.

So, Madam President, I move that we adopt amendment number two adding or light bar to the Alderman from the bill 62.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the eighth, seconded by the Alderman from the 7th that we adopt amendment number two to board bill number 62 as amended in committee.

Um is there a second?

Or there is a second.

Any discussion?

Alderman from the third.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um we don't have anything on writing on our desk with respect to the amendment.

I understand that it's a friendly amendment, but before we vote on anything, typically, uh especially if it's a if it's a friendly amendment, we don't need to have it in writing.

A matter of substantive change to a board bill would typically have something in writing.

If it's a scribner's error or what have you.

But this is very unusual that we don't have anything in writing.

And not that I'm opposed to the amendment, but typically we would take time in order to get something in writing, either upload it to the drive or on our desk.

Can I speak to the alderman from the third?

Yes, Alderman from the third, are you done?

I am, thank you.

Alder woman from the eighth.

Yes, thank you, Madam President.

I I do have a other a couple other quick questions, so I am happy to have that text uh written out in writing for the board and circulated as we discuss the bill before we adopt that.

So I can uh make that motion at a later time and finish my remarks.

Then can you uh we need you to pull back your uh motion and uh the second?

Okay, madam president, I will withdraw my motion so that I can circulate the text for the review.

Alder woman from the seventh, do you withdraw your second?

Yes, I would draw my second.

Okay.

Alder woman, you may proceed.

Okay.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um can I ask that the Alderman from the fifth yield again for further questions?

Alderman from the fifth, will you yield to questioning from the Alderwoman from the eighth?

I will, yes.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um Alderman Devotee, uh, a couple other quick things I wanted to just call out for discussion on this bill.

Um again, I know you and I have had many discussions and you have had many town halls on this subject, both with my constituents and with other constituents in the city.

Um thing that was raised um from some of those town halls is uh the requirement in your bill for uh prohibition for utili utilization of golf carts in city parks.

So in the current text, is it correct that your language states that golf carts are prohibited um in all public parks except for forest park with some carve-outs?

Uh yes.

Uh as we currently stand, golf carts are prohibited in all city public parks except Forest Park.

Uh and as otherwise designated by the director of the Department of Parks Recognition and Forestry.

So I think it is also important to note the second part of that that particular restriction.

But the second part of that particular restriction says and as otherwise designated.

So that still states that parks are prohibited for use and that the director of city parks may make further designations for other restriction of uses.

Is that your understanding of that text?

That is correct.

Okay.

I think my concern with that language is that one thing that we recognize is part of the benefit of having golf carts is that uh residents will utilize golf carts to drive to parks for festivals, for concerts, for sporting events.

And so having a prohibited use, a blanket prohibited use of golf carts in all public parks would basically take away that benefit for having that reduction in parking for public concerts, for public sporting events.

Would you I guess what is your response to that concern, President?

I would disagree with that.

I I think that folks could still operate their golf carts to their local uh park.

They could park the vehicle on the street, and they could still access the park as they otherwise intended.

Okay.

Thank you for sharing your perspective on that.

And this brings me to uh my second question as it relates currently in your bill.

Is it correct that it states that no person shall park uh golf carts or on any sidewalk?

Is that currently correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

So within many of our parks, they are not only have sidewalks or park lanes going through the park, they have sidewalks on the periphery.

Um and in many of our areas, including very dense areas like Maya areas in the eighth ward.

Um, when you are bringing your golf cart to a facility, um, sometimes it is necessary to park your golf cart um in an inner way where maybe you are trying to get to a park or residential area where the only alternative place to park is on a sidewalk.

And I totally believe um and understand the spirit of where maybe this text is going, which is that we do not want golf carts to obstruct uh our ability to access have access for pedestrians to park on sidewalks.

But I think when we're talking about trying to have reduction in parking and reduction in congestion congestion, restricting the ability for golf carts to be in public parks and then restricting the ability for golf carts to have any uh parking on sidewalks only adds to some of that congestion for parking.

So, what is your response to that concern?

I think what this particular bill does is it acknowledges that golf carts are an effective, efficient way to move about on public roadways.

Uh what we are essentially doing is we are recognized the capacity to use these motorized vehicles uh among cars, among SUVs, among minivans, among trucks.

Um what you are suggesting in some criticisms of this is then that we permit them on places that are designated for pedestrian use sidewalks.

Uh what the bill also does is it restricts these golf carts in bicycle lanes.

I think we've we've got to pick our poison here.

Are these vehicles fit for driving in the public streets?

I believe they are in certain circumstances.

Having said that, the sidewalks within our public parks are there for pedestrian use, pedestrian enjoyment.

And I don't see, I just frankly don't see how limiting golf carts to parking on the street, the same street they used to get to that public part, is it is an awful restriction.

I mean, that's that's my response.

I understand your perspective.

I think again, when we just think about the practical use of how people use their golf carts for enjoyment in parks, for entertainment to events to reduce the congestion that many areas of our city already have from cars.

I think I understand the intention of what you're saying, but I think the application quite frankly is not just fully feasible.

I think it totally makes sense to have golf carts park on streets with the exception of many of the reasons that why people drive their golf carts to places is because they don't want to drive their carts because they don't want to end up with the congestion in many areas where we quite frankly already don't have enough parking around our city parks.

I also just think practically speaking, a lot of the people that use golf carts use it to get from one residential point to another.

Um and so I think if I'm understanding the intention of what you're trying to say with this language, is you don't um want golf carts to obstruct pedestrian access.

And I think when we think about the size of many golf carts and uh where they can mostly park, I think quite frankly, and I understand your bill is being proposed as is we could say that golf carts don't need cannot obstruct pedestrian access on city sidewalks without uh prohibiting their use on sidewalks altogether.

We could say that golf carts don't need cannot obstruct pedestrian access on city sidewalks without uh prohibiting their use on sidewalks altogether.

That's just currently my perspective.

I understand you have your own, and I thank you for taking the question.

Um as a a final point, um, and I understand uh we have had many discussions on this, and you made an amendment in committee to increase uh the speed limit allowance from what I think your original text was was 25 miles an hour to 30 miles an hour.

I just wanted to bring this up again for the record, um, because I know a lot of my constituents, my ward where we have um major sizable public parks.

I have Benton Park, I have Lafayette Square Park, um, and a lot of high residential areas and high speed streets around there, Arsenal, Gravoy, Mississippi, um, streets where we do have 30 and 35 mile an hour um major high intersections.

Again, I just think this uh creates some of the challenges for residents that may need to cross some of these high speed streets and use some of the high-speed streets to again get from one residential area to another.

Um so I appreciate you making this change in committee.

I think quite frankly, there could be more done there to address that concern.

Um, but I did just want to say that for the record again, parts of this bill.

Um, while their uh spirit may be well intentioned, the practical function of many areas of our city uh quite frankly just create may create more challenges than benefits.

Thank you.

If you want to prepare your amendment, I'll go to a couple of other speakers and then we'll come back to you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Alderman from the fourth.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Uh I have uh worked with um Alderman Devotee on this.

Uh there's one issue that arose uh under the bill as written, uh you would not be able to leave the dog town area in a golf cart because of the lane restrictions.

Uh so I've worked with the alderman on a friendly amendment, which is amendment number one and the drive that would allow for uh it would change the uh lane limitation from two lanes to three lanes uh to allow and that that would allow uh golf carts to to leave that area.

Uh so I move that we adopt amendment number one to Board Bill 62.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the Forest, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th that we adopt amendment number one to Board Bill 62 as amended in committee.

Is there any discussion on the amendment?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion.

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Thank you.

Um if the alderman from the fifth would I'm sorry, yes, Alderman from the fifth would yield.

The Alderman from the fifth yields questioning from the Alder Woman from the 12th.

I will yield, yes.

Alder women, you may proceed.

Thank you, um, Alderman.

Um I actually started out really being against this bill, did a lot of research, uh, ended up with some things that I really like.

Um started to learn about golf courts versus uh what's the other uh there's another term for another uh UVE or whatever that they use and found out the differences in them and found out that there actually is a recommendation of what if you're gonna let golf courts be used, uh that um there's some recommendations about things that you have on a golf cart so that they would be street ready.

Um that made sense to me, headlights, tail lights, turn signals, reef rear view mirrors, horns, mufflers, windshield or goggles, which I think that we should have because if you're driving along at a high speed, if you don't have a windshield or some kind of goggles or protective eyewear, um then that could cause an accident.

Um uh we needed some kind of sp some kind of thing to tell us how fast they're driving.

And so um I don't think that your board bill requires it, but how will you know if you're driving a certain speed if they don't we don't require that to be in it?

Where I have a problem, and I don't understand, and I'll go back to what the Alder Woman from the 8th said, is your pro you uh want to prohibit the golf course with from being operated with any public park except Force Park.

And um I agree with you about not parking uh golf carts on side on uh sidewalks.

Nobody should be parking on sidewalks.

Um they do have some bicycle racks that you sometimes are adjacent to a sidewalk or on a sidewalk, but other than that, um, if it's going to be able to operate on a street, I think it should be parked on the street.

But can you explain to me why you shouldn't be able to operate a golf cart in Forrest Park?

I mean, I'm sorry, not in Forest Park, in the other parks, the other large parks.

Yeah, absolutely.

And and again, to clarify, Alder Woman, uh what we do provide within this particular bill is the ability of the director to designate uh parks in which carts can be operated.

But generally speaking, you are correct.

And and here's the thought behind it.

Um and let me let me talk in terms of an example.

Uh this past year, uh, we spent several thousands of dollars rolling uh rolling parks, rolling grounds within the fifth uh the fifth ward, specifically Tillis and Sublet Park.

They are large recreational parks, they are parks that are used throughout the spring and summer for baseball, for softball, for soccer.

So a fair amount of money was spent to roll those.

Uh the money was spent out of concern for kids, 10-year-olds, 12-year-olds, rolling knees, rolling ankles while they're playing ball.

And so the thought was to spend money to make our park services safe.

And then we have rain.

And very quickly, we have moms and dads that aren't parking on the streets, but rather are rolling their golf carts toward those fields and onto those fields.

The ones that we just spent money making, say for our children and those using those fields.

So the work that we just did was essentially come to a waste.

That's an example of why generally, generally, this particular bill says they are prohibited.

Now, I understand that from neighborhood to neighborhood, there may be specific needs or specific circumstances that would lead the director to make an exception.

And that's why we included the language.

So that if a particular neighborhood had a use for a park that was exceptional or unique, they could petition the director, the commissioner, and make that change.

So that was the thought process, ma'am.

Thank you.

So here's some suggestion for somebody been on streets for 27 years.

I was the chair of streets, vice president's streets for a lot of years, set on parks, is that you just get ordinances passed in your park saying that they can only uh they cannot drive on the grass.

So I know that um fairground parks, O'Fallon parks have big road lanes.

So I guess you and I came from a different assumption.

I was not uh assuming that the people would be driving on the grass, because that's easily uh fixed by prohibiting driving on the grass.

But in fairgrounds parks, but in O'Fallon parks, and I don't have a golf cart, but in those uh parks, I don't see the problem of people driving, and they got street lanes just like they do in Forest Park or Tower Grove Park where I used to live.

All of those parks are parks where if a golf cart is driving in um on the uh streets, there should not be any problem.

The way I read your uh bill, it says that uh the person couldn't operate it with except for in forest park.

I think that's an overreach.

And I think if that's what you want for your particular parks, then you take that out, and then you put that in for your parks in your ward, and you can put up no parking signs and you can pass ordinances for that, but it is a very much an overreach, and I would not be voting for this because of that.

Like I said, I started out against it, and then when I read it and learned more about it, I understood that we should have um some uh regulations.

But if we're gonna say that the golf carts have to park on the street, not the sidewalk, but we let cars drive through parks, then those same streets that the cars can drive on, then the golf carts should be able to drive on.

Wouldn't you agree?

We can't have it both ways, our Alderman.

So explain to me the difference.

I I think the issue is when I think of parks, not just in my ward, but in neighboring wards, they each have their own character, they each have their own flavor.

Uh, I'm thinking now about uh Tower Grove Park.

Um how do we define a street?

How do we define a trail?

There are different pathways of different spots that are certainly accessible by motor vehicles, cars, trucks, SUVs, but then there are others that some might might consider to be a gray area.

I admit it that would be applied citywide, but it also provides for flexibility, so that for instance with Tarogrove, Carondola, O'Fallon Park, whatever it might be, it can be addressed with the by the local neighbors, by the alder with the director.

I think it's a good mesh, a good way to address an issue citywide without picking parks out and legislating them.

Here's I think the flip side.

Uh we just spent, we just completed a wonderful project on the east side of Forest Park.

Uh Alderman Browning, a handful of weeks ago, months ago, brought it to our attention, talked about a dedication, encouraged us all to visit that area of Forest Park that that was um uh uh improved.

My wife and I went out, we took them up on his invitation.

Trails that are wide, trails that are clearly intended for pedestrian use and only for pedestrian use.

They're separated from the roadway, for instance.

There are folks in golf carts, or I saw one, and I admit it it was only one.

But the idea here is let's create a rule, something that we're not arguing about.

And then piece by piece, we can we could we can deal with those unique situations.

That's my thought pattern.

I appreciate your comments.

I understand your perspective, but I've got to agree to disagree on the best way to handle those unique circumstances.

No, what I hear from you is that you have a perspective, and instead of addressing your issues in the community that you live in, you said, let's make this an overreaching rule.

This is overreaching.

Um the auto woman from the 11th has a golf cart.

Both O'Fallon and both uh fairground are in her ward.

I again, she has a right to drive in that park.

She has a right not to have to go and get a special uh dispensation from the parks director if she's gonna drive on a street that a car can drive on.

That makes no sense.

You just made a very good argument about why golf carts should not be parked on the sidewalk.

I totally agree with it.

But that has to be the same arguments, why golf carts can drive on any park that allows cars to drive on that street.

So that's very simple.

Your your your uh ordinance is overreaching by saying you can't do it in any parks.

I have actually now a lot more parks.

Uh for years I've only had uh Sherman Park, Handy Park, and Penrose Park.

And Penrose Park doesn't have except for one street that goes through it, and golf carts absolutely should be able to drive on that street because it's the only street that cuts through the park.

So you wouldn't be able to go through the park, and it's a pretty wide street going two ways, so there makes no sense that I would have to go back and talk to the park director.

Oh, well, we should let golf carts be park uh driving here because they are allowed.

You're gonna take something away from that.

I said I want to say the same thing about Sherman Park is big enough.

Now, uh uh Tandy Park that is not big enough.

I have Handy Park, I have a lot more parks.

I have a park up in Baden.

There are other parks that there's no place to drive in.

And if you said they can't drive on grass in the park, okay, we got that.

Okay.

If you then want to restrict further in your parks, but to tell the Otter Woman from the 11th that she cannot drive her golf cart in O'Fallon or in fairgrounds, or if I want to start driving one, that's overreaching.

Especially it's overreaching in the Penrose Park area, if somebody wants to do that, because that's the only way to get through the park.

So you would tell them they can't go to the park.

You're making uh overreaching ordinance that you actually wrote a pretty good ordinance, but the parks have no business being involved in that.

And I'm adamantly opposed to that and will be opposed to that.

And I don't want to have to go.

If you want extra uh ordinary rules, then you go and make those.

You don't make it for everybody else.

There's a reason when you've been down here for a long time, you don't come with things that cover everybody else.

Because one uh one uh situation does not cover all in many situations, and you don't know enough about them.

And if it was an uproar, um then maybe I could hear.

Um and I'll give you an example.

For years, people sped up and down Natural Bridge, people got killed, killed, killed.

The black Ottoman talked about it all the time.

Nobody wanted to do anything about it.

Then when they start happening downtown and every place else, then it got to be something that needed to be fixed in uh in South St.

Louis.

But for years before that, you can just go on the paper.

People were getting killed on Natural Bridge and Fair.

It was like every other week or so, all kind of people uh got killed there.

Now at that point, I did not represent that area.

I do now.

I I do with the Alderman woman from the 11th, but um the extreme or extraordinary um I want to say solution that they attempted to do is something that the community hates.

And ever since I picked it up, every time I go to a meeting, I have a conversation, they hate it.

It is not something that was good for them.

So again, I say I will not support this bill, and I'm adamantly opposed to it because of the park thing, because that is talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Well, you can't park on the driveway on the sidewalk because you are driving in the lanes that cars do.

But now cars can drive through the parks on um in streets, but the golf carts can't.

That does not make any sense.

It is not consistent.

You need to be consistent.

I can support you if you are.

If you are not, I am opposed to it, and I would tell other people to.

Long as you're talking about not parking on the sidewalk.

I agree.

Um, we need to get special parking for golf carts for the pay places that use them a lot, just like we did with bicycles, like we would do.

What do we do about motorcycles?

What do we do about um motorized bicycles?

So I think that you have uh hit on something that uh I didn't think of, but a lot of makes sense, and especially when I looked across the country, but they don't say you can't drive golf carts in a park.

That makes no sense at all.

And I would uh ask anyone who uses a large park to look at the ordinance and think about it.

I used to live in South St.

Louis for a number of years.

I lived in the central court and I've lived in the North St.

Louis the longest, but I lived one block from Tower Grove Park, so I've been using Tower Grove Park since 1979.

That's when I first lived over there, and uh most certainly there's no reason for golf carts not to be driven through Tower Grove Park.

I want to say the same thing about Crown Delette Park.

I want to say the same thing about there's a park down in Southwest St.

Louis that you can drive golf golf courses to carts through, and I know O'Fallon, uh Fairgrounds, Penrose, Sherman.

There's all these parks that there's no reason to have a regulation where we have to go and ask the uh parks director for something that they have a right for right now.

I am again was not a fan of this because I heard a lot of misinformation about what it said because it was like it's saying we can't drive golf carts.

That it doesn't say that, but what it does do is um is inconsistent in its application.

You you cannot say a car can drive through the park, but a golf cart cannot.

You can restrict where they drive in the park if you say they cannot drive on pedestrian lanes.

You can clearly mark those, they cannot drive on bicycle lanes that can be clearly marked, they cannot drive on the grass, and I understand you're talking about spending money.

I had to spend a hundred almost 200,000 because Penrose, I'm sorry, Handy Park was built on a old dump and they did not compact the uh trash years ago, and so they threw all this stuff in and then they put a park over it and it was always this water in the middle of it.

And we spent a couple of hundred thousand dollars to fix it.

Um, and um I have been on the director of parks just to tell you why I don't believe in that.

Um, because now cars drive up into that park for over six to seven years.

I've tried to get the director of parks to put the balance, some removable ballots, so that when they want to cut the grass, that it could be done in a way that we keep it protected, except for when they need to remove the ballards so that the person who cut the grass can come in.

And for five or six years, she hadn't been able to do that.

So I do not have any full faith and ability at all in the parks director to do the right thing.

And um she complained to some people, um, one of the former park commissioners about she didn't know what the black alderman wanted, and she didn't know that it came right back to us.

What we want is to be treated fairly, and we want her to do her job in a fair manner.

We want her to get it done expeditiously when things are requested of her, and she does not do that.

So I don't have faith in her personally, but I don't have faith in an ordinance that doesn't make any sense.

Either the uh golf carts are going to be treated in much the same matter on our city streets and park streets in the same as the car, or they're not, but they can't be you can't park either.

You can park on sidewalks um because you're a golf court, but you can't use the excuse, you can't because they're parking and driving in the streets, and then say, but they cannot uh park drive through the parks makes no sense, makes absolutely no sense, and that should be removed from the board bill.

It's overreaching.

And for that reason, I'll if you leave it there, I will not be supporting it.

Thank you.

I have nothing further.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um may I uh ask the alderman of the fifth ward to yield to questions.

Would the alderman from the fifth yield to question from the older woman from the 11th?

Yes.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

So, you know, and I I said this in committee.

This bill is or that the issues of golf carts is not a problem throughout the elevated 11th ward, nor do I believe it is a problem in the 12th ward or the 13th ward.

These are north side wards.

Uh I cannot speak for the 10th ward.

I don't know if if there is a plethora of golf cart users there, other than uh the alder woman of the Power of 10 ward.

However, um the issue that I have is that there are golf carts that literally are the size of motor vehicles that are registered to be on the roads.

Uh when we talk about our parks, uh, as stated uh very well by Alderwoman Tyus of the 12th ward, that the north side parks in my ward, which would be O'Fallon Park, uh, and chiefly O'Fallon Park, I'll I'll start with that one.

Um Alderman Devotee, have you been to O'Fallon Park?

Uh I have been.

Uh been to a Fallon Park a handful of times, yes, ma'am.

So then you know that there is a substantial incline uh as you enter the park trying to make your way to the parking lot, is that correct?

Yes, ma'am.

I can picture that well, a substantial incline that winds around in order to get to the recreation center and the swimming pool at the top of uh a rise or a hill.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

So I say that to say that this is a difficult walk.

Now we look at the demographic demographic makeup of people in my ward, they're mainly older people, senior citizens.

There have been many times that heading to a meeting or having an event that I have actually took somebody into my golf cart to run them back and forth up the up the hill uh to the park.

Um golf carts in the wards that I mentioned, they're not a problem.

Um as far as my knowledge, I have a golf cart, and there is one other woman who owns scoops of joy, she has a golf cart.

Other than that, I've never seen other golf carts populating that area.

And using my golf cart, and I noticed on here that you have in the alley.

Well, I parked my golf cart in my garage, which is they gotta go down the alley.

And additionally, I have taken residents into my golf cart so that we could drive to see issues that are in the alleys.

Uh, I have driven on to sidewalks to get up to vacant lots to get a better look at issues uh that that are on vacant areas in my ward.

My truck as well as my golf cart are working vehicles, they're not paid for by the city, they're paid for by me.

And I use that to help my constituents to better display issues that they're experiencing.

Um the issues that exist or persist in my areas are ATVs, um motorcycles, those are problems, but golf carts are not a problem.

As I said in committee, I believe that this should be an issue that is taken care of by those wards who respectively have those issues.

This isn't an issue uh for my ward.

Um when we talk about driving the golf carts on the streets, again, many golf carts are the size of actual vehicles that are licensed to be on the road.

When I am driving my golf cart, and by the way, I do have to travel several major streets to get down here to City Hall or to get to a parade, as I've done on a couple of occasions now, and I plan to do more.

I every street pretty much is a 35 mile an hour or more street.

So as I discussed with you at a uh earlier time, and as we talked about this, for example, right at the beginning of my block is West Florida.

Now there's a bike trail on West Florence.

So if I should take the West Florence option, then I travel not in the traffic lane, but I travel in the bike lane.

Incidentally, nobody's really riding that many bikes in my ward that I'm going to be a problem for a bike rider.

There just aren't that many.

So this cuts off West Florida for me.

But let's say if I go just a few blocks south of the street where I live, then I'm running into natural bridge, which is the next major thoroughfare.

As I travel down Natural Bridge, there are I don't know what you call them, little islands that people park their cars who live along that that line.

So I duck in and out when it's safe, um, to allow traffic to pass.

I'm not competing with the car.

I think that anybody who drives a golf cart has enough sense to know that in a race between a car and you you're gonna lose.

And so it is incumbent on the golf cart user to use good judgment and be prudent in the way that they wield that vehicle.

Uh I can't speak for other people, but my golf cart when I purchased it, um, was not street legal.

I had enough common sense to say I need lights, I need turn signals, I need horns, I need mirrors, and then I add a bunch of other little cute stuff.

But in any case, again, it is incumbent upon the user to use good judgment about how they wield that vehicle.

So if we continue coming south, now if I continue up natural bridge, I'm gonna run into Parnell, Parnell turns into Jefferson Major Street.

You know, I'm not competing with cars, and I travel that.

Or if let's say I take natural bridge, go down Vanderventna, another major street, not competing with cars, you know, being prudent.

Uh, and I take that over to Washington, Washington to Compton, Compton to Olive.

When I get to Olive, ah, we run into another bike lane.

When I'm traveling down Olive, again, I am traveling in the bike lane.

Again, I have not experienced one bike rider traveling down Olive at the same time that I'm driving a golf cart.

And I say all this to say that these are not issues that affect the the areas that I'm I'm living or traveling through.

And I really believe, as I said in um in the hearing, is that this needs to be relegated to those wards where this is an issue.

This isn't an issue for me.

We're dealing with storm damage, we're dealing with a whole lot of things in North City that don't have, excuse my French, a damn thing to do with golf carts.

And so for that reason, I I will not be supporting this.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the eighth.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh, I just want to note that amendment two has been circulated for review.

Um, and I would like to remote my motion to uh adopt amendment that's accepted as a friendly amendment.

It's been moved by the older woman from the eighth, seconded by the alderman from the third that we adopt amendment number two to board bill 62 as amended on the floor.

Is there any discussion on the amendment?

Want to make sure that those on okay those online it's for the bell.

Uh seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, aye opposed motion carries.

Any further discussion?

Alder woman from the 12th.

Um, I'm sorry, madam president members of the board.

Uh, the woman from the 13th had her hand up before me, and I've spoken already once, so I think she takes priority.

Alder woman from the 13th, are you still wanting to speak?

Yes, ma'am.

You are recognized.

Thank you.

Madam President, would the outer Mr.

Otterwoman Alderman devotee?

Would you ask a question for me, please?

The Alderman from the Fifth Yield questioning for the Alder Woman from the Of course.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Alderman, I just wanted to ask, because I see a lot of bills that uh aldermen, and I'm just being blunt from the south part of the city, come up with to do a whole listing for a city as a whole.

And so it shows so much difference in north and south, as the auto woman from the 12th and 11 specified in our parks is totally different in the parks in that area.

So when you outdo the bills, have you thought to just focus on your area and not do the whole listed city in regards to you know, like with the golf courts?

Have you looked at this doing it in your area?

Because it seems your area is the issue, not our areas.

Alder Woman, if I could answer that.

Um I want to think back to uh maybe about 15 years ago.

Uh 15 years ago, the presence of a golf cart on a street in the city of St.

Louis, north or south, was unusual.

It was a novelty.

I first remember seeing them in St.

Louis Hills or the area around Southampton.

I lived on the hill now for near 10 years.

Ten years ago, they were present, certainly not to the extent that they are today.

These vehicles are efficient, they're relatively cheap.

Uh frankly, as far as getting around in many ways, they may be better in an urban environment that are to than a traditional motor vehicle.

I know you are saying to me today, Matt, this is something I'm not seeing today in my ward.

Again, I'm thinking about my experience living on the south side and how their popularity has gradually spread out.

Uh and and it has become more and more over the last 10 to 15 years.

So I know you're talking to me from the perspective of today, Alder Woman.

I understand that.

But looking at what these vehicles are, looking at how popular they are in some neighborhoods, I think we could all bet that going forward, we're going to see more and more of them everywhere in the city of St.

Louis, especially if we legalize them.

And let me point out today that they are not legal to operate in the city of St.

Louis on any city street.

They are not now legal.

So let's get that clear when we talk about driving around.

There was a conversation about certain pathways amongst neighborhoods, maybe even downtown, and how the legislation today, as written, would prohibit the ability to drive on four or five lane roads of 30 miles per hour.

Or or or roadways that are 35 or more miles per hour.

I'm gonna speak for a moment now with 27 years of experience as an injury lawyer, if you wouldn't mind me doing that.

Um these things are not, we do not now, not only are they not legal, but there is no right to drive a golf cart on a city street.

It is a privilege which we are now legislating should this bill pass today.

Now, having said that, let's talk in terms of what they are.

They are open vehicles with no crashworthiness.

Essentially, folks are operating or riding in an open cart down city streets.

Now, the question has been both in committee conversation, why not make these legal across the board without restriction of lane usage, without restriction to speed?

As an injury lawyer with 27 years of experience, we know that there are studies that show if a pedestrian is struck by a vehicle moving 30 miles per hour or more, there's a 90% more chance of a fatality.

Now, many of you might say to me, Matt, we're not talking about a pedestrian.

We're talking about someone sitting in a golf cart.

Correct.

And I would argue with you that that chance of injury is as much, if not greater, following ejection.

I'm arguing that to you as someone who has represented folks driving on motorcycles and pedestrians and other vehicles on City Street that were struck.

And then we could also talk about data when we're talking about legalizing these.

And Matt, why not legalize them without any restriction?

Because we know from very limited data we have, and again, since they're not legal, it's hard to catch data.

But we know from the folks at our pediatric or our nearby pediatric hospitals that over the last calendar, not calendar year, 12 months, there has been 11 incidents where children, our children have been treated at St.

Louis at Cardinal Glennon Hospital, where there have been reports going to the national trauma database.

These aren't injuries where there are scratches or bruising.

These are serious injuries requiring admission.

We know from our other hospital.

Data we acquired just this week from Washington University physicians, that there has been a steady increase on reports at that hospital of pediatric injuries.

So alder woman, I hear you.

And what I would suggest is while you don't see any or many or very few in your ward today, this is something that I think you will see.

And I do think, and I'm going to echo what the alder women for the first said a handful of weeks ago about what our job is here with respect to legislation.

I understand that as you sit today, you view this as a South Side issue only.

What I would ask, what I would ask all of you to do is put aside your provincialism.

This idea that I'm worried about my area and only my area.

This week, just on Wednesday night, I had Julian Nix come down to the fifth ward for a fifth round ward town hall to talk about damage done in North St.

Louis.

Alder Woman Boyd, you know that, and we were very, very lucky, very, very fortunate in the fifth ward.

I mean, no lost houses, a handful of storm damage, a fence or two down.

This is an issue that folks in the fifth ward, frankly, have moved on.

But as someone who represents folks, not just in the fifth, but across the city, and that's how I see my job.

We brought Mr.

Nix in to say this isn't a north side issue.

These people aren't standing alone.

We need you to buy in with respect to this issue.

And Alderwoman Boyd, that's what I'm asking of you today to buy into an issue that is near and dear to me, both as a resident of the hill, the alderman of the fifth, but also as an injury lawyer of 27 years.

I know that was a rambling response, and I'm sorry, but I hope that answers your inquiry.

It didn't, but thank you for the comment.

Any further discussion, Alderman from the third.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh this is a really great example of bills coming out of committee unprepared for discussion on the floor of the Board of Aldermen.

And I've noticed a trend lately where we vote things out of committee so that they can have discussion on the floor the floor with the full board, but they're not fully vetted, they're not fully ready.

And this is a great example, partly because the police chief who I talked to just two days ago, and I've had a couple conversations with him, was just recently approached by the sponsor of this bill to have a discussion around the police enforcement of it.

The alderman from the fifth just suggested that an ordinance can be trumped by a special events permit.

You're saying that making these illegal in city parks across the board, and in committee you inferred this as well, that when we have events that are organized in our city parks, whether that's Forest Park, Tower Grove Park, Fairground Park, wherever.

Those events usually have organizers, volunteers that are on golf carts that are bringing supplies, that are bringing materials that are bringing medical attention to fair goers, event attendees.

So you would suggest that a permit, and I know you're an attorney, so I would think that this is illogical, but if you have an ordinance that prohibits them in city parks, a permit is not going to trump an ordinance.

Period.

They won't be able to issue the permit for that purpose because there's an ordinance in place that prohibits them.

So you're absolutely incorrect there.

This would be a ban on utilizing them.

So you would rather see an ambulance being driven on city park grass than a medical ATV, golf cart, what have you.

You and I had a conversation, Alderman, in my office not too long ago about this bill.

And one of the things that you suggested or mentioned in that conversation was that the state statute that you're declaring we need to pass this ordinance by also says that this could be done via resolution.

A municipality, in order to recognize these vehicles as vehicles as legal on our street, can be done so by ordinance or resolution.

That's what you shared with me in that conversation.

I find it interesting that we continue to have a conversation around this ordinance when half the people on this floor have already admitted privately that this won't even be enforced.

And so that's why we might want to just vote yes on it.

That is absolutely ridiculous.

That we all know that this cannot be enforced.

We have cars parking.

I have complaints from neighbors about many wood park, people pulling their vehicles into the park, driving their vehicles, their two-ton trucks through the park, parking them, having tailgate parties.

Not for football, by the way, just for funds.

This is just grown people having some funsies and kicking back in the back of their truck in a city park.

I can't get a park ranger over there.

I can't get the police over there to enforce that.

And here we are debating whether or not the police are going to enforce a golf cart going 15 miles per hour to provide medical services during an event.

I would be fully supportive of a resolution that enables the city of St.

Louis to allow these vehicles on our streets.

And as I mentioned in our conversation, having parameters and expectations set for safety.

That is how we should be approaching this conversation.

Not passing an ordinance under the guise of public safety when we haven't even had a conversation with the parks department, with the police department, with the public safety director.

I don't recall any of them showing up for the committee hearing.

And yet here we are.

Because I do disagree.

One moment.

Frankly, this bill was heard in committee.

And it was fully vetted in committee.

And the alderman from the third and the alder woman from the 12th had full notice of that particular committee hearing, and they could have very well participated.

So things that they have said today could have been said in committee.

In fact, the uh the provision that the Alder woman from the 12th talked quite a bit about with respect to parks was actually a provision, the the nugget of which was suggested.

So following parks review of the draft bill, they came back and suggested and worked with them to put the language together.

You have said that to me very clearly.

But as the sponsor of the bill, I'm saying on the record that that is nowhere near 50% or more of this body.

Nowhere near.

Two folks.

And I know you don't like this, and I know there's another person that doesn't like it, but that's certainly not 50% plus.

And I think the last thing that I would say with respect to the resolution, and state law to be very clear, does permit us to authorize the use of golf carts on city streets by resolution.

But let's also talk about the effect.

And I think we need to be very careful.

In fact, I would vote absolutely no with respect to that resolution to permit the use of these open vehicles on any street in the city of St.

Louis without common sense equipment and operational requirements.

So I disagree.

Yes.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um so are motorized bicycles allowed on bicycle lanes.

That that's a good question that as I'm staying here today, I'm not prepared to answer.

I don't know.

Do you know the answer?

I do.

I don't know how that's I don't know how that's pertinent to our discussion.

But see, you don't have to because I'm going to tell you because you keep talking about how long you've been a lawyer.

I've been a lawyer just a little longer than you.

But I just wanted to know if you had looked into that, because one of the things I want to and the other thing I want to do before I explain why I asked you that is um on page three or four uh line five, it says drivers with drive with more passengers than the vehicle is specifically designed to hold.

And that says, and what that is talking about, no person shall operate a golf cart shawl drive with more passengers than the vehicle specifically designed to hold.

Can you tell me what that means?

Where are you, ma'am?

I apologize.

Okay, so one of the on page three, line seven.

Starting with that paragraph C, it says, no person who operates a golf cart shall, and then when you go to line seven, operate the golf cart.

I'm sorry, not not line seven, uh line five, drive with more passengers than the vehicle is specifically designed to hold.

What does that mean?

Yes, ma'am.

So that would be talking in terms of seats.

Uh golf carts always have a a seat where driver sits, right?

A position next to them.

Some golf carts have a second row, sometimes they face forward, sometimes they face back.

Uh I have seen golf carts with third and fourth rows.

So we can talk in terms of how many folks are would would be designed to sit on those given seats.

I mean, it's again these things are selled in various ways and in different manners.

So that's why I'm asking you, you're the creator of this uh bill and the sponsor.

So what does design to hold mean?

If the golf cart has a front row, does that mean only two people can ride in it, or does it mean three?

That would mean if it wasn't a uh, and I'll let you answer that before I ask the second part of my question.

That would be two.

Okay.

Um, so um if the golf cart originally had one row of seats, and then uh the purchaser of the golf court added, excuse me, another row of seats would then uh, even though it was not created that way, would the people be allowed to drive, ride in that seat if they created another row of seats?

That particular vehicle would be specifically designed to hold more than two, so yes.

No, but originally it wasn't.

So I have people who have added uh because I played golf since 1973.

So um 73, 73, yes.

So I've had people with golf carts that um have added a role to their golf cart.

So it specifically was only designed for two, but it had enough room to add another role, and so now it has been altered.

So I'm saying if it's altered from the specific original design to hold two, will that allow you uh two rows of people will that allow uh that to happen under your ordinance as you see it?

The instance you're talking about where someone puts a cart and and has somebody alter it so that it is then designed to carry four folks, would be specifically designed to carry four, not two.

Okay, and why is it that uh two rows of seats?

Why is it that only two people could ride?

I know in the front, because you got operating mechanisms and everything else, but in the backward, there might be a bench.

Why wouldn't there be allowed three people to ride on that back bench?

Typically, if you would at a cart and you would look at how the seat is set up, it has two places for an individual to sit.

That's why.

It's not, but typically maybe for you, that's just not true.

As I said, I've played golf since 1973, and they are they have golf carts that have separate front seats, and then just like many vehicles, you can buy a car in my Jeep.

You two people can ride in the front, but in the back seat, three people can ride, and it actually has seat belts for three.

So would that be allowed to have for it to be five instead of your view of being only four?

Who would determine that?

Well, I think it would be deterred by looking at the particular seat we're talking about.

For instance, if you would have a bench installed, specifically designed for a second bench, and in that second bench, there would be three places for somebody to sit, that would be designed for three people to sit.

So again, using my Jeep, it's designed for only two people to sit in the front, but and it's designed because it has a seat belt for three people, but I've seen uh jeeps that don't have seat belts, which I think is a good idea, by the way.

Um, and they have a bench back there, and three people can fit.

So um, what is a design?

If it doesn't have seat cups or places where you sit specifically, but it's just a bench, it's like being in your kitchen.

Who two people can sit on a bench in your kitchen at the table or three if you go to restaurants?

So that would be in the eye of beholder.

That's the only thing I'm uh want to say.

And thank you for your answers.

I want to uh specifically specifically address some things you said.

You talked about uh for 15 years or more, you've watched people in your parts living in South St.

Louis drive around in golf carts.

I want to say um you have to the reason why the alderman from the third got up and uh pointed out some things and saying that both he and I could have come to uh the committee is that we have a little bit more experience than you do, uh lots, in fact, about doing ordinances over the year and board bills.

First thing I want to say is that you talked about the 15 years.

Sam Moore, and we all know who well, all of us so uh served with him.

Sam Moore drove around in the then what was the fourth ward?

Now it's part of the 12th ward in a golf cart for years.

That was how he went around and visited things for years before you came here, Antonio French, which is was part of the 20 first wardens, now part of the 11th, drove around in a golf cart.

There are people that have driven around in a golf cart in many parts of North St.

Louis.

It is not new to us.

We didn't just come to America.

So we know that there are golf carts all over the city.

It's not the same problem.

And the older woman from the 13th was not trying to tell you that she didn't expect that golf carts would be in North St.

Louis.

She's saying that different problems are in different parts of the city and have different solutions.

And I'll give you, you know, I can give you all kinds of examples.

But when you talk about us being restricted in our view, I think that you are being patriarchal in your view.

And because you have a uh problem, you want to say trust you, because you got a solution for it.

You got a solution for a problem that we don't have.

And I'll give you a prime example of it.

And that is these bicycle paths that are all over the place.

Um, in fact, my right now, my community is just up in arms because they just made union in my part of the city uh one um lane because they put these bicycle paths that nobody uses over here.

So they're planning for the future and ignoring the current.

That's what happens a lot of times when people come with these great ideas.

You're planning for the future, but you're ignoring what is currently so in this generation or maybe the next.

And so we spent a lot of money that we gotta take these things up because they made no sense, and the people were irritated about why they put these bicycle paths down, and they first got irritated about it when the former alder woman under the 28th ward put them with these little uh, if you go over there, it looks like little black and white zebras or something.

And I got burnt up when she did it between Forest Park up to Delmar, and myself and then 26th ward uh Frank um Williamson, we got all kinds of calls saying, Why did you do that?

We don't like that.

Our out was that it was not in our community, and we were had no plans of doing it because union is a street that is used in North St.

Louis as a truck route and as a business route.

And in fact, we um years ago took the exit off of I 70 uh at Kings Highway so that the use would be on union.

But somebody with a great idea, former Alderman came up with these bicycle paths years ago, and we're spending all these millions of dollars, and you hardly ever see in North St.

Louis, and I drive all around North St.

Louis, you hardly ever see anybody on those bicycle paths, and but yet we have closed off a whole entire street based on what he thought was a good idea, and that's what I hear from you.

Okay, I also want to uh so when you're thinking that we're being restrictive in our thinking, I'm thinking you're being patriarchal in your thinking and telling us that you know better than what we know for that it's a good ideal in our community, and that's not a good way to uh have people work with you.

And I'll give you an even better idea.

For years we could not have speed humps, we could not have them, and then we passed a little bill that let them have it.

But so then the uh bureaucrats, I'm not gonna name their names, came up with this great idea.

Well, okay, if we're gonna let them have speed humps, we're gonna charge $900 per speed hump to make you do a study.

And we all stood stood dumbfounded because $900 per study, and famously the board, uh the person who's now the uh board's uh liaison, the Alderman Gunther said, I got 30 out there, that will be 30,000.

And they didn't have to say yes or no.

Now, this was a ridiculous requirement, and so I got really upset and angry about it, talked to my colleagues, all who did not like it, wrote the ordinance that you guys use all the time now, saying they could not charge us $900 that we could sponsor uh the uh board bills for speed humps.

That's not that's my I wrote that board bill, okay?

And that was in reaction to bureaucrats who try to overcharge and overreach.

You haven't had to deal with bureaucrats as long as the alderman from the third or I have, okay.

So you don't know that they'll do these kind of things and tell you what a great idea it is.

Again, if you had asked, you want people to talk to you, ask the older people in the other parts.

Are you having a problem like that?

They say no, then sponsor your response to where the problem is.

Creating problems to solve your problem does not make a solution.

And again, when you get to the parks, when you get to saying you can't, you can drive a car in a park, but you can't drive a golf cart in a park, it's ridiculous.

The older woman from the 13th has been the chair of parks recreation forestry for a long time.

Okay, there's nobody coming to her, probably or me or the 11th or or any of North St.

Louis and many of the other people in other parts of the city saying we don't want to drive in a park.

A golf cart is a perfect place to drive in a park.

But because you're being so patriarchal about it, instead of listening and saying, hey, here's a way to get what you need, you're insinuating that we don't care about public safety and that we don't understand the long term view of what's going to happen.

And we do.

Again, I have been on this board since 1991, was off for 10 years because of racism, not because I don't do a good job.

I had done 57 million dollars worth of new stuff in my ward.

And so racism did that.

But I came back.

I sat on streets.

I've been the vice chair of streets, I've been the chair of streets.

And parks are under streets when it comes to some things, which you probably don't know that, okay.

There's never anybody said, oh, older woman, we just need to get rid of those dangerous golf carts.

But at the same time, we're saying a golf cart can't be in a bicycle path.

We let motorized bicycles be in a bad bicycle path.

And by the way, I disagree with your interpretation of what the actual law says.

So I went to get uh 304.034, which is Missouri revised statute.

It says municipalities may regulate may regulate golf carts and motorized wheel wheelchairs usage on streets and highways.

It means we can regulate them.

It did not prohibit it.

In fact, they equate regular golf, they equate golf carts with motorized wheelchairs.

Anybody who wants to go look it up, 304.034.

It goes on to say, notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the governing body of any municipality may by resolution or ordinance allow persons to operate golf carts or motorized wheelchairs upon any streets or highways under the governing body's jurisdiction.

No place did it ever say it was prohibited.

It says that we could allow more or we can regulate.

That doesn't mean it was illegal.

There's no place it says that.

It goes on to say a golf cart or motorized wheelchair shall not be operated at any time on any state.

Now they use that language, shall that's mandatory, shall not be operated at any time on any state or federal highway, but may be operated upon such highway in order to cross a portion of the state highway system, which intersects a municipal street.

So there are some things that we have state highways and intersects a municipal street.

They even let the golf cart cross over that because they keep they're not trying to prevent people from crossing over to get where they're going, as the alder woman from the 11th was trying to explain to you.

Then they go back again and says, no golf cart or motorized wheelchair shall cross any highway at an intersection where the highway being crossed has a post-fit speed limit of more than 45 miles per hour.

Again, when the state mandates something to us, they use that magic word.

It's called shell.

Golf carts operated on any city street shall be equipped with an adequate brake and shall meet any other safety equipment imposed by the governing body.

Golf carts are not subject to the registration provision of chapter 301, which I kind of disagree with, but they don't make them have to be registered.

As in this section, a golf cart means a motor vehicle that is designated and manufactured for operation on a golf course for sporting or recreation purposes, and that is not capable of exceeding speeds of 20 miles per hour.

So anything that you allow that you say can go over 20 miles an hour, then you might have a problem with your uh amendment that you just did with the alderman from the fourth, I think it is, because it says you can it's only a golf course cart if it's not able to exceed 20 miles per hour.

So maybe anything that can exceed more than 20 miles per hour, maybe it's not a golf cart, and maybe you didn't vet it enough.

And so to attack senior older people because they question you, absolutely you can do this at a committee and you do it on the Florida board involvement.

That is what perfection is for.

And so if sometimes you read stuff and you don't get it when you're in committee, but you go back over it, you do the the uh research and you go, oh, wait a minute.

As I said before, I was adamantly opposed to your bill before.

And then, because people kept saying he's gonna keep us from driving on the streets.

And then when I read it, I was like, well, he's not really saying that at all.

And regulations are good, but overreaching regulations are bad.

And so to say you cannot drive a golf cart in city park streets is an overreaching legislatation.

Also, if you can drive um motor size bikes on a bicycle path, and the state itself equates equates, let me make that again.

They equate regulated golf carts and motorized wheelchairs.

So I think we need to have another conversation about is this a good uh board bill?

Because it's not, and it's not prepared.

I don't know if you talk to the police chief or not.

I believe the alderman from the third, if he says that um he's found out that you didn't, I don't think he's making that up.

I do know that he uh has been driving his golf cart for many, many years.

Um, and I would also like to know if since you did talk to him, um, and you are uh all of a sudden saying you can't drive in parks, you can't drive golf carts.

Yeah, you you gave some uh statistics about accidents that are happening on the streets.

I would love to see the statistics about people who have gotten hurt by driving a golf cart in a city park.

And I'll bet you that it's nil to none.

That's what I mean about overreaching.

And if you had such legislation, I mean, if you had such statistics, then you should be bringing them forth.

Um, the auto woman from the eighth brought up some specific things that are unique to um her ward, and especially in the Seulord area and stuff like that.

I know that people use golf carts, and again, that is why the legislature said you can use resolutions, you can use um uh uh ordinances, and I don't know who told you that in resolutions we can't then require things to happen because we can in resolutions and we can pass them.

So they gave us a lot of different ways to do it, and you don't choose to do that.

You want to impose something that a whole part of the city.

When you're talking to the 13th ward, the 12th ward, the 11th ward, you're talking to about 80% of North St.

Louis okay representation.

There's some other parts that people represent, but that's 80%, and it makes no sense that you would think that you would know better than we do.

Um, because the least of us have uh, and when I say that, the person who served the least amount of time of the three I just mentioned has served way longer than you and understands her community.

And before that, she was a committee woman, the 11th Ward Alder Woman.

She does understand her committee.

The 12th, I'm sorry, the 13th ward uh alder woman was a committee woman for many years, uh, the 27th ward before becoming an alder person.

And I've been an alder person for an awful lot of years.

And as I said, I served in committees and on the parks and um head of streets, and there's just no requirement that uh no request from anybody I had that said, oh yeah, those dangerous parks don't let those uh golf carts be in those dangerous parks.

Golf carts was designed to be in parks, and I understand you when you say you spend a lot of money and you don't want them driving across your um parks where you spend a lot of money.

That's fine.

We're regulating golf carts and not cars, because in parks, I see cars parked in the grass.

I hate it.

Uh former um and then became mayor Lyda Cruz and I used to always have a conversation about that.

She had a thing about that, I do too.

Why are you parking your cars on the uh grass in the park?

That is something that should not happen.

But a golf cart, not being able to drive through forest park, I'm sorry, not forest park, fairground parts, O'Fallon Park.

That's ridiculous.

And I want to especially uh comment, uh, make comments about addressing things individually.

The Alderman from the 11th has had a huge problem with people getting off the highway and it's people that preceded her and people going into O'Fallon Park so much so that she's had to block off so much of O'Fallon Park.

She's never felt the need to try to pass a law that says, well, I'm having this problem.

Let me do that for you too, because the problems are not the same.

Um, the Alderman from the third is right, the Ottoman from the 13th and the 11th is right.

This is not good legislation.

It should be put on informal or sent back to committee, and most certainly the part about not driving a um cart in the parks is ridiculous.

And he is right, it is not going to be enforced.

Right now, the third um uh station, the police station is in my ward spin most of the time.

We never see them.

They're getting um now they call me so much that I tell them call the mayor's office, and now they start to get the uh the uh the calls because they're sending them back to me.

We don't see them in our neighborhoods most of the time.

If I go to the Central West End, they're sitting right there on Euclid at some restaurant all the time.

We, in fact, when our captain died a few months ago, we did not have a captain.

They had the sixth district captain covering all of North St.

Louis, which is ridiculous because the sixth district in itself ought to be two different districts.

So you're full of thinking how things work, and we're telling you how things really work, they don't work in any kind of fairness at all.

So coming in telling us this is our major concern is just not true, and saying that people should not uh should be able to be fined or prevented from driving a golf cart in places which cars can drive legally is ridiculous.

And saying that people should not uh should be able to be fined or prevented from driving a golf cart in places which cars can drive legally is ridiculous.

And I would take tell every I would request that everyone who's planning on voting for this legislation, not vote for it.

And um I would do a motion to have this legislation sent back to committee.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion seeing none, then Alderman from the fifth, you are recognized on the motion to perfect board bill sixty-two as amended on the floor, as I think there's no more amendments.

Uh uh yes, madam president.

At this time, I would move that we perfect board bill sixty-two is amended on the floor.

Is there a second?

It's been moved by the alderman from the fifth, seconded by the alderman from the ninth that we perfect board bill sixty-two as amended on the floor.

Alderman Volkall, the fifth, you were recognized to close.

Uh I would point out again that this particular legislation does two things.

It legalizes, legitimizes the use of golf carts on city streets.

Uh, this isn't according to the law of devotee or the law of the alderman of the fifth.

This is consistent with the opinion expressed by our city councilor Michael Garvin.

The second thing it does is we legitimize or legalize the use.

We're also putting in place common sense regulations with respect to their operation.

Uh I appreciate everyone's discussion, consideration, and I ask for your support.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fifth, seconded by the alderman from the ninth.

That we act board bill six as amended on the floor.

There's been a request for roll call.

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Alderwoman Sweitzer.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Call.

Alderman O'Reilly.

Alderman Devoti.

Aye.

Alderwoman Velasquez.

Alderwoman Sanyer.

Aye.

Alderwoman Cox Answe.

No.

Alderman Browning.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard.

Alderwoman Keys.

No.

Alderwoman Thaez.

No.

Alderwoman Boyd.

No.

Alderman Aldrich.

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderwoman's Weiser.

Alderwoman Velazquez.

Eight I votes and five no votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the fifth to perfect Board Bill 62 as amended on the floor.

Board Bill 78 committee sub, sponsored by Alderwoman Schweitzer, Alderman Browning, and Alderwoman Boyd.

An ordinance updating the forestry divisions regulations relating to weeds, native plants, and other vegetation in the city of St.

Louis containing definitions, reporting, abatement, enforcement, and severality provisions.

Alderman from the 9th, you're recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 78 committee substitute.

Thank you.

I would move that we uh pass uh or where we perfect Board Bill 78 committee substitute.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 9th, seconded by the Alderman from the 4th that we perfect Board Bill 78 committee substitute.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Uh as you can all see, I am not Alderwoman Schweitzer.

Uh I'm filling in for her today.

Uh I really want to thank her for this for her work on this.

Um, she's uh probably our board's leading expert on plants and gardens and the and just her passion for this subject is known by many.

Uh I I think this bill is a fairly straightforward bill.

Uh it's a fair it's bringing a balanced approach to how we deal with vegetation in the city by encouraging and even allowing managed native and sustenance landscapes within specific parameters, while also setting stronger regulation uh and definitions for weeds and unmanaged landscapes.

It also brings a process for collection of fines and fees.

And really importantly, more frequent fining for chronic violators.

Uh I want to thank the many stakeholders who engage with us on this bill.

Uh, this is a long list, so bear with me.

Alderman from the 14th, were you at the Alder Woman from the 10th?

President members of the board may have pleased be added as a co-sponsor.

Madam Clerk, if you could please make note of that and also add me as a co-sponsor.

So noted.

I would like to be added as a co-sponsor.

Well, Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

I just wanted to speak in support of the legislation.

I think this is excellent.

This is, you know, native plants and things like that are definitely a high topic of interest in the seventh ward.

And I've had several questions with the forestry and parks department before, just kind of how we go about deciding where to go.

And so I think there are some great changes that are in this uh legislation.

And I would also like to be added as co-sponsor.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

Um, if the person who's carrying the legislation, and since he's not the sponsor, and he's not the other one from the first, Dolphin from the 9th would yield.

I have a question.

The Alderman from the 9th yields questioning from the alder woman from the 12th.

Yes.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Alderman, I got a board from the um sponsor.

I got an informational copy of a presentation.

And I have a question on I don't know what page is this.

One, two, three, four.

I guess they have a picture of a house with it says just depicts a subs a garden utilizing the front yard and tree line.

Um it shows it looks like I don't know if it's uh tomato plants or something like that in the front yard and in the tree line.

So under this legislation, will this be allowed?

Because I couldn't understand if this was something that should not be allowed or will it be allowed?

Uh yes, it would be allowed uh within uh a certain height limit.

Uh that's something that came about from the discussions with the Office on the Disabled uh to make sure that the site lines are maintained for individuals that might be using a wheelchair or children or anyone else who are using our sidewalks.

So uh yes, allowed limit in the tree one would be two feet, but otherwise allowed.

So I understand the front yard.

Um so we're saying now that people can garden in the tree line.

That is correct.

Uh so the tree lawn, as you know, is uh city property.

Uh but uh this is allowing people to do some smaller plants in the tree lawn in order to improve drainage in the city, in order to beautify our city, uh, in order to create uh nicer uh landscapes and um and and just approve that curb appeal.

I understand it.

I I support all of this, except we're having a big fight in my ward right now by somebody who moved on to a street where they keep their lines in peckly uh mowed, and this person has brought in a look much as what this front yard looks like.

And it has been the bane of my existence because they do not like it, and they are really upset about it.

Um I don't know what to do about it because we grow trees and they're used to that because that's a long-term usage of what we use the tree lines for.

But when I start to see this, um, is there a restriction about what kind of plants can be grown or what can be grown there?

Uh just long as it stays under uh two feet.

It it it could be any kind of plant, is that correct?

Yes, the the really great thing about this ordinance is that it um it does allow that, but it also lists the the kind of plants that are uh not allowed.

Uh so invasive plants, no noxious plants, uh no nuisance plants, uh, and we we make an effort to define those things because uh we don't want any ambiguity around this.

We want to make sure that we have well-maintained street lawns, and I think you you and I can both agree there's a difference between a really nice maintained garden in front of someone's lawn and uh a completely unmaintained mess uh that's is being neglected.

And this is meant to kind of strike that balanced approach so that we can bring in those chronic violators while still allowing people to beautify our city.

So I don't know if you and I agree, because I live on a pretty conservative street, and they would not like to see what you're showing here.

Um over the years I've uh submitted to that is what they've done over the years.

Uh, and so I don't do that either.

So here's the thing.

So the tree line belongs to the city.

What's to prevent so what is to prevent anybody that doesn't like what somebody's growing from just cutting it down because it doesn't belong to that person.

Is there anything in this uh ordinance that prevents that?

Uh I wouldn't say that there's anything that I mean the the forestry uh team is gonna have discretion here.

Uh, but I want to make sure that it's clear, you know, a city tree is certainly governed, and uh we do have a we do have an ordinance that's coming.

Uh that's kind of the twin of this ordinance, but for trees.

Uh so happy to talk to you about that.

Um, it's not been introduced yet.

That's not what I'm saying.

Something's not a good thing.

But I'm saying that's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that right now, and I we do have this on a couple of streets where people have just they're growing wildflowers and whatever, and that is just not what the street has done.

And so the unique thing has been for the neighbors to go and just cut it down because they call to ask me, um, but could I just cut it down?

Because it's in the tree line, and that's not what their neighborhood has been about.

And so, is there something here that prevents that neighbor who says, I don't want to be next to this?

This is not what I've lived next to for 25 years or whatever.

Now suddenly this person is bringing something really different because it's not because they can't do it in the front yard.

But is there anything to prevent them now from continuing to just cut it down?

Uh, I I don't believe so.

I I mean, I would encourage everyone in the city when they have a problem with something that is happening on city property, uh, contact the city about that and let us enforce it.

Uh, just the same way that if you see someone committing a crime, we're not encouraging you to go intervene.

Uh, we would like you to call the the proper authorities to come uh deal with that.

So if people have concerns about what their neighbor is planting, uh I really would encourage them to use CSB to report it uh and to follow up with the forestry division in order to inspect it.

So you obviously do not represent North St.

Louis, where we have 7,000 LRA properties.

One of the biggest violators of not doing what they're supposed to do is forestry department along with parks.

So when I came back in uh 2013, um Greg uh Hayes was not the uh director of parks recreation forestry, he was the commissioner.

Uh he was the commissioner of forestry, and um I have a habit of driving my own ward, and so I was driving one neighborhood and I was reporting, oh Greg, they haven't cut the grass here, here, here.

And I was sending him things and calling him, and he said, Well, old woman, they're they've been cut.

So one day I probably sent him 25 or 30 pictures showing not only had they not been cut as reported, but they also have a really horrible habit.

Um, and this is forestry of not going into the rear and cutting the back of the properties.

Um, and so I feel kind of bad for forestry because originally our charter did not envision that forestry would be taking care of anything except for private properties where people didn't cut grass and also city-owned properties, but they've inherited this uh 7,000 pieces of land and property from LRA, which I have advocated for years that we separate that out and get approved just for that, and they don't cut it right.

So right now, across much of North St.

Louis, people actually do cut the grass because the city does not come out and do it, and they have it right next to their own house, and they cannot, they've called so many times.

And so if you represent parts of North St.

Louis, and I've picked up a lot more because I didn't have as much before I picked up what is now called the 12th War, but used to be the fourth ward, uh, which has just, and that would be the Ville Greaterville.

Just my first priority for two years is to get the grass cut there because it was so tall and hadn't been cut.

So when you say that, call the city, they do call the city.

The city doesn't do anything.

And I actually have a house in my ward now.

Um, and um, that the grass has grown so tall that it has enveloped the entire house.

And um, I've taken forestry out there before.

I've just recently talked to the new director of operations, but it's not as simple as you think.

It should be just that simple.

They should be able to make a phone call.

We should not be letting forestry uh leave in November and and we should not be having these um uh seasonal workers.

They need to be there all year long.

They need to be going to those backyards, which they know daggum well they're not cutting, and they should be taking tractors and uh backloaders and cleaning out those yards because what the city has done is put the onus on the next door neighbor who has nothing to do with it to leave that grass and leave those weeds and um we have um animals and possums and everything else in our community because the city isn't has not been doing their job.

And so when you say that, that sounds very reasonable, except for it's just not again talking about reasonable and then actually talking about what actually happens is why people stop calling or they get mad and leave.

We've had 24,000 people leave in the last four years under the prior administration.

Many of them middle class and upper middle class black people who just got tired of it and said, I'm out of the city.

Okay, so when you say that, that doesn't happen.

So I just want to know if anything stops them from cutting grass.

Um, and it doesn't, from what I can understand what I've read.

I want to see if you saw it any place because they will continue to go and cut grass.

And unfortunately, sometimes they will cut grass where people may be staying because it does not, it is not the city's.

I mean, it is not the person's property, it is the city's property.

Um, and so I think we're gonna have a slight problem there.

Um we need to make room for mediation or something else.

But mostly what what you said is that they should be able to call the city and it the grass gets cut properly.

And so I'm for that.

And I've been for that, and I've passed resolutions for that, and I've passed bills for that, and it still doesn't happen.

So telling the people who live next door to property that is not fully maintained the way they think it should be, is um something that sounds good out of it, but it doesn't happen.

So um with that, I'm gonna vote present because I don't want to tell the people that I am um in support of anything that would uh hurt their ability to seek what they want.

Um, but I do agree that we need to have some rules about um natural vegetation and things like that.

And I am a tree hugger and probably have planted about 9,000 trees since I've been in office trying to keep uh my community green.

So I do understand where you're going, but I'm not quite sure that it doesn't uh impede something that uh my community wants to do.

So I'll be a present.

I'm not opposed.

Thank you.

Alder woman from the 11th.

Thank you, madam president.

Uh would the ninth ward alderman yield to questions or more I could probably really just have a comment.

So do you want to inquire of him or yes, please?

Alderman from the 9th, would you uh yield questioning from the older woman from the 11th?

Yes.

Alder women, you may proceed.

Thank you.

So as you know, I am no good with plants.

But about 10 years ago, my neighbor, Sonia Tate, God rest the soul.

We decided that we were gonna plant colorful flowers in the tree lawn between our two houses.

And it looked really good.

We put a cute little fence border around it.

And I want to say it it might have lasted like two, three weeks.

And then people, you know, park in their cars, like for Sunday dinner, they're visiting people.

It didn't last.

And so this might not be a problem in some areas.

Um we really need all of the parking that we have uh in my particular block and in many uh uh streets surrounding um and so I don't know that this is necessarily gonna be a problem, but I was more concerned because while I was like, eh, it didn't work.

You know, my neighbor Sonia was very upset that people were getting out of their cars and they opened the door and they knock down the cute little border fence, or they would step into the flower bed trying to make it to the sidewalk.

So, not so much a question, but just to share an experience of trying to plant in the tree lawn.

I thank you.

And thank you, Alderman.

Um, I'll note that the bill does include uh provision that says every 10 feet there will be four foot clearance for people to get out of their cars.

So we do want to provide places for people to get out of their cars.

That is a sad story.

Um I I have a garden in front of my house, putting on the tree line.

I have spider grass there as well as a city tree.

And um, I think it really helps.

I've noticed an improved, you know, drainage.

I've noticed a lot of good positive things to come of it.

That being said, sometimes I do see someone step right on it or someone lets their dog go on it.

And I look out my window and say, ah, you know, but um at the same time, I think we need to make these efforts to make our city a better place.

And uh there's no doubt that this helps add curb appeal.

This helps add property, like value to people's property, uh, and can really be a wonderful thing for our environment as well.

Uh so um I I also agree with the Alderman from the 12th that we need to do a better job at taking care of our city-owned properties.

Uh, and this is something that this bill help aims to help with.

Um I often speak about how we need to give our city employees the tools necessary to do their jobs better.

Uh, and this is part of that.

Uh we are uh really the goal with the more frequent fines for chronic violators would be that there would be fewer private properties out of compliance, and also those funds can then be used to increase cutting by the forestry division.

And on that note, I I have heard efforts to get our forestry workers to be year-round, because I think we can all agree that this is not a seasonal subject.

The trees need trimming, the grass needs cutting, especially if they didn't get to it during the growing season.

Then winter is a great time to get out and tame these plants uh so that they're ready to go for next year.

So I know there's efforts to make them uh a year-round workforce, and this bill will help with those efforts by providing those uh resources to them to go out and uh and get a hold of our our city properties.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion, Alderman from the third.

Good morning, everyone.

I think it's still morning.

Oh, right on the dot.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Um have very mixed feelings about this bill.

Um I am an avid gardener, uh, have a rain garden in the backyard, uh, love native plantings, want to support native plantings.

I also happen to have probably about 70% of my ward out of compliance with the current forestry regulations.

If you drive an alleyway in most areas in Southeast City or even North St.

Louis, the front yards might be maintained, the backyards, uh maybe, but the alleyways.

Nobody's taken a weed whacker back in those alleyways.

You've got vines growing over garages, you've got weeds that are six feet tall, blocking garages that are either falling down or boarded up.

The city's not sending out code violations on those.

We've got three code inspectors for the entire city.

And I always tell people at neighborhood meetings and town halls that if you're not reporting it, the city doesn't know.

So I'd be lying to them if I didn't mention it here at the Board of Aldermen when we're talking about a piece of legislation that directly impacts forestry.

If you're not reporting overgrown grass, weeds, poisonous overgrowth.

The city does not proactively send out violation notices.

The only time they do that is with a vacant property.

If that vacant property is identified as a vacant property and is on the VBI.

Otherwise, they don't send out that notice.

So it's not on the VBI, it's not boarded up.

It shouldn't, it doesn't need to be boarded up because someone's maybe maintaining it to the bare minimum.

But I can almost guarantee that the alleyway behind that property has some form of overgrowth.

I just this week sent pictures to forestry director and commissioner while I was on the phone with them talking about this bill.

It is absolutely incredible the amount of responsibility that this body puts on our citizens.

So you have wonderful neighbors.

Some might not have equipment, some might not be able to afford equipment, some might have landlords that put that responsibility on their tenants.

Some might just be vacant properties that are overgrown.

But if we're not calling it in, the city expects our citizens to shoulder the responsibility of not only maintaining their own property, but then cleaning up the alleyways around them.

I can't tell you how many neighborhood cleanups I have participated in, including in our neighborhood parks where I've had to take my golf cart to remove debris from Marquette Park, from Miniwood Park on the back of my golf cart to get it to the dumpster.

Because the city is putting that responsibility on our citizens.

We are not adequately or equitably able to provide services.

This bill, I understand, you know, increases fines, fees.

What it would be fines, uh fees would require a handcock amendment or trigger a handcock amendment to be voted on by the people.

General revenue oftentimes does not mean that that's going to go directly to that departmental budget.

There's an entire process that we go through for budgeting.

And most of the commissioners and directors that come before us during that time are going along to get along.

They're not going to come down here and say, you know, oh, we need more money for this and that.

They're going to see their budget, they're going to agree with their budget, they're going to say that's fine, Alderman.

We're going to do what we can with the budget that you provide us.

But we all know that it's broken.

We know that building division isn't inspecting buildings unless there's a complaint or a permit.

We know that forestry isn't sending out violation notices unless it's on their vacant building list, or if someone calls it in.

But most neighbors don't even know that they need to call it in.

I'm like a broken record at neighborhood meetings and town halls telling people if you aren't calling it in, the city doesn't know about it.

That's true for grass.

That's true for building code violations.

That's true for potholes.

That's true for street signs.

That's true for street lights.

It's true for street signals.

Literally everything, particularly in areas of the city that are disinvested.

They're not getting that attention.

They're not getting that assistance from the city.

The residents are shouldering that responsibility.

So I love the intent of this.

As an avid gardener, I would love to see more of this happen across our city.

But I'm very frustrated that we're continually putting more responsibility on the shoulders of our citizens.

And the departments, while they want to also provide that opportunity for citizens to grow native grasses, grow native flowers.

And then we have folks that are like sent out to cut grasses on you know vacant lots, parks.

They run over trees.

But we don't have an operational plan to make sure that it works on the back end.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, Alderman from the ninth, you're recognized to close.

Thank you.

And thank you to uh my colleagues for uh asking some good questions.

Uh I I think this is uh again, I I think this is a very balanced approach.

I I really uh am grateful for all the people who helped weigh in on this, people who are experienced gardeners, people who see the different sides of the issues, people who live all over our city.

Uh and I come back to our city workers.

Um I really appreciate our city workers.

I appreciate the expertise they bring.

Uh the forestry commissioner, you know, told us he was not worried about his employees and his inspectors knowing how to identify the plants that he thought were important.

Uh they do this every day.

Uh this is their job.

Uh but you know, I agree with the Alderman from the Alderman from the third, too, that we do ask our our residents to do a lot.

Um but the the good news about this is that previous ordinances didn't really define what people were responsible for in the back of their property.

It was a little bit murky, and this ordinance clearly says that they're responsible to the center line of their alley.

So I think it'll actually be easier to cite people who are out of compliance uh with this ordinance.

And uh I think we need to give our department these tools to make sure that they can do that job well.

And uh on the other side, I think this is a great ordinance because currently, if you have a native plant garden, it is not legal in the city, and we want to make it legal for you because uh we've seen the benefits that these bring.

Uh if if several aldermen have these gardens, it it is only right that they be allowed in our entire city.

So uh I really appreciate the discussion today, and I ask for your favorable consideration and renew my motion to perfect uh board bill uh 78 uh committee substitute.

Roll call.

It's been moved by the aldermen from the ninth, seconded by the alderman from the fourth that we perfect board bill seventy-eight committee substitute.

There's been a request for roll call.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Switzer.

Alderman Aldenberg.

All right.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman Orion.

Alderman Devotee.

Alderwoman Velasquez.

Alderwoman Sany.

Aye.

Alderwoman Cox Answee.

Alderman Browning.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman's highest.

Present.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderwoman Sweitzer.

Alderwoman Velazquez.

That's 10 aye votes and three voted present.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the night to perfect board bill 72.

Board Bill 82 as amended in committee, sponsored by Alderman Aldrich, an ordinance authorizing the comptroller and the city of St.

Louis to execute a contract for sale of real property and authorizing and directing the mayor and the comptroller of the city of St.

Louis to execute upon receipt of and in consideration in the sum of 275,000 and other good and valuable consideration, a quick claim deed to remise, release, and forever quick claim unto 900 North Tucker Boulevard building, LLC, a Missouri limited liability company, is successors and assigned certain city owned property located in City Block 534, which property is commonly known as 1134 and 1138.

Dr.

Martin Luther Dr.

Martin Luther King Drive in the City of St.

Louis, Missouri.

Thank you, Madam President and members of the board.

I move to perfect Board Bill 82 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alderman from the third that we perfect Board Bill 82 as amended in committee.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Board bill 82 as amended in committee is board bill that was heard last week in the HUDs committee and actually vote was voted out unanimous, 6-0.

What Board Bill 82 as amended in committee does is it sells uh the property of Ineco Plaza, which the city has already started that process.

Um the whole INECO Plaza to star groups uh to create a parking lot.

Uh the process already started with the sale of Inaco Plaza.

Uh currently there's about a portion of Inaco Plaza that is owned by Star Group.

Before that, it was owned by Paul McKee.

The city actually sold that parcel uh to North Side Regeneration and then North Side Regeneration sold it to Star Groups.

Um in committee, like I say, there were a as it came out six zero.

I know the Alderman from the Ninth has been doing a lot of digging and research on this legislation as well with the support of the director of operations from the president office, Miss Ingracia, uh on have a different opinion.

Um, but I know in committee, the Alderman said that he voted for it and his hold up was he wanted a legal opinion from the city councilor.

And I just heard him say how we appreciate all the hard work of our city employees, and I do too.

I actually want to thank the city counselor who uh wrote an opinion.

I know it's on everybody's desk that said uh this is something that is doable for us to be able to sell.

Also, I want to thank the city register, who's another city employee, who has dug deep to try to find an ordinance number um on this plaza, which does not exist.

Also want to thank our city parks department, who has been in communication, not only with myself as well as the director of operations from the present office saying this is not a park that they maintain.

Um in 1977 on the city website, people will see it's a Inaco Plaza is a park.

It will say that there's an ordinance also for that, which is not found.

However, there is a deed between the city of St.

Louis when they uh when Convention Plaza or Ineco Plaza gave uh this away to the city of St.

Louis in 1977, which was a quick claim deed, uh a gift that was free as charge with no restrictions uh for this to be made out of park.

There's somebody who live uh in this area who um not only live there but have walked past uh this location for the past several years, and I'm not saying I just recently walked past it like this week.

This area has been fenced off for the last five years.

It's been fenced off because we have seen numerous nuisance.

It actually was fenced off because there was a shooting that happened between two individuals in this plaza.

There was over over and over and over of drug use in an open drug market at this location.

This plaza is something that as a resident, as an alderman, and as I as I've heard from other residents uh in the neighborhood does not look at this place to be a place that is uh relaxation, as I see that came from our uh opinion from Lou Galley, what the definition of the park is.

I rely on the experts.

I rely on the ones who, if this were to get sued, will represent us.

You know, I know we always ask for legal opinions on legislation.

I got one.

I know there was a request from the Alderman for the 9th to get one, and it seems that we are uh between myself and Star Group and the City Council, they believe this plaza is not deemed a park and it is sellable.

The items that are around Ineco Plaza, right across the street sits the post building, which I know Mr.

Bergland's in the audience.

I actually again want to thank you for the development that you're bringing to that area.

We we talk about we want development in the city, and I know uh especially in HUD's committee, we always talk about developers and and how we want to bring more development.

And I know the point of uh getting rid of this plaza to make it a parking lot is to bring opportunity for people to be able to park who will be coming hopefully to the post building um in the next hopefully next months or years to come.

Underneath this uh plaza once ran um I don't want to say underground railroad because it makes me think of Harriet Tubman, but from the post building back in the day when the Post Dispatch owned it, underground they used to transport uh the newspaper, and it's a train track where they would transport it down and up and through the streetcars.

So it's very hard to build anything on top of this, such as housing or anything that would have a strong foundation because below it is very hollow.

Um but I can say I know I've been in conversations with the developer.

We are hopefully hopefully I'm not spilling the plans, but um, you know, there was a street vacation that we just passed uh not too long ago to vacate 13th Street, hoping that in the years to come that there will be housing that we bring, that we bring office space and green space, and right behind Ineco Plaza uh sits plenty of green space that sits right next to the uh Board of Education.

Um I've heard and I've received plenty of phone calls and emails from people who are concerned about this, and I totally understand the thought of are we selling a park?

I get it.

But I could tell you this Inaco Plaza is not High Park.

Ineco Plaza is not Loretta Hall Park, which is literally right around the corner from this location.

Ineco Plaza is not O'Fallon Park.

This is a location that nobody in my community, not folks that just come in, you know, for a day or two, but actually live there, look at a place of relaxation or a place as a park.

And actually want to thank downtown neighborhood association who wrote a letter of support supporting this legislation.

I also want to thank Alex Oliver, who has been instrumental in bringing development to this area, as well as I want to thank Matt O'Leary from the Sid North for also writing a letter of support.

And again, more importantly, I also want to thank the experts from the City of St.

Louis, from our city councilor office, from our parks department, from our register, and also received an email this morning that me and uh director of operations in Garassi also received where the assessor says there is nothing or records that they have that is deemed a park.

So I know there will be some comments from members, and I open up for any questions.

Alderman from the ninth.

Thank you.

And thank you to the sponsor.

Um during committee, uh, I did ask about uh getting a legal opinion uh because the plan the plain language by the charter change that was done um in the 2000s suggests that the sale of this park should go to a city vote.

Later that day, uh the sponsor did provide a four-page legal opinion from the city councilor, and I did appreciate the prompt follow-up.

When I took the time to read through that uh opinion, I had many questions, and I reached out to the city councilor uh to clarify those questions, as I know some of my other colleagues did as well.

As of this time, I I have not heard back.

Um, which I think it's important that we get these questions answered because there is a lot that points to this being a city park.

Um I would ask if the alderman from the 14th would yield for questioning.

The Alderman from the 14th yields questioning from the alderman from the ninth.

Absolutely.

Alderman from the 9th, you may proceed.

So, Alderman, this bill was introduced uh from the floor on October 10th, was passed out of committee on October 14th, second read on October 17th, and now it's up for perfection today, two weeks from the day that it was introduced.

Given the questions that continue to surround whether this is public land used as a public park that would be subject to a city vote.

Would you be willing to put this bill on the informal so that we can get these questions answered?

Alderman, I think you know the answer to that.

We've had plenty of conversations, and as you talk about the timeline, I would say this bill has not moved any different from when we have suspended the rules on, I think we actually suspended the rules for the board bill you just carried for the all-woman that's not here, uh, wishing her luck right now.

But this board of alderman suspend uh rules all the time to introduce a board bill.

And then we heard them in committee.

That's an opportunity for members to be able to ask questions.

As you had that opportunity sitting on HUDs and you voted for it out, and your question was a legal opinion, which I provided you that legal opinion within 24 hours.

Um to be honest, Alderman, with talking to my colleagues, there seems to be you know, three members yourself, maybe the alder woman from the first as well as the president who do not agree.

Um, but as we just seen between the golf cart bill, uh the vegetation bill you just carried, we don't always get a perfect vote because people have questions.

So I've told you before, and I'll tell you again on the floor, I will not put this on informal calendar.

And uh thank you, Alderman.

I I just thought I'd ask one last time because um in committee I I did ask some questions.

We were told some information that I now believe was incorrect.

And so I I'm gonna go ahead and just go over some of the things that I've discovered since then that I think really calls this into question because to me this is important.

We all hold, we all took an oath to uphold the charter.

And it is in the charter that public parks should be voted on by the people if we're to ever sell them or lease them, because this is supposed to be land for the people.

So it's not it's not just about my community or your community, like the alderman from the fifth mentioned earlier.

I see my job as looking citywide.

Uh it's really important that we protect these green spaces because once we lose them, it's very difficult to get them back.

So, for example, in committee, we were told that parks are designated by ordinance by the Board of Alderman.

That is what makes a park.

And since this didn't have an ordinance, this isn't a park.

But only 62 of the 109 St.

Louis parks have ordinances.

So I would ask all of our colleagues here to think about do you know if the parks in your ward are protected by ordinance per this opinion by the city counselor?

Because if not, and if we're going with this reasoning, then those could be in danger of being sold without a vote of the people.

Now parks can be created another way, and it was not mentioned in the opinion by the city councilor.

Parks can be created by the LCRA, which isn't an entity an entity of the city.

That is per state statute.

I can provide the statute for people if they're interested.

There's also the way this park was created.

It was part of a larger plan.

The Alderman mentioned that there was an effort to redesign Tucker Boulevard.

It used to be a bridge with railroad tracks beneath it that served.

It's actually kind of a cool history.

It served the Post Dispatch Building, the Globe, the Star.

They all had offices right next to each other as the rail line serviced all three of those buildings.

It was called the Illinois Terminal Railroad, and that's how they distributed their papers.

So this just kind of speaks to a time in our city.

Over time they shifted away, they moved their printing presses elsewhere, and that railroad was no longer used, and so they filled in the plaza.

And as you've pointed out, nothing can be built there because of that.

It's either going to be a park or a parking lot.

But when we did that project, a very expensive project, the cost of that was about 17 million dollars.

And it covered CAS to Interco Plaza.

The redevelopment agreement, the project plan that was submitted to the federal government.

I'm quoting it here.

It said Intergo Plaza will be brought to grade and will be returned to use as a park.

This task includes the park design for Interco.

It goes on to say that City Parks Interco Plaza at the request of BPS, HDR, which is the engineering firm that did this project, will meet with and coordinate the design of Intergo Plaza Park with the City Parks Department.

Furthermore, this was dedicated by Mayor Vince Shamel in 1981.

You mentioned it is on the St.

Louis Parks website.

It is defined as a city park and given it was on a list provided to us by the park commissioner of city parks.

It's also labeled as a park on our city plat map, which that plat map uh it platts document property lines, it does easements, writes away other features.

These are the legal documents that are maintained and recorded as public records by the city.

They are not changed without legal justification.

Our city GIS systems label it as a park.

And we know that the St.

Louis Parks Department did spend money on maintaining this up until 2020 when an ordinance was done to hand over maintenance, but ever since then it also has been fenced off and nothing has been able to happen there.

So if people aren't using it, maybe it's because they can't.

If you go to the site, there's a sign at the park that says there is a park curfew.

It's an ordinance, it references the ordinance, and it's specific to parks in our city.

We also have an opinion from the attorney who is responsible for the wording of the initiative petition that changed the charter language.

And he uh that his name is Henry Robertson, and he wrote an opinion saying that this is covered by Article 26 of the charter.

And finally, I'll just kind of say that the opinion by the city councilor has I'd say it's incomplete.

And that's because we've only had two weeks to really look at this bill.

So, yes, it is normal for us to enter bills, but when there are questions like this, I think it's good of us to take the time and do the due diligence to make sure that we're not violating the charter.

Uh it is highly likely that we would be sued if we went ahead and passed this.

And I'll even say that the corner of the park that supposedly was never interviewed that never owned by the city, that is also not true.

It was owned by the LCRA before it was sold to Paul McKee and then sold to Starwood.

So the wording of the Charter Amendment is very clear.

Uh it says that any real estate now or hereafter owned by the city or any agency or instrumentality of the city, so that would include the LRA or in the LCRA, which is principally used or held out for use as a public park, shall not be sold, leased, given away, or otherwise disposed of.

It goes on to say without uh a vote of the people.

Uh so I I think there's a lot here that points to this being a park, and I don't want to belabor this because I know we've been here a long time, but I'll just close with a couple lines from something that was provided to all of you at your desks, uh, some research we've done on this.

Uh and there was an op-ed in 2006 when they were passing this charter amendment.

It was written by Irving Clay Jr.

and Joyce Whittlefield.

And they said now is the time to add a few lines to the city charter that would prohibit any city parkland from being sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of without the approval of city parking.

We must restore people's trust that parkland will not be nibbled away to solve the challenges or whims of corporations or other non-park groups.

Approval of such a change to our city charter would be a gift to elected officials and the appointees to various boards of today and future generations.

It would eliminate the temptation to wither under pressure from powerful non-park interests and or funding crises.

So this is our opportunity to avoid nibbling away at the green space that we have provided for our people in order to look at this and reimagine our planning in our city, the downtown plan, the design downtown plan, which was passed by the charter or by the planning commission in 2020, also sees this future use as a park as a welcoming entrance to northern downtown.

Uh that we really take the opportunity to follow those best practices, look into this, do our due diligence, and make sure that we are not violating our charter.

Uh that's all I have, uh, but I'm happy to answer any questions if anyone has any questions Any further discussion.

Alderman from the fifth, and then I'll go to Alderwoman from the 12th.

Um I would ask uh if the Alderman from the 14th would yield the questioning.

The Alderman from the 14th yields questioning from the Alderman from the 5th.

Absolutely.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman, I have in hand the opinion that you provided us from our city council dated October 15th.

Uh it means a lot to me with respect to what that opinion is.

Let's uh for the purpose of our discussion, this isn't a park.

It seems like the bill today is we should agree to sell this land.

Please explain to us why we should vote in favor of this particular board bill.

Thank you for that question, uh Alderman.

Right now, uh currently the land, the plaza that sits between the post building and the St.

Patrick's Center is not being utilized.

Yes, it was fenced off.

It was fun fenced off because there was, like I say, not only one problem of a shooting that happened, there have been ongoing problems at this uh plaza that become a nuisance.

This plaza, as the alderman mentioned about parks and not selling, this isn't a park.

This isn't a place that uh has benches where you can sit down.

There's probably more concrete than actual grass.

The only trees that exist there are on the tree line between the street and the sidewalk.

We're not maintaining this uh plaza.

We're not gaining any uh tax revenue off this plaza.

It's if anything, becoming an eyesore.

Uh and the city of St.

Louis has made it very clear from our parks department that we do not cut the grass, we do not do anything to maintain to keep this park beautiful.

Plaza beautiful.

Fair enough.

And again, for the purpose of our discussion, this is not a park, and you've told us why we should vote in favor of this particular sale.

Can you educate us any knowledge you have with respect to what is the plan for this parcel should we agree to sell it?

Thank you for that question.

If we were to sell it, this would become a parking lot.

Uh and the reason of the parking lot is because as I mentioned before, uh Star Group and Mr.

Berglin has been uh working very hard to fill uh the old post dispatcher building, which if anybody ever has an opportunity to go visit, I recommend you go visit.

There's a nice little slide inside where they used to send the mail down uh that I've been down a couple of times.

But the goal is to uh ensure as we are bringing business uh to this building that there is ample amount of parking.

Now I've heard that uh from some of my colleagues, well, there's parking in the surrounding areas.

Currently, there is.

This also goes uh to bring future development housing and commercial space where those surrounding parking lots may be gone, and this additional parking will also help for that.

I know not all alders are previewed to it because this is work that I've been working with with a developer in my ward to make sure that uh development come to the area, but I appreciate you asking the question on what is the point of the plaza being sold and what it'll be used for, but also want to talk about more long-term goals outside of just selling it for the parking lot, the surrounding uh potential development opportunities for it as well.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Alderwoman from the 12th.

Madam President and members of the board.

Um, first I want to make a statement and then I would ask if the Alderman from the 9th would yield.

Would the Alderman to speak to the speak first?

Okay.

Yes, I want to speak first.

Okay.

Okay.

Um I actually know I was around for why that we have this uh Article 26 City Parks Protection.

But those of you all who don't know, I served with Irv Clay from the time he came until the time he left.

We left together.

Um he was uh longtime parks person with the city of St.

Wilson, well known for his advocacy of parks.

Back in the 2000s, um, early 2000s.

The reason why we have this charter amendment is because Barnes Hospital once wanted a piece of property that they now have that was across that was part of Forest Park.

And I want to I want to say that the uh Comptroller, um, Darlene Green, then Comptroller, and the president of the board then was uh uh not Francis but Jim Shrewsbury.

Both fought a vi, just fought against that happening.

They both took positions, said this is the park, we cannot do it.

Um, why should you has a lot of flex and muscle?

It's the only time I ever seen the American newspaper basically was so unfair to the Comptroller, I cannot believe it because they've always been a supporter of her, but they just went after her, and it was just ridiculous because both President Shrewsbury and the Comptroller was right, we should not have gotten that land.

Well, washi got it.

But in return for that, the Comptroller Um got an agreement that we would then put out to a vote to the people of the city of St.

Louis, Comptroller Green, about our parks protection, which Irv Clay, everybody else, we got all supported because there's only so much green space, it's only so much earth.

We use it up, it won't be any more.

We that I know of we can create.

Maybe I'm I'm limited, but I don't know.

So this thing was put out to a vote, it was overwhelmingly passed.

The Alderman from the 9th is correct when he talks about it.

Doesn't talk about that not all city parks have ordinances because we didn't do that originally.

So a lot of the parks are parks because we said so and that we used them over time and they became parks.

And I have a list of parks that the city sent me, but the alderman from the ninth has done such a great job.

I was gonna bring it up, but he's correct.

All the things he he asserts in his uh handout are absolutely correct about that.

You don't have to have an ordinance, that this is a park, it's been used as a park.

You can't pass an ordinance saying that in the park you can't do this, and then say, but okay, this is not really a park.

Because this is why I wonder if people ever read the charter.

The charter says any real estate now or hereafter owned by the city or any agency or instrumentality of the city, which is principally used or held out for use as a public park, shall not be sold.

It didn't say it even had to be passed for an ordinance.

It said it's been held out to be used as a public park, which at one point it was.

We closed it off for a whole bunch of reasons, but it was held out.

Hey, we had that park that's across from the library uh fenced off.

And I'm talking about the one behind the library library on Olive, that was fenced off for all kinds of reasons and told at certain times that people couldn't use that because they didn't like that the homeless used that.

I used to work at the public library when I first came to St.

Louis.

This was while I was on the board of Alderman.

So they put a fence around that.

We had a fence around the park right across from City Hall for four years almost for the uh Jones administration because of things that happened there.

But it does it says any agency or instrumentality of the city which is primarily primarily used or held out to be a public park.

Most certainly the evidence that Alderman Browning presented is because it was held out to be a public park.

Okay.

And it goes on to say, nor shall any structure be built in any such park to accommodate activities not customarily associated associated with park use or outdoor recreation, unless such sale lease, disposal gift of structure is approved by a majority of the qualified electors voting there on.

Here's the part that you all need to understand.

Since we are gonna push forward with this, section two says the clerk of the board of alderman shall mandate that our clerk certified to the board of election commissioners the intention of the board of aldermen to authorize such lease, sale, disposal, or change of use together with the proposed ordinance for that purpose to the Board of Election Commissioner.

Said Board of Election Commissioners, shall their phone provide for submitting said proposed ordinance in its original form to the voters at the first election of which such submission may lawfully be held out, but not less than 30 days after such certification to it by the clerk of the board of Alderman.

I will be writing a letter to the clerk today asking him, since we are insistent that we're going to again try to sell another piece of land that is a park or held out to be a park.

I will be writing a letter to the clerk asking that he submit to the board of election commissioners a uh the ordinance that you propose, which is still a board bill, because it didn't say it has to be passed.

It says if it's a proposed ordinance, and I will ask that he or she, whichever the clerks are going to handle the assistant clerk, submit that to the board of election commissioners, and that we go on with our vote.

If you're not going to listen to that, we cannot sell this park.

It is a park.

It was written this way because of a very contentious fight with Washiu about the land that they did get.

Um, but this is what we're the reason why it was put this way is to prevent that happening again.

That is what the computer got from going ahead and do it with this.

She was very, very wounded about it.

So was the president of the board, Jim Shrewsbury.

They took very courageous stances to say no to this.

And we ought to be ashamed of ourselves to think about doing anything else.

I can't even imagine how the Michael Garvin comes to anything else, because he was, I don't know.

He came and left so many times.

Maybe he wasn't here, but he certainly was in the city and knows about this.

Um, so anybody who says this is not a park, it is.

And we had leaders then that stood up for something that was right, and we ought to stand up for something right.

We need to reject this.

If we're not going to reject it, I will have my letter by the end of the day to the uh clerk asking that we submit this to the board of elections for an election.

It is ridiculous.

Um and at this time, I uh like to say I'd like to ask if the alderman from the ninth would yield.

The alderman from the ninth yield questioning from the alder woman from the 12th.

Yes.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Um, first of all, Alderman, thank you for agreeing to yield.

And also thank you for doing um your due diligence and research.

Um, because I have started to look for my list and I found it um of my list of parks that I get like every couple of years from the parks department.

What are the parks?

And of course, that park was listed on that.

But um wanted to ask about your research about saying that uh the city parks, uh, I think you said only a certain amount of city parks actually have an ordinance, and the rest of them do not.

And I can you tell me where uh that research came from or where I might find it myself.

Uh yes.

So there is a document that we were provided from the parks commissioner that uh listed out the parks and which of them had ordinances.

So that was one piece, and then I never just take one source uh for granted.

So I always seek out a second source.

Uh and this is um work that was done by going through each and every park and trying to find the ordinance.

Okay, so you had your assistance and legislative assistance and help and trying to find ordinances for park.

So for instance, um, I got a park called hand uh handy and handy.

So they may or may not be listed as uh an ordinance, but they've been used for parks for 50 100 years.

So um, under this protection of the charter, as I understand it, and do you understand it, that it doesn't just say for that it's a park by ordinance, it says held out to be used as a public park.

Is that how you understand the charter to read?

Yeah, if they had intended to say that a park backed up by ordinance was only eligible, they would have said that, but they did not say that for I think a good reason because there is a complicated history behind many of our parks.

Uh, and I think that they're trying to make sure that that covers all of these lands that are for public use.

Uh and this is really, I'll be honest, I think this may be the first test since Hudwin uh of this uh law, but there are um certainly other examples of parks that were created by LCRA uh that do that we do all consider parks.

And um that's why I would say uh to every alder like go back and look at the parks in your ward.

Um I have Shodo Park and Taylor Park in my ward, and neither of those have ordinances either.

Okay, so I don't call them they.

So Darlene Green and Irv Clay were friends of mine, and Darlene is still a friend of mine.

So I do know the work.

That is exactly why they put the wording in there.

That's why they didn't say parts by ordinance.

Okay, but I want to ask you about this section two intent of board of aldermen.

So that's also part of Article 2526, right?

And does that not mandate as you understand it that the clerk of the board of Alderman, if we are going to sell land has to certify to the Board of Election Commission, the intent of the Board of Alderman to authorize such sale lease or disposal or change of use, is that not mandated by section two?

I believe it is.

I would feel more comfortable with the bill if this bill was asking for and setting an election date, uh, because this should go to the vote of the people.

Right.

Okay, then that's all I have to ask you.

Um thank you so much.

I appreciate it.

Want to say again, um, and I also appreciate that he put in some um articles, oversight by voters will protect our parks.

As I said before, people were very upset about the fight that went on between two of our uh esteemed elected officials, president of the board and the comptroller saying, No, we're not gonna do this.

And again, we do know Washington, which I'm a powerful graduate of and Barnes, they can flex their uh muscles, and they did.

Um, and but that was an agreement that that would not happen again.

And here we go again, trying to go around it.

And I want to thank the people who uh wrote the city charter um amendment because they didn't just say uh make it such a small thing of the only the charter the parts that would be by ordinance.

Um, because we didn't really a lot of us didn't start doing ordinance parks because we started to do uh pocket parts, and that and sort of be able to do that, we had to do ordinances, but land that came about years and years ago, they didn't have to do ordinances, this became the park.

And this is how it was, and it's been used over time.

And so to make sure that that was covered, because there were a lot of people who were very upset about that fight, and it's uh approved, it's approval rating by the city voters tell you something.

74 or 73% of the people tell you we agree with this.

For us to be so um outrageous as to come later and say this is not really a park and try to go around the very plain language of this uh section one and section two is ridiculous.

And I don't care if the city councilor said it, Michael Garvin is absolutely wrong if he's saying that.

If uh any other pet person says that, you cannot go around it.

It is what it says, and we should be following this charter.

And as I said before, I don't have to wonder what the intent of the people, because we were all working together to make sure that we didn't sell parks.

Green space is a luxury that many of us may take for granted who live in the city of St.

Louis.

When you go further east, one of my first times ever went to New York, and of course I saw Central Park, but a lot of New York does not have the greenery in certain parts of it.

And so I came back to St.

Louis going, oh my God, it's so beautiful here.

Um, so we should not take that for granted, and we should not be selling our city parks.

And the charter does prevent us.

And so if we do pass this ordinance on today, then I will be writing a letter asking the clerk to follow section two, which is to put it to have the uh board of elections uh put it to a vote.

And if he is prevented from doing that, then I think we ought to do a mandamus to the clerk um and to go to court.

And it's pretty easy to do a mandament uh directing the clerk to do his duty, which is he will have to send it over to the board of elections.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, then alderman from the 14th, you're recognized to close.

Oh, alder woman from the seventh.

Thank you, madam president, uh, members of the board.

Um, I was wondering if the Alderman of the 14th will yield to an inquiry.

The Alderman for the 14th yields questioning from uh Alder Woman from the 7th.

Yes.

Alderman or Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Alderman.

Um, this bill has been the topic of a lot of discussion, and I've certainly received uh a lot of outreach.

Um, and I share the concerns of the Alderman of the 9th and the Alderwoman of the 12th.

Um, I think it's incredibly important that we um, you know, that we're very mindful of what we're doing and what um presidents that we're setting in our public spaces and in our public parks.

Um, so I wanted to ask some clarifying questions because I I feel like there's a lot of conflicting information out there.

I've seen two different legal opinions with two different uh thoughts.

Um, and I felt like the conversation that we had in HUDs was very uh straight to the point.

And then since then, I just a lot more information has come out, um, including you sending the legal opinion as requested by the committee, and I appreciate you providing that.

Um, but I had just some specific questions about the use of the space.

Um, in the past um 15 years or so, what investments has the city made here?

Um, has there ever been any investments such as like Capital Committee or any other city source that has been invested into the plaza?

Thank you for your question, Alderwoman.

And uh, like you said, yes, in committee, uh it did come out six zero and since then.

And I will say I give some credit to the Alderman for the night asking questions after that hearing, uh, it was coming to me about some of the concerns he had and not kind of finding out through departments or through uh city hall walls, but um there has not been any uh capital uh committee, as you know, within the city of St.

Louis have a capital committee, has not put any uh funding to this.

Uh if you say about 15 years, I want to say this area in 15 years got some federal funding, uh, but not city funding, city funding uh for this plaza.

And I I'm mostly familiar with this plaza from my time as a board education member.

Um, there was definitely a lot of activities there and a lot of conversations, and truthfully, the thing that you know we saw the most happening on the plaza was definitely um sort of encampments or drug transition, but other activities there of that nature.

Um, can you speak to the conditions of the plaza and any amenities that are are present there?

To be honest, Alderwoman is not uh any amenities.

Majority of this plaza, like I say, is concrete.

You probably have five little triangles that have grass, and then you have some rocks that are placed on the grass, which I assume people are supposed to sit.

You know, the parks that I go to, like around the corner, Loretta Hall Park, um, which we recently upgraded.

You know, there's benches, there's slides, there's swing sets.

There's in some of these parks, there's restrooms.

Uh, when you go to this uh plaza, which also I say is it's owned by already uh part of this plaza, is not completely the city of St.

Louis, it's already owned by uh Star Group, but their uh most amenity I'll say there's like a plaque uh at this plaza.

They tried to put a fountain in there years ago, and it never uh worked out.

So currently, if you go there, you'll just see grass and about five to seven big rocks that I guess people are supposed to sit on.

Okay, and I also searched through Citizen Service Bureau again.

I was curious about activities that are happening there, things that are going, and I actually saw some CSV reports, um, complaints of multiple things from trash to dead rats, and the response that I saw from the city of St.

Louis from the parks department was not the responsibility of the parks department.

Um I'm curious about um the parks department role with this with this plaza.

Do they do any ongoing maintenance there?

Um, you know, is that the typical response to requests when residents may be complaining about the conditions is that it's not the responsibility of the parks department.

I'm trying to just really put my thumb on like how is the land being utilized, who's responsible for the maintenance and if the city is planning overly and was kind of thrown off when I saw just literally the response from the parks department was that it was not their responsibility.

So I'm curious about their role as it relates to this land.

Yeah, I can't speak to those CSB uh requests.

I do know when it comes to CSB as a whole, we need to really look overhauling that.

I know we as Alders and Citizens, we put in requests, and then you know, the same day it will be turned around saying closed out.

Um so I can't speak to that directly.

But what I can say when I talk with the parks department, they have said for several years they have not done any maintaining uh this as if they will be cutting Loretta Hall Park or as they cut Hyde Park as it's like on a schedule to get cut.

They do not have uh this plaza on a schedule to cut.

They did say if they happen to see overgrown grass, uh just like private entities, they will go out and cut it uh to just make sure that uh it doesn't overgrow, but it is not on a regular schedule list for the parks department to be able to okay, thank you.

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Madam President, members of the board.

Um first I would like to know if the Alder Woman from the 7th would yield.

The Alder Woman from the 7th yields questioning from the Alder Woman from the 12th.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you for agreeing to yield Alder Woman.

Um your line of questioning, is that meant to say that if the parks department doesn't do their job and take care of a spot that that makes it no longer a park?

Is that what you're saying?

Uh no, Alder Woman.

My line of questioning was that I saw that in CSB and didn't have any context because I'm not the alder for that ward.

So I was curious.

Do is that the normal response?

Do we have residents putting in things complaining?

And then you have a parks department telling them that's not my responsibility.

And because I don't, you know, represent that community, that's not a conversation I'm actively involved in.

Well, let me answer it.

Yes, that is their um uh answer on many occasions.

I have a park, Sherman Park, and right and right behind it, and I'll share them with you.

Um so they would cut the park, and there was LRA property right behind it, and so you would have this park manicured, and then the property right next door to it, they would not cut it.

And so I keep saying, I don't understand why you don't cut this.

They said, Well, that's not our responsibility.

You're part of parks, recreation and forestry.

So they would not cut it.

And I actually have long emails that I'll share with you because I thought that was absolutely ridiculous, and I shared it with Kim Hagley and I shared it with Greg Hayes.

If you're right next to the land, you're cutting grass, it takes you a few minutes to do that.

That's the incompetence we have with a lot of what's going on.

So, yes, they do ignore our people, and the alderman from the 14th is correct in that they will shut it and close it out the next day and say, Oh, it's not my responsibility.

When I one of the things I like about our mayor that we have right now, and I always tell her about this is about that when she got so sick and tired of not being a stop sign that she put one up herself.

Um, sometimes you gotta do things yourself.

If you're right there next to the houses that belong to the city, you can't take a few minutes to cut those grasses.

You let the people who live right next to the park have to live next to high grass, and I'm talking grass up to here, and you cut that.

That's the irresponsibility and competence that we have working for us.

So, yes, is the answer to that, is what I want to say.

Thank you very much.

Um, if the alderman from the 14th would yield absolutely for the 14th yell to questioning from the older woman from the absolutely older women, you may proceed.

So um Alderman, you said, did I hear you say something about you asked the parks about them maintaining that particular park or that particular space, which you don't uh uh associate as being a park?

Did you ask them about maintaining that space?

Yes, I was uh there was already communications going on between uh the registered director of operations in Garacia and the parks department.

And when I had talked to the register, I end up uh getting those emails and reaching out to the parks department uh myself and found out uh as uh the commissioner said that is not um that's not they don't maintain uh inner co plaza.

The director, the director, I didn't the commissioners of parks.

I reached out to Director Hayes, who already was in conversation with the register uh and director of operations from the president office via email.

So you were talking to the director, which is Greg Case.

You were not talking to the commissioner parks.

The commissioner had also sent an email uh the same day that I talked to Greg Hayes saying the same thing that it's not a park, yes, ma'am.

So um the commissioner says that is not a park and they do not maintain it, yes, ma'am.

And by maintain it, they mean they don't cut the grass.

Yes, ma'am.

So um could you have a park that didn't have grass and still be a park?

Potentially.

I haven't seen any, but potentially.

Oh, they have rock garden parks, they have all kinds of different kinds of parks.

They're still parks, okay?

So they don't maintain it, and the uh so that's what the commissioner parks said, and then the director of a parks recreation and forestry said this that they don't maintain it.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, and is there any grass on that land?

Yes, ma'am.

So um, and and it is your contention that it is owned by private company?

There's a there's a portion of uh the plaza that is owned by Stargroup.

So it actually is already uh it's not a hundred percent the city.

There's a portion of it that's actually already owned by a private entity before that private entity bought it.

Uh Northside Regeneration had owned it.

The city actually sold uh that parcel um to Northside.

So let me speak to what the commissioner not don't know.

I'm sorry.

The director, you said told you it is absolutely the director of forestry's uh uh requirement that they cut any property owned by the city, or and they also cut private property that's not being maintained.

So if that grass was tall and it was his responsibility to cut it, but um, so if he said he didn't, then he's also admitting to he doesn't do his job because that is his responsibility, and it's in the charter what they're supposed to do.

So if he said that, I'm sorry to hear that.

And to be clear, if I could jump in real quick, as I had just mentioned to the alder woman, it is not on their list as a park, but I had also just said if they had seen overgrown grass, they will cut it.

It is not a regularly maintained park that is on their list that they go out with their crews to cut.

Okay, so that's different.

There's not so here's something I don't know if you know this, I can tell you this.

So um the parks department cuts not only uh the parks, they also cut medians, and I have a lot of I got several medians in my ward, like you have a median now down Jefferson.

And I have a lot of I got several medians in my or like you have a median now down Jefferson.

I don't think it's a good one.

Yes, ma'am.

Yep, that's right.

Okay.

So that's part of their maintenance that they're supposed to do, okay?

But forestry absolutely is supposed to cut it.

And um, is it your contention that because it's not on a regular maintenance list that that that means that it's not a park?

Is that the definition that we give to a park?

I don't believe it's a park based off of uh the opinion that we received from.

No, no, no, wait, wait, wait.

Well, can you answer my question?

I didn't ask my question.

Maybe I didn't hear it right.

Is it your contention that if the parks commissioner or the forestry parks and recreation director says it's not on their maintenance list, that that makes it not be a park?

Yes, if the parks commissioner say this is not one of the parks of the city of St.

Louis, I believe uh the parks commissioner and director.

So what if I if I have a list that says that which I got from a parks commissioner that says it is a park?

How do we then figure that out?

Well, the list that I got, they mentioned that it's not one.

If you got one, we could talk about that.

But uh literally talked to the director this week and they mentioned that it's not one.

Okay, so but how do you uh so I just want to understand what you said?

How you then explain to me uh that it has ordinances re uh referring to it as a park.

At that point, when you're passing an ordinance about what you can do in that park and you refer to it as a park, wouldn't it have been the uh duty of the forest the uh parks commissioner and the director of parks recreation to and forestry to come and say, hey, how are you passing this ordinance about what can be done in this park that is not a park?

Wouldn't that be something they should have done at that time?

Maybe I didn't hear you all the way.

Can you say it again?

Okay, if you we have ordinances that say certain things about what you can do can and cannot do, uh such as they have a curfew ordinance.

Here's one of the things, right?

So if you have a curfew ordinance and it's posted and it says that in the intercode park plaza, there's a park ordinance.

No person should lauder, idle, wander, stroll, play, or otherwise be in or upon the confines of any public park or playground of a public area immediately adjacent there too between the hours of 10 a.m.

and 6 a.m.

throughout the year.

So how do we have a park ordinance uh posted or uh passed in which uh the director and or the uh commissioner wouldn't have said, hey, you can't pass that.

That's not a park.

So that ordinance that is posted that talks about the hours of curfew is like most parks that have those up that uh put those in parks saying here's the ordinance for the park curfew.

That is not the ordinance that established Inecho Plaza on the website.

There is an ordinance that says 1977, which a register have not been able to find that.

However, there is a quick claim deed between um I think Convention West or Innico and 1977, where they gifted this land to the city of St.

Louis as a free property, not restricted out as um not restricted out as a park.

And so here's what I'm saying that with that part of the charter, which trumps any little thing that the uh uh forestry commissioner or director says that this charter refers to anything that has been held out to be a public park.

If you're passing the ordinances as a public park, you're saying it's a public park, it's been held out to be a public park.

The only way it wouldn't have been held out to be a public park is the city has declared this is not a public park, and we cannot pass any ordinances or legislation saying it is.

We did the exact opposite.

That is the very essence of held out to be a public park.

That is what I'm saying to you.

And again, I know about this intimately.

Again, Irv Clay was a parks person.

He was recognized so many times because he loved parks and recreation, he took care of it.

And he and Darlene and Shrewsbury worked on this uh very public charter reform because of the big named people who had bullied, I use that term, their way into getting part of uh Forest Park, and they the whole cry was never again, and that's why you have that.

So to be able to say that's not a park, okay, but it hasn't been held out to be a park is another test.

And I would submit to you that it has.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Alderman from the ninth, and then I'll go to Alder Woman from the 13th.

Uh thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that the parks department did maintain it up until 2020, and when an ordinance was passed to allow Starwood to take over the maintenance of it, at which time a fence went around the property and has remained around the property.

So I do think this has been maintained by the parks.

It might not be currently on their list because of that ordinance, but uh and then the other thing I would put out is that the original sale of that small piece of the park that belonged to Northside Regeneration, and before that belonged to LCRA, wasn't a legal sale, and the city should take it back.

Alder Woman from the 13th.

And so the Alderman from the 9th kind of threw me off with that one.

Well, Woody just said, uh, could I ask the Alderman from the 9th to ask?

I mean, from the 14th to answer a question, please.

Alderman from the 14th yield questioning from the Alder Woman from the 13th.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Alderman, what is that listed at on the city site?

Maybe I missed that conversation.

Because you know, when you put the address up, what is it listed as?

The address of Innico Plaza.

Uh-huh.

On the city website, uh there is listed under the parks uh website as a park, and it said ordinance 1977.

The gray area is when I also talked with the parks department, they did not provide that list to whoever made uh the city website.

The ordinance that would have established this as a park 1977 also does not exist.

There's a quick claim deed, but there's not an ordinance that established this park.

I think one of the things we brought up is half of the parks aren't in ordinance, and you know, moving forward.

I think we should put those into ordinance so that we don't have this gray area, but um there is nothing between the quick claim deed or ordinance uh that is on the books that establish this as a city park.

So what you're telling me is per the city is not a park.

Per city ordinance, it is not a park, yes, ma'am.

But we sold a part to a private entity.

We actually already went down the road between before I was here.

What we are trying to do is sell the rest of it.

We've already years ago, um, have already sold portions of Ineco Plaza.

LCRA sold it back then to Paul McKee or Northside Regeneration.

Northside Regeneration sold it to who's trying to buy it now.

So if it was a city park, this is not a land that is owned completely by the city.

It is already, we've already started and went down the route.

And when those pieces of parcels were sold, there was not uh the same upcry of oh, we're selling the park, we're selling the park.

The city had already moved forward to already sell portions of Inaco Plaza, and which the alderman can say he thinks it's illegal.

I think that's up to lawyers who actually have uh a bar to go and try that in court.

But we've already started down that process.

So was it a was it residential or something before it became this plaza?

Was it a building there?

What was there?

No, it wasn't a building.

Always just a vacant area, was it?

So before it was a plaza, like I say, underneath was um train tracks that ran underneath this plaza where the post-dispatch building is.

That's why honestly, there's not much that can go there because it's so hollowed out.

Um, as development started to happen on North on Tucker, they wanted to use this land um as L CRA wanted to use this land, uh, hopefully to make it a park, which never came to fruition actually being a park.

Okay, so LCRA never moved it as to adopting it as a official park.

When we got no ma'am, when we got the quick claim deed from 1977, uh it is gifted uh to the city as a as a free deed, it was free of donation.

One of the things I talked about with the I talked with the city councilor, she said most of the times when you kind of see these deeds of land with parks, there would be a restriction on the D to say be used as a park, and that it's not on the D.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your question, Alderwoman.

I'll go alderman from the ninth and then back to Alder Woman from the 12th.

Alderman from the 9th.

Thank you.

Um as I said, you know, in the time we've had to look into this, we we did a lot of research.

And so I don't mean to drag this on, but I just want to make sure we have the correct facts.

Um when we sold the little small parcel, the LCRI sold it to Northside Regeneration, it was sold as part of a 1200 parcel package.

So it's likely that it was missed.

Uh and you know, I think we can we're not gonna religate north side regeneration and all that today, but that was obviously a mistake.

That that should not have been sold.

Um the other thing is that when the park was created, it was a actual condition by the sphere drop uh and parcel company as part of the construction of the current Board of Education building.

Uh a lot of the buildings around there were built by uh the sphere drug company, and they built uh they conditioned them building those buildings around there as a condition of if there is a public park here.

Um I I read earlier numerous examples, and then I've also provided everyone uh examples of post-dispatch articles of downtown design plans of our own planning documents, including the recently adopted sloop, uh the strategic land use plan that all point to this as a park and a public space.

And so uh again, I don't want to belabor the point, but uh I do want to honor the charter and the will of the people, and I would be uh again asked that we we do not vote on this today, or if we do, we do not approve it, uh, so that we can go back and do a bill that sends this to the people.

Alder woman from the 12th.

Madam President, members of the board, if the Alderman from the 9th would yield.

The Alderman from the 9th yields questioning from the Alder Woman from the 12th, yes, Alder Woman.

You may proceed.

Thank you.

Alderman, when was the uh sale to uh of the 1200 parcels made?

Um let me look it up.

I don't have it off the top of my head, uh, but happy to look into that.

Uh looks like it's 2012.

Okay.

All right.

Um so it was after we had passed the charter and uh yes, change.

Okay, and 1200 parcels is a large amount of land uh for everybody to get every little piece.

How when did we start um associating the land as part of a park?

Do you know what date that was?

It was between I want to say 1977 and 1981, uh, when the first project was done on this park, as mentioned it was kind of an open pit uh where there were tracks that ran below grade, and the reason it's called Interco is because the Interco company um they owned the air rights on that lot, which is kind of where the park is now because the base level was below grade, and so they uh donated that to the city uh with the intention of them turning it into a public space.

So it was associated with parks back in the 1977 to 81.

We then took the land and sold it in 2012 with a big huge parcel of property, and part of that got sold, but the other part didn't get sold.

Is that what happened?

The the reason that there are different parcels is that there used to be a small building on the parcel that was sold, uh later sold.

So uh yeah, this park does kind of sit on multiple parcels, and that one parcel was okay.

So we sold the part where there was a building, um, but we didn't sell the other part, which had been held out to be a park.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, so going back here, and everybody keeps saying that it has to be a park.

And the alderman from the 14th seems to take great reliance on that it has to be a park.

Again, I want to ask you, it says um, doesn't it say held out for or used as a public park?

It didn't say it had to be uh uh certified by the city was a park.

That if we held it out to be a park, that was enough for us not to then sell that.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

So this part of the land that has not been sold has been held out to be a park.

Now we made a mistake with the other part.

Um either we go back and get that or we say, hey, we make a mistake, we swallow that.

But um that doesn't mean that we then sell this other part, right?

I think so, yeah.

I think I took it.

If we made a mistake and we don't go back, as you said you think we should go back and get it, and I agree with you.

I think we should take it back, okay.

Saying this was an illegal sale, but um, and but that's been 13 years ago.

I don't know if you do that.

But saying that you let him keep that other part, okay, that's still the other part has always been held out to be a park.

It had been held out to be a park.

It was in the city's possession when we passed the city charter.

Is that right?

Yes.

So then it is under the protection of the city charter.

Is that how you understand it?

Yes, I would understand that as the charter is written, it protects this park from being sold without a vote.

Okay.

And but if it's not, let's just say it's not designated as a park.

I'm saying that one of the things that people are not listening to, it doesn't have to be designated a park.

We can just hold it out to be a park.

We don't have to have ordinances.

We can say this has been a park.

We call this city plaza park.

We call this uh Michael Browning Park, we call this Sharon Tyers Park.

But we let people think of that as a park.

Um, and that's what people thought of it as until they said, Well, we want to have another corporate use.

Don't you think that this was the whole very reason that this was uh the um verbiage in section one of Article 26 was made so that it didn't just say something that was a park, something that was made by ordinance to be a park, but it would cover all the things that people had relied on was a park that maybe did not have a quote unquote ordinance.

Don't you think that's why the uh ordinance was written there?

I'm sorry, the charter was written that way.

I don't just think that I I know that from conversations I've had with the people behind that effort and the people who wrote that language.

Um, you know, furthermore, I I'd say that the context here matters, right?

Because we're not saying only parks created by ordinance, you have to look at the broader context, and that's where I think the city councilor's opinion falls short, and that I don't think it took into account things.

It doesn't mention the plat map, it doesn't mention the strategic land use plan, it doesn't mention the numerous ways this has been laid out as a park and held out for use as a park.

Because let me say this.

So hearing the conversation between the 14th Ward Altman and other people, it is almost like, well, if we decide we're not gonna do anything to a park, we can just put uh uh chain link fence around it, not do anything for a while, and then say, well, hey, that's not a park because nobody uses it in a park.

Because for a while now, do you know how that chain link has been around that plaza?

So it's prevented people from using it.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, and so would that mean that for the four years, and I for what's the park that's right in front of City Hall that we had the bicycle racks around for four years?

Would that mean that we could argue that that's not a park now because for four years we weren't able to uh use it using the rationale that they're using is that nobody was taking care of it, nobody was doing this.

Um, because we absolutely had in fact City Hall was surrounded by uh the bicycle racks.

Would we be able to argue that we're it's really not city hall anymore?

Because we were surrounded by bicycle racks, because I had numerous complaints when the racks are they're not bicycle racks, but they're I call them that all the time because we had some some kind of fencing around that.

So that the fact that the park was not taken care of properly by the parks department or forestry department, or the fact that it put a fence around it, that did not make it be that it was no longer park because it had already been held up out to be a park and it became covered under um the city charter.

Is that correct?

That is correct, and I shared your concerns about fencing off public spaces like that.

Uh, but this does open a can of worms if we're to argue that this is the measure and not take into account the very specific factors that really make something a park, which I think is is easily definable.

I mean, I don't think that we're asking too much here.

We're not opening the can of worms by saying this is a park, but we are if we say it's not one, because then a lot of parks in the city come under question, and then I think we're going to have to rush to put out an ordinance and protect all these other parks, and you kind of have to ask, like, if that's the path we're taking, why is the interpretation causing more problems than it solves?

And I'm gonna also add, um, if he's saying that because we sold land that was under protection, and he's uh the Alderman from the 14th is saying, well, we sold it anyway.

Well, since if it's under protection and he doesn't leave it alone, to me, we should go ahead and take it back, okay, and not try to say that's okay because we don't even want to um have the appearance that that's okay.

We made a mistake.

Um, if he hadn't stirred this can of worms up and tried to take more of it, maybe nobody would have noticed, but we did make a mistake, it was under protection, and we should not continue the mistake and make it worse by selling the rest of the land.

I want to make this clear, it does not have to be designated a park.

If it has been held out to be a park and it was uh held out to be a park when this city charter was passed, then it is under the protection of the city charter, and that's what we should make sure the people understand because we do not want to open that can of worms because somebody could come with a ordinance or a board bill proposed, and let's just say handy park.

They find handy park used to be a dump.

Okay, I had to spend a couple hundred thousand dollars to get the uh drainage uh set right.

So, what if that doesn't have an ordinance?

Then can I say can I put an ordinance through?

I mean a board bill through to says I'm going to sell handy park because it was no longer an ordinance.

No, and I don't think we're required to go back and say you have to have an ordinance to be considered a park.

We have a list of parks, it has been truly listed as a park.

We had ordinances that refer to it as a park, and only now we want to sell it, which will always be the case when somebody big or important or big business wants to do it, they will find a way to say it's not a park.

Our job as um elected representatives is to protect our chart charter and follow it, and to make sure, especially with this extraordinary turnout of people who said we do not want our parks sold, that we do not sell our parks.

Thank you, Alderman.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion.

Seeing none, then alderman from the 14th, you're recognized to close.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board.

Um, I'll keep this short, it's been long.

I do want to thank uh also one person I forgot to mention was uh the comp troller, who is also at uh the hearing of this board bill.

I want to thank our city councilor, our parks department, city register, and all the experts that have come to the table that said uh this parcel is not a park.

We've already uh not necessarily this board, but the board of alderman has already went down the process to sell part of these parcels, not only once but twice.

This area, I know there's a lot of concern, uh and I I hear it from my colleagues, but I can tell you now this area where Inaco Plaza sit is not like Handy Park or some of the other parks that we talk about, where actually it is a relaxed uh place for people to go with their family or with their dog to actually look at uh to hang out in uh this area as a park.

It is not that it has been a nuisance, it's not only been a nuisance for the city, but it's been a nuisance for the people in the surrounding area, and I know that because it is in my ward, and I talk with these individuals.

I've been talking with the residents of the area uh for the last couple years about this location.

It has not served a good purpose.

I believe the developer uh again, as I've been working with him, has not only plans for uh this inecho plaza to turn to a parking lot, but also uh development around the area.

So again, um I'm I I appreciate all the input.

Um, but I'm gonna lean on this one with the experts and the legal opinion from our city counselor.

If it were to get sued, you know, I don't legislation, I don't legislate off getting sued.

If that's the case, the short-term rentals have been sued.

Um, there's been several bills uh down at the board of Alderman that has been sued.

But what is very clear is that we have the city attorney, our city attorney Garvin, that if this does happen is ready to stand up for the city of St.

Louis and fight for it.

With that, Madam President and members of the board, I close.

It's been all called uh it was moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the third.

That we perfect board bill 82 as amended in committee.

There's a request for roll call.

Madam Kirk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman's wife, sir.

Alderman Aldenberg.

All right, alderman called them in the Ryan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Sonia.

Alder Woman Cox Antwerp.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

Thank you.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alder Woman Tyres.

No Alder Woman Boy.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

President Green.

No.

Alder Woman Sweit, sir.

Alderman Cone.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

10 aye votes and three voted no.

As amendment.

That's the extent of board bills for perfection.

Report of Engrossment.

Board bill 68.

Third reading final passage board bills consent.

We have none.

Third reading, final passage of board bills.

Board bill 68.

Alderman from the 9th.

You are recognized on the third reading, final passage, board bill 68.

Thank you.

Um I would move that we third read and finally pass board bill 68.

It's been moved by the alderman from the ninth, seconded by the alder woman from the 11th that we third read and finally pass board bill 68.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Uh thank you.

The uh board bill 68, we talked about this last week.

Um it's a renewal of the development tool for the Cortex District that required by Missouri statute that we renew the ability for Cortex to use white determination to continue developing the 200-acre area that they were charged with developing by agreement with the city back in the early 2000s.

Uh happy to take any questions from my colleagues, uh, but I ask your favorable consideration.

Board bill 68, sponsored Alderman Alderman Browning and Alderwoman Keys, an ordinance renewing the previous blighting determination made by ordinance number 66847 and ordinance number six six nine eighty five as renewed by ordinance number six eight seven five four and ordinance number seven zero one one nine, ordinance number seven one two one four for the Cortex West redevelopment area, such as Cortex West Redevelopment Corporation can't continue to exercise his rights to use eminent domain granted by the city to complete the redevelopment plan.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board.

Um they had a long debate about the previous bill.

Um I was here to vote no on the original Cortex um ordinance.

Um the Alderman from the ninth made a point that they had not had to use and the reason I voted no is the imminent domain that we give to private entities, and the Alderman said they hadn't had to use it, but they needed it.

I don't agree with the very premise that we will as a government agent see used imminent domain, except for when we really have to.

Um but if we do need to use it, I do not agree with giving it out to private entities, not for profits or anything like that.

I think that is a misuse of uh the public trust in government.

And for that reason, I voted against it, and I will be voting against it again.

Um, not that they've used it, but they should not we should not give that to private entities.

That is something that governments should use and they should use it sparingly.

And I've been down here for an awful long time, and it's only several a couple of board bills that I've had to put imminent domain into, and it didn't go to that.

Um, but I know the power of even just putting it in a board bill, um, that it will bring people um to the table.

Um, and that should be under government supervision for that reason.

I am not going to support board bill.

We'll be voting no on board bill sixty-eight.

Have no further um I have nothing further to say.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, aldermen from the ninth, you're recognized to close.

Thank you.

Um I just would renew my motion to third read and finally pass board bill sixty.

It's been moved by the alderman from the ninth, seconded by the alder woman from the 11th that we third read and finally pass board bill 68.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Call.

Alderman Orion.

Alderman Devoti.

Alderwoman Velasquez, Alderwoman Sanye.

No.

Alderwoman Cas Antwi.

Alderman Browning.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard.

Alderwoman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyes.

No.

Alderwoman Boyd.

Hi.

Alderman Aldridge.

No.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderwoman Schweitzer.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderwoman Velasquez.

Seven aye votes and five no votes.

By your vote, you failed to sustain the motion of the alderman from the ninth.

You have third red and finally passed board bill 68.

It needed eight votes for final passage, and it got seven.

Report of the finally passed and signed by the president.

We have none.

First reading resolutions and reference to committees.

Resolution 132, sponsored by Alderman Devotee.

Approving the 2026 Garden Size Subdivision Special Business District Budget.

Alderman from the Fifth, you're recognized on the first reading resolution 132.

I've lost my place.

Garden side is a subdivision within the Southwest Garden neighborhood.

And I would appreciate your favorable favorable consideration.

Would you like to make a motion to adopt the Garden Side Subdivision Special Business District Budget?

I would do so.

Adopt the Garden Side Special Business District Budget.

Yes.

Motion made by Alderman from the 5th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 10th that we adopt the 2026 Garden Side Subdivision Special Business District Budget.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

That's the extent of first reading the resolutions in reference to committee.

Second reading resolutions committee reports and adoptions.

Report from the Health and Human Development Committee, the mayoral appointee to the Missouri History Museum Subdistrict Advisory Board, David Lie Hopes.

Alderman from the 14th, you're recognized on Mayor Spencer's appointments to the Missouri History Museum Subdistrict Advisory Board.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move to appoint uh the individual to the History Museum Board.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 11th, that we have Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Missouri History Museum Subdistrict Advisory Board.

Is there any discussion?

Alder Woman from the 13th.

No, I'm sorry.

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Resolutions, committee report, and adoptions.

Alder woman from the 10th, you're recognized on the motion to adopt the courtesy resolutions consent calendar.

Wait a minute.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I move that we adopt the courtesy resolution calendar.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the third that we adopt the courtesy resolution.

Calendar is there any discussion?

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Miscellaneous and unfinished business.

We have none.

Announcements.

Tuesday, October 28th.

HUDS will have a committee hearing in the Kennedy room at 11 a.m.

Wednesday, October 29th.

Special committee on reducing red tape.

We'll have a committee hearing at 1230 p.m.

Public Infrastructure and Utilities.

We'll have a committee hearing in the Kennedy room at 3:30 p.m.

Budget and public employees will have a committee hearing in the Kennedy room at 6 p.m.

Friday, October the 31st, 2025, full board meeting in the chambers at 10 a.m.

That's the extent of the announcement.

Any further announcements?

Any further announcement.

Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board.

This Saturday from 8 to 1 p.m.

at House of Seoul.

They will be celebrating.

I want to say it's their fifth year of being in business.

Please come on out to be able to celebrate.

This is a black owned business right at the corner of Washington.

Uh and Tucker.

And this is the has been putting on so many great events for the community.

She's been holding it down at that corner to try to bring not just excellence, but black excellence to that corner.

And please come on out.

Thank you.

Any further announcements?

Alder Woman from the 10th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

This coming Monday, of course, the last Monday of the month is our regularly scheduled opportunity in the 10th war to have one-on-one conversations, fellowship, and just an overall good time.

This time here is going to be a different time from four to six so that we can catch the daylight because not only will you be key able to connect with me, your neighborhood improvement specialists, our first responders from the second and fifth district police department and the fire department, NSI, Metro Bus, and so many others.

There's also going to be community collaboration from what I've dubbed the heart of the 10th ward.

That's King's Customs at 1010 North Kings Highway, where he will be hosting a trunk retreat for the kids.

They will be there.

There will be resources from Diamond Deeve Empowerment Foundation, Walmart, and so many others, such as our Treasurer Adam Lane, Rise in School Supplies, Coogman Motors that's been on Kings Highway for 100 plus years, suffered damage in the tornado, but again is still wanting to give back to community this way.

So again, this Monday from 4 to 6 at King Customs 1010 North Kings Highway.

You can meet us there for a trunk or treat and connect with community.

Thank you.

Alder Woman from the 13th.

Thank you, Madam President.

I don't have an announcement.

I've just had a question.

I'll I'll talk to your chief of staff about it.

Thank you.

Sounds good.

Alderman from the 9th.

Just want to remind everyone that uh tomorrow night is the Central West End Halloween party.

And so uh come down and have a great time.

Uh you'll be blown away by some of the costumes.

It's a really fun time.

So uh this is you know a good weekend to come out and uh enjoy the Central West End and just hope to see you there.

Any further announcements?

Any further announcements?

Seeing none, Alder Woman from the 10th, you're recognized on the motion to excuse.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board.

I move that we excuse the Alder Woman from the first for very necessary absence and send her our love and support prayers, and we are rooting for uses and then also the alder woman from the sixth, both the alder woman's from the first and the sixth for necessary absence.

It's been moved by the alder uh woman from the 10th, seconded by the alderman from the third, that we excuse the alder persons from the first and sixth for necessary absence.

Or any discussion.

Sorry.

Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed?

Aye.

Motion carries.

Alder woman from the 10th, you're recognized on the motion to adjourn.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board.

I move that we adjourn until Friday, October 31st, 2025, better known as Halloween in the Board of Alderman Chambers at 10 a.m.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the third, that we adjourn until Friday, October 31st, 2025 in the Board of Alderman Chambers at 10 a.m.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

We are adjourned.