The board will now come to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderwoman Sweitzer.

Present.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Call.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alderwoman Velazquez.

Alder Woman Sanye.

Alderwoman Cox Answee.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alderwoman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Present.

Alderwoman Boyd.

Present.

Alderman Aldrich.

President Green.

Present.

Alderwoman Velazquez.

Alder Woman Sanye.

Alderwoman Cox Answee.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alderwoman Keys.

Tim present, you have horn.

According 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 first.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Today I have a very special honored guest.

This is Vincent Michael Quinn, the newest first board resident.

He is super excited to be participating in his first Board of Alderman meeting.

I'm sure it will be one of many.

But he's just a little bit less than a week old, and uh he is well just not quite ready for like a crowd.

Um and I'd also like to have as my honored guests my wonderful mother-in-law Julie Quinn, who's been here with us for the last several days.

And my kitchen has never been cleaner.

My baby's probably the happiest I'll ever been having so much support uh here with us, and then my husband Jimmy Quinn is also here with me today.

So I just want to say uh hi to everybody and um thanks for having us back and people for covering for me for the last week.

I'll be taking some more time to you know bond and and all of that, but some pretty important stuff on the on the agenda today.

So I wanted to be here, and Vinny was pretty pretty insistent upon it, honestly.

So here we are, and uh if he cries, you know, it's probably because someone's talking too long.

Um, and I I do apologize for Alderman uh of the 14th, who I'm sure would have preferred to have introduced Vinny as an honored guest, but uh the Godfather, of course, can still have him as well.

So thank you all.

And uh I can't wait to be back with you.

And he is wearing a cap from his uh board of alderman baby shower.

So he's he's he's ready to just meet all of his boa family soon.

All right, thanks, everybody.

Thanks.

Congratulations, Alder Woman, and for everyone, all the alders in the chamber today.

Just uh a reminder that when baby Vincent cries, that means it's your time to wrap it up.

I will unmute Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Of course, I had to let the mother go first.

Um, but I would also love to have uh as my honor guest uh baby Vincent Rashin Quinn as the board of Alderman's special guest today, as well as I want to give a shout out uh to Jimmy, who I know has uh just been super amazing and uh as the godfather of the child.

I'm super excited, can't wait to see the baby this weekend, and we have missed you, Alderwoman, uh, and we look forward to you coming back very soon.

But take your time and we will see you soon, and we will be seeing the baby down at the floor as we be babysit him over the time as you try to hold a fight on microphone.

So thank you, Alderwoman.

Any further introduction of honored guests, any further introduction of honored guests.

Seeing none, uh Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the approval of the minutes from Friday, October 24, 2025.

Thank you, madam present, members of the board.

I move to I move to approve the minutes from October 24th, 2025.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 11th that we approve the minutes from Friday.

Alder Woman from the 13th.

Yes, madam chair, by Madam President and Board.

I'd like to speak on amendments given for the health committee report on October the 24th.

And it was given by Alderman Rashi Aldrich, who does not sit on that committee.

And we have board members there that sit on the health committee that could have given their report.

And so I'd like that to refit reflect that the wrong person gave the report.

The report.

That is noted.

Thank you, Alder Woman.

Anything on the minutes.

Okay.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alder woman from the 11th that we approve the minutes from Friday, October 24th, 2025.

Is there any discussion?

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

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 Clean Energy Development Board.

The appointment of Aldous Williams, who resides in the eighth ward.

I respectfully request your approval of these appointments.

Sincerely, Cara Spencer Mayor.

Alder woman from the eighth, you're recognized on Mayor Spencer's appointment to the energy development board.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members of the board.

Um I ask that we favorably consider this appointment.

Uh oldest Williams, uh, I believe will be a great asset.

We know well to serve on this board, and I have no further comments uh beyond that.

Are you making in a motion to approve the mayor's appointment?

Yes, I move that we approve the mayor's appointment.

Is there a second?

It's been moved by the alder woman from the eighth, seconded by the alderman from the fourth.

Is there any discussion?

Alder Woman from the 12th.

One fight at a time.

Um yes.

I understood, but I heard a whole bunch of talking.

Somebody didn't have their mic muted, so I was trying to give them a chance.

That um the clean energy board, I believe, is a citywide board, and I thought we were sending citywide nominations to committee.

And although I support Mr.

Williams, I would request that we send this to the committee.

Alder Woman from the 8th, are you wanting to continue with your motion or are you willing to send this appointment to committee?

I think the alder woman from the 12th, uh, for that contact.

Well, I do support the appointment.

Um, I'm happy to follow um in the previous practices of sending citywide appointments to committee.

So with that, I am happy.

Um, if there is no uh further support on that, to send it to committee.

Okay, we first need to which our motion and our second I will withdraw my and I will withdraw my motion um to approve the appointment.

Alderman from the fourth, will you withdraw your second?

Withdrawn.

Okay.

Thank you, Alderman.

Uh and alder woman from the eighth.

Do you have a preference on committee?

I think this in the past has gone to the HUDs committee.

Okay.

Uh thank you, madam president, and I will follow the previous practice and uh send that to the HUDs committee.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the eighth, second by the alderman from the 14th that we send the mayor's appointment to the clean energy development board to the HUDs committee.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Dear members of the board, I have the pleasure to submit the following individuals for appointment to the syndicate trust community improvement district, the appointment of John St.

Clair.

I'm sorry, John Sinclair, the appointment of Thomas Smallwood, the appointment of Benjamin Gamble, the appointment of Mary Ashley Mendick, and the appointment of Louise.

I'm sorry, Nicholas Lucetta.

I respectfully request of your approval.

Sincerely, Cara Spencer Mayor.

Alderman for the 14th, you are recognized the Mayor Spencer's appointment to the syndicate trust community improvement district.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move to approve the members uh for the trust committee community improvement district.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alder woman from the 7th that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointments to the syndicate trust community improvement district.

Is there any discussion?

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

Opposed motion carries.

That's extended report of city officials.

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

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

Seeing none, alder woman from the 12th, you are recognized on the motion to spend the rules for the purposes of introducing board bill 92 for first reading.

Madam President, members of the board, I move to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing board bill 92 onto the calendar for first reading.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 12th, seconded by the aldermen from the 14th.

That we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing uh board bill 92 for first reading.

Sir, uh this is a non-debatable motion.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweat, sir.

Aye.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Signe.

Alderman, I'm sorry, Alder Woman Cox Answer.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Cone.

Aye.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velazquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clark Hover.

14 aye votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion for the Alder Woman from the 12th.

If you could please place Board Bill 92 at the end of the first reading of board bills.

So noted.

Alderman from the 14th.

You are now recognized on the motion to spend the rules for the purposes introduced for board bills 93, 94, and 95 for first reading.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I move to suspend the rules for board bill 93, 94, and 95 to the first reading calendar.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th.

Second by the Alder Woman from the 11th that we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing board bills 93, 94, and 95 for first reading.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman O'Ryan.

Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sonia.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox Antwer.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyers.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

President Green.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clerk Hover.

14 aye votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the 14th.

If you could please place board bills 93, 94, and 95 at the end of the first reading of board bills.

So noted.

First reading of board bills.

Board bill 90 number not use this session.

Board bill 91 introduced by Alderman Aldenberg and ordinance making tobacco shops as defined there in a conditional zoning district.

A B C D E F H I and L.

Board Bill number 92, sponsored by Alderwoman Tyers and ordinance temporarily closing Wheater Avenue between each clearance and polls at both two ends of the Weida and temporary closed Pope Avenue between Weida and North Third North Broadway feet north of the North Curb line of Pope and North Broadway containing emergency clause.

Board Bill 93, sponsored by Alderman Aldrich and the co-sponsors include Mayor Para Spencer, President Green, Alderwoman Sonye, and Alderwoman Clark Hubbard.

An ordinance recommended by the Board of Instantment and Apportiment, authorizing and directing an appropriation and total amount of one million dollars of RAM settlement funds for a deposit into the impacted tenants fund as authorized by ordinance 71840 and revised by ordinance 72002 containing the separability and emergency clause.

Board Bill 94, sponsored by Alder Woman Sign Gay and the following co-sponsors.

Mayor Spencer, President Green, Alderwoman Clark Hubbard, and Alderman Aldridge.

An ordinance recommended by the Board of ISMEN and apportionment, appropriating the sum of 3,365,535.5 cent of the RAM settlement funds for the purpose of supporting winter shelter needs for unhoused residents authorizing and directing the director of Department of Human Services to execute or purchase against existing contracts as may be necessary to expand funds containing the severability and emergency clause.

Board Bill 95 sponsored by Alderwoman Clark Hubbard and the co-sponsors include Mayor Spencer and President Green.

An ordinance recommended by the Board of ISMEN apportionment, appropriating the sum of $9,350,000 of a one-time unreserved general operating reserve funds for deposit into the tornado relief and recovery fund for the purpose of supporting winter-related emergency shelter and additional tornado disaster relief to support housing of residents impacted by the May 16th, 2025 tornado containing the severability and emergency clause.

That's the extent of board bills.

First reading of board bills.

I'm sorry to budget.

Okay.

Alder woman from the 11th.

Can you hear me?

Oh, there we are.

Good morning.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I would like to be added as a co-sponsor on 92, 93, 94, and 95.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

Thank you.

Reference to committee of board bills.

11.

To the reference, I'm sorry, to the HUDS Committee Board Bill 91 to public infrastructure 92 to budget 93 and 94.

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

And 95 to budget.

And 95, I'm sorry.

Second reading and report of standing committees.

The following board bills were reported out of HUDS Committee with the due pass recommendation.

Board Bill 84, sponsored by Alder Woman Clark Hubbard, Alder Woman Sign Yay, Alderman Browning, and Aldo Alderman Aldrich.

An ordinance recommended by the Board of ISMEN and apportionment authorizing the mayor to submit the 2026 annual action plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, authorizing the mayor and comptroller to enter into and execute the agreements with Hood for the receipt of 2026, community development block grant, community development block grant, disaster recovery home investment partnership, emergency solution grant, housing opportunities for person with AIDS funds, authorizing the director of the community development administration, department of human services, department of health to execute contracts as may be necessary to expand funds containing a severability and emergency clause.

The following board bill was reported of public infrastructure with a due pass recommendation.

Board Bill 13, sponsored by Alder Woman Sign Yay, and ordinance repealing ordinance number 58239, approved February the 19th, 1981, which previously vacated the East West Alley located between St.

Vincent and Park Avenue on the 2700 block.

This ordinance restores all public surface rights for vehicle equestrian and pedestrian travel to the city of St.

Louis pertaining to this track.

Board Bill 75 sponsored by Alderwoman Sign Yay.

An ordinance establishing a four-way stop site at the intersection of Cherokee and Virginia Avenue, the Bend Park West and Grevoard Park neighborhoods in the 7th ward to regulate traffic traveling in all directions containing emergency clause.

Board Bill 85 sponsored by Alder Woman Sign Yay, 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 throughout the seventh ward.

Board bill eighty-nine sponsored by Alderman Browning, Alderwoman Sweitzer, Alderwoman Clark Hubbard, Alderman Noriant, and Alderman Aldrich.

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

Louis to establish multiple public works and improvement of projects for the CAS Avenue multi-model corridor transformation phase one, traffic management enhancement phase nine on Skinker, McCausland, and the Christie Greenway phase two within the city of St.

Louis containing an emergency clause.

That's the extent of the second reading report of standing committees.

Alderman from the 9th, you're recognized on the motion to uh suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bill 89 to the regular uh or sorry the perfection consent calendar.

Alderman from the ninth, you're recognized on the motion to uh suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bill eighty-nine to the regular uh or sorry the perfection consent calendar we know mine works thank you madam president uh I move that we suspend the rules to move board bill eighty-nine to the perfection consent calendar second it's been moved by the alderman from the ninth, seconded by the alder woman from the eleventh that we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bill eighty-nine to the perfection consent calendar.

This is a non-debatable motion, madam clerk.

Please call the roll.

Alder woman Sweitzer.

Okay, Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman Orion.

Alderman Devoti.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sanye.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox Antwie.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyus.

I'm sorry, was that aye?

No.

Alder Woman Boy.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Cahn.

Aye.

15.

Aye votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the 9th.

If you could please place Board Bill 89 on the perfection consent calendar.

So noted.

Report of special committees.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item 15.

Board bills for perfection consent.

Board bill 89, sponsored by Alderman Browning, Alderwoman Schweitzer, Alderwoman Clark Hubbard, Alderman O'Ryan, and Alderman Aldridge.

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

Louis to establish a multiple public works and improvement projects for Cass Avenue multi-model quarter transformation phase one.

Traffic management enhancement phase nine on Skanker McCauslin and the Christie Gate Greenway phase two within the city of St.

Louis containing emergency clause.

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

Alderwoman.

All right.

Alderman.

Alderwoman from the 10th.

Okay.

Alderman from the 14th.

You are recognized on the motion to adopt the perfection consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board.

I move to adopt the perfection consent calendar.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th.

Seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we adopt the perfection consent calendar.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Board bills for perfection.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item 17.

Report of engrossment.

53 as amended on the floor.

63 80 67.

62 as amended on the floor.

78 committee sub and 82 as amended in committee.

Third reading and final passage of board bills consent.

53 as amended on the floors.

And board bill 67.

Alder woman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adopt the third reading and final passage of board bills on the consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I move that we adopt the bills on the third.

Sorry.

Board bills on the third reading.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th.

That we adopt the third reading, final passage of board bills.

The consent calendar.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Schweitzer.

Aye.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Cahn.

Aye.

Alderman Orion.

Alderman Devote.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sanjay.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox Antwi.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderwoman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

15 aye votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the 10th to third reading finally pass the aforementioned bills.

Alderman from the third.

Thank you, Madam President.

Having voted on the prevailing side, I'd like to make a motion to reconsider board bill number 68.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the third, seconded by the Alderman from the 9th that we re consider board bill number 68.

Any discussion.

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderwoman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman O'Ryan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Son Yay.

Alder Woman Cox Answery.

Aye.

Alderman Morrowney.

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderwoman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyres.

Oh.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderwoman Sonye.

13 aye votes and two no votes.

Are your vote used to stay in the motion from the Alderman from the third?

If you could please place board bill 68 at the end of the third reading, final passage of the board bills.

So note it.

Third reading and final passage of board bills.

Board bill 62 as submitted on the floor, sponsored by Alderman Devotee and ordinance regulating the operation of golf courts upon the streets, alleys, and public right-of-ways within the city of St.

Louis.

Alderman from the fifth, you're recognized on the third reading and final passage of Board Bill 62 as amended on the floor.

We third read and finally pass Board Bill 62 is amended on the floor.

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

Are we third reading finally pass Board Bill 62 as amended on the floor?

Alderman, you may proceed.

I'll keep this brief.

We spent quite a bit of time uh this past week discussing this bill.

In fact, amending it on the floor.

Uh this bill does two things.

Uh it legalizes what is happening in many, many parts of our city.

That is the operation of golf carts on city streets, while also putting in place uh reasonable restrictions on that operation.

And again, I would ask for your favorable consideration and yes vote on this particular bill.

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Sorry, Madam President, members of the board, if the Alderman from the fifth, I'm sorry, yeah, fifth would yield.

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

Yes.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Alderman.

Um I again went through all of the Missouri revised state statutes, the state statutes regarding golf carts and other uh utility vehicles and all terrain vehicles, and so um I could not find any definition of a golf court cart except for in section 304.034.

Did you find any other definition of a golf cart cart in the sorry Missouri revised statutes?

Uh no, Alderman.

I did not because as you noted, there is one statutes that speaks to operation of golf carts, and as you identified, that is section 304 point zero three four.

Yes, ma'am, correct.

Okay, and in that statute at the end of the statute, the state identifies and um gives us a definition of a golf cart, and it says at the um much of what your definition is, except for it says is not capable of exceeding speeds of 20 miles per hour.

So that is the state's definition of a golf cart.

Are you attempting to override the state statute or how is it that you use 25 miles an hour when the state statute says 20 miles an hour?

No Alder Woman, I'm not trying to override anything.

We are passing a or we are seeking or I am seeking to pass a particular board bill uh governing the operation of these vehicles, and so but but no, I am not, nor do I think I am overriding in any way state statute.

So if the state statute defines golf carts as anything that is not capable of exceeding speeds of 20 miles per hour, then we come about and say that it is not exceeding 25 miles an hour.

That is inconsistent with the state statute is correct.

I'm sorry, Alderwoman, I did not hear the end of your question.

Can I please ask you to restate it?

No.

You don't even have to plead.

I will it will anyway.

I'm just sorry, I'm having problems with my voice today.

I'm saying that your definition of golf cart and the definition of the state for golf cart is different in that the state says that a golf cart is only a if it can if it is not capable of speed that exceeds of 20 miles per hour, and you say it's a golf cart if it's not capable of exceeding 25 miles per hour.

So isn't it true that the state statute would override our ordinance?

So I don't understand why we're putting 25 miles an hour in there in the first place because the state statute will ride that.

I don't believe that we are overriding nor conflicting with state statute, and I don't think this particular state statute would affect our ability to pass and then enforce this particular board bill.

To answer your question, to answer your question.

To answer your question about why, it is because our experience in the city of St.

Louis is that in many instances, these golf carts, these particular vehicles are um trying to think of the word.

They are um they are not as they are manufactured, but they are adapted so that they can exceed speeds more than 20 miles an hour.

And so it is our experience in the city in certain neighborhoods that that calls for the the uh the amendment of how golf cart is defined.

It is my experience that when you read this as used in section, and this being the uh 304.034, it defines the state statutes override not only our ordinances, our charter, and many other things.

The state has clearly defined golf cart as they have many other things uh throughout this statute, and it says a golf cart means a motor vehicle that is designed and manufactured for operation on a golf course for supporting or for sporting or recreational purposes, and the if the definitive word, and that is not capable of exceeding speeds of 20 miles per hour.

Now it did not say that was it had to be designed that way, so you can buy something that's designed one way, it said it's not capable.

So anything that can exceed uh exceed 20 miles per hour per the state, you is not a golf cart.

And I would submit to you that you cannot change the state law, and that that should be in your ordinance should be 20 miles an hour.

And then my next thing would be, and and you and I disagree on this, um, and you will find out if anybody takes this to court, you'll find out that the state statute does override.

Um my next thing to you is that so if it is over 20 miles or 25, depending on if it's the state version of yours, what is that then defined as?

If it's a cart that looks like a golf cart, um, but can go 25 miles an hour or 26 miles an hour, then what would that be?

What would it look like?

No, what would it be?

How would it be defined?

Since let's say I had a golf cart, I call them all golf carts, but I learned a lot more, so I know a lot more now.

But if I had a cart, I'm not gonna call it a golf cart, and um it can go 26 miles per hour, uh, then um following your legislation, that would not be a golf cart.

Is that correct?

I I would agree with that, uh, because we do define in this particular board bill a golf cart, and I know you're aware of this, but so that all the members of the public who may be watching understand we talk in terms of a motorized vehicle designed and manufactured for operation on a golf course or for sporting or recreational purpose.

But to answer your specific question, if the vehicle had been altered and redesigned so that it could operate at a mile per hour of 26, for instance, yes, ma'am, that would take us outside of our definition as stated in this board bill.

And so I will go back again and say um your ordinance does not say and that it is not capable, and the state statute does, so they to me contemplated that people would change it and gave them the ability to do that, and that would be a golf cart.

I think you're five miles off of what you need to do.

I think you're gonna find that out.

Also, you say that um the state stat that you're giving us permission to operate golf carts because other than this, it was illegal.

I looked all over in the state statutes for where it showed that golf carts were illegal any place.

The only place that I could find that golf carts were illegal where they could not be driven on, operated at any time on any state or federal highways, but even then may be operated upon such highways in order to cross a portion of the state highway system which intersects a municipal street.

It also said no golf carts or motorized wheelchairs, because they equate golf carts and motorized wheelchairs should cross any highway at any intersection where the highway being crossed has a postage speed limit of more than 45 miles an hour.

So if the highway is 55 or 75 or 47 miles an hour, even then, then the golf cart could not cross it.

But they did give a reasonable uh way for people to cross the highway if it was not a super fast highway, and there's some state highways that um you could cross perhaps um that don't that don't have a post-speed of more than 45 hours, 45 miles per hour.

But my question becomes is um if you're saying that we were meant that we were not allowed to drive golf carts and that all these people are driving these carts illegally, why isn't there any place in the state statute that says that?

And the only place I can find anything that refers to golf carts, they give us permission to uh by resolution or ordinance to allow persons to operate golf carts or motorized wheelchairs upon any street or highway under the governing body's jurisdiction, but no place that it says we were not allowed, it just says that we could uh allow it or we could uh put rules to um that pertain to them, but I still don't believe that we can have rules that override the state statute.

I think that that is very plain and clear, and whenever we have tried to do something, even when it was within the state statutes, the state statute comes right along and changes it up in Jefferson City, and they've done that on more than one occasion, and with the uh final result is that we do not have that ability.

So moving it up to 25 is a to me.

Also, um, I tell you again, it's a mistake to say that cars can drive in the um park, but golf carts cannot.

That would be the main place when you have roadways and byways in the park for golf carts to be, and to be able to say a car can drive on the road in the park, but it cannot be done.

Um in the parks for golf carts, whatever it is, 25 or 20 miles an hour, is a mistake.

And I don't own a golf cart, but if I'm a golf golf cart person, since you're using 25, the state using 20, whatever it is, I'm just gonna ramp my speed back right up over that, and that's not gonna address anything because I think this is far reaching and overreaching um in doing that, especially for uh parks.

I really do believe that there's a reason about streets, but when you look at the bicycle paths, that should be a place that golf carts can be.

When you look at electric uh bicycles, that's a place that golf carts can be.

There has to be a path.

If we're gonna say that uh certain other vehicles that are motorized can do this, then there has to be a path for golf cart people too.

Not me.

I don't drive a golf cart, but I think that your um ordinance is incorrect and that setting the speed of 25 miles an hour directly in contradiction to the state law.

And I also think it's overreaching to say that a golf cart cannot be drop driven in the park.

I totally agree with your uh interpretation that they should not be parked on sidewalks, bicycles should not be ridden on sidewalks.

I will agree with that.

Some people who reached out to me didn't like that.

I agree with that part.

I do, but I think you're making a mistake, and I think you're giving putting a hole in your ordinance that will be able to be sued and the people will win because you cannot override state law, and there's no reason for golf carts not to be driven in um parks which often have a lower speed uh posted.

So there's no reason for that.

O'Fallon Park, uh, the auto woman from the 11th should be able to drive her golf cart any time she wants to in O'Fallon Park or Fairground Park, and there should be no penalty if somebody saying she cannot, and any of her other constituents or if I decide to get a golf cart, we should be able to do that without you saying this is a problem that's coming one of these days.

And I I differ with you.

I think this is an overreaching piece of legislation, and for that uh for that reason I will be voting no again.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

And the alderman from the fifth, you are recognized to close.

Thank you, madam president.

Uh, I appreciate the dialogue that we have had both this past week as well as in committee and in the the weeks leading up to today with respect to this particular board bill.

And again, I ask for your favorable consideration and a vote of yes on board bill 62 as amended on the floor.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fifth, seconded by the aldermen from the 14th.

The third reading finally passed board bill as amended on the floor.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Audown's white, sir.

Aye.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Call.

Alderman O'Rion.

Alderman Devotee.

Hi.

Alder Woman Sign Yay.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox Answer.

No.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Thaez.

No.

Alder Woman Boyd.

No.

Alderman Aldrich.

President Green.

Aye.

10 aye votes and five no votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the fifth to third reading finally pass board bill 62 as amended on the floor.

Ford Bill 78 committee subsponsored by Alder Woman Swiss and the following co-sponsors.

President Green, Alderman Browning, Alderwoman Boyd, Alderwan Sanye, Alderwoman, Cox Answeet, and Ottawoman Clark Hubbard.

And ordinance updates in the forestry divisions regulation relating to weeze, native plants, and other vegetation at the city of St.

Louis, containing the definitions, reportings, abatement, enforcement, and separate separability provisions.

You're recognized on the third reading and final passage of Board Bill 78 committee substitute.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move to third reading finally pass board bill 78 committee substitute.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the first, second and by the Alderman from the 9th that we third reading finally pass Board Bill 78 committee substitute.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board, and uh special thank you to Alderman Browning who carried this bill uh for me last week.

I know there's plenty of discussion then, so I won't belabor the point.

But this bill does update the uh forestry ordinance around vegetation as well as um make more clear and effective the fines and fees around forestry violations, which is a huge need in our city.

Uh with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Vinny is freaking out, so if you have any questions, you're a little late because it's the third reading, but I'm happy to answer them anyway.

Uh, and I really appreciate uh any any consideration and all the support that this bill has received, um, especially from Caitlin Smith, who is really the architect of this uh in Michael Browning's office.

So thank you so much.

And again, happy to answer any questions.

He's calms down.

I guess he was embarrassed.

All right, thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Um, thank you.

I don't want uh the Alder Woman from the first to yield because she has a much important more important job, but I want her to know that um we did have discussion and questions, and so my vote remains a present because after this, uh actually uh the board hearing from last week.

I then got lots of response from people who do not like gardens in front yards, very uh concerned about that.

Wanted to know would it override if they had a uh neighborhood improvement rule, and so uh I'm not familiar with all of that, but also got it in my ward a lot, got some places where people got trim front yards and they don't want front yards with tomatoes or anything like that, and they most certainly don't want it um in the tree line.

They feel like the city is given approval for people to come in and to um change their way of life that they've had for a long time and not give them any uh consideration that everybody on the block has one kind of line and somebody else has another.

So for those that reason, and then I also don't think that we can um enforce the part about the tree line.

Um although the tree line belongs to the city, we can't stop people from cutting it.

There's nothing we can do.

So even if somebody plants something there, people can actually go and cut it down.

But there are neighborhoods that have long-standing traditions um of how uh a front yard should look, and then all of a sudden when people pop up with something that's like even with houses, uh the new black houses that are going around in the community uh makes everybody want to have a uh uh hit a historical district just so that they cannot do that kind of thing.

You don't want purple houses of blue houses popping up.

So that's the same thing with lawns, and I will be voting present.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, it's been moved by the alder woman from the first, seconded by the alderman from the ninth that we third reading finally pass board bill seven committee substitute.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderwoman's white, sir.

Hi.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Call.

Present.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Hi.

Um on the selling of Inecho Plaza, and I would open up for any discussion.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion.

Alderman from the Alderwoman from the 12th.

I'm sorry, was there at first you started as Alderman?

Was there a person before me?

Alderman Browning started to get up, but you beat him to it.

So no, let him.

Okay, let please I would yield to the Brownie Alderman Brownie because he did a lot of the research that was good research, and I appreciate it.

Okay.

Alderman from the ninth.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I'm not gonna go along today.

I know we had a lot of discussion about this last week, and uh I I just want to again state that I do believe this is subject to Art Article 26 of the charter, which clearly states that anything that is principally used, any land owned by the city that's principally used or held out for use as a park uh must go to a citywide vote.

I think it's important that we do follow the charter uh and really put this to the people.

I also think that helps alleviate us as elected officials from having to do that.

So if this bill was doing that, you know, I'd be more likely to vote for it uh because I think then we would be sending it to the correct body for uh decision.

That being said, I myself remain opposed to selling our public parks.

Uh, I think it's really important that we preserve our green spaces once they're gone, they're very hard to replace.

And uh we we have ample evidence that this was weighed out as a park.

Um it was created by the LCRA uh in 1981.

It uh they have that authority via state statute, and it was dedicated by Mayor Shamel at that time.

So I think that it's very clear that this was held out for use as a park.

There's multiple things, including our city platmap, our GIS systems, our city website, uh, a lot of cases that can be made that this is a park subject to that vote.

Um and then I'll also say that personally I think of myself as an urbanist.

And I think anyone who does think of themselves as an urbanist should really question if a parking lot is development.

Uh because turning a park, a green space, a public space that people can use into a private space that a developer can profit off profit off of feels uh not only antithetical, you know, and anti-charter, but it also feels anti-people.

And so I I personally am not in favor of selling this park at a price of 275,000.

When we know we spent 1.1 million dollars on it in 2009.

Uh whether those are federal dollars or otherwise, it doesn't matter.

The city chose to allocate that money to that project and create that park um again uh after originally dedicating it back in the 80s.

So there's a long history of this being a public space, and I I really do encourage everyone to think about what it means to create a park by ordinance, uh as the city councilor has argued, because if a park can be created by ordinance and that is the most important thing, then it only takes eight votes to undo an ordinance.

And that means that we could just circumvent the charter.

And I do not think that was the intention of the people who framed that charter amendment and the people who voted 70% in the city to pass that charter amendment.

Uh, with that, uh I'll just uh close by saying that um we we really don't know what we've got until it's gone.

Thank you.

Other woman from the 12th.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board.

I'd echo everything the Alderman from the 9th said and add in addition to that it those people who would argue uh that it's not a park.

The people who made the city charter amendment recognize that people would try to argue that because they went and did research to find out, just as the Alderman from the 9th staff did, that all our parks, many of them in our own wards are not created by ordinances.

Um they did not use the the wording that it has to be a park.

It's the wording for the charter is that as of April, because it was in April of 2007 when this um election was held.

It's hereby owned by the city or any agency or instrument instrumentality of the city, which is principally used or held out for the use of a public park, is protected.

They did not say it had to be a public park, it could be principally used.

Um, you could create a pathway by walking at Washi, we had a um when I was in law school, there was a way to go across this uh field, a green field, and they kept putting up signs that said don't walk across this pathway.

But we kept walking across that pathway to students, and pretty soon they just put some uh paving stones and sidewalk there because that was created.

That's how you can create uh uh a park or something that's held out to be a park.

You can also in real estate do what's called adverse possession.

If you open and hostily uh take a piece of land and you claim it and you treat it as your own and you're hostile with it, and you uh uh let it be known that you think it's yours in Missouri.

If you do that for 10 years, that becomes your property.

Um in other states it's less than that.

This park was clearly uh held out to be a park.

Um, but uh uh even if it wasn't used by uh ordinance, it was held out to be a park.

And on top of that, they anticipated they being the people who helped write this charter, they anticipated that the board of aldermen would think that they were more powerful than they were.

So the part that I love is section two, which says that once this becomes an ordinance, and I've already written the letter, have it sitting here.

Once this becomes an ordinance, the charter mandates our clerk who was here and knows about what happened because he was an alderman when this happened, mandates that our clerk take the ordinance and certified that the board of alderman intends to try to sell alter a uh amend a piece of property that has been held out as a park, not had to be a park, but held that out as a park.

But I find it really hard not to think of it as a park.

It's when I went on the website this morning, and it still means that a partner of St.

Louis website.

And when you go to December 9th, 1981 post-dispatch, there's been Shamel uh unveiling a plaque.

He was the mayor then for the park and giving credit to Interco.

So that actually is a park, but even if it wasn't, if it's held out, that the clerk has to then certify that we intend to go around the charter and try to sell the property, and then it is mandated when he sends it over to the board of election that the board of elections still has to have an election anyway.

So that's why we should be doing it the correct way, because it's still going to go to uh vote in anyway.

And there are people already uh set to do this because they're very upset because they they they wrote this very well because it was such a long, arduous process of fighting with BJC about the land that is right over there that they used the helicopters in the tennis court, which was part of Forest Park.

So they were very upset with that argument and fight, and they wanted to make sure that our parks were no longer subject to a sale without the people knowing what we were doing.

And as we talk about green energy and for the next generation and recycling and all of this thing and using smaller things, then we also have to be careful about preserving our parks.

We want that young man that the Ottawa from the first is holding now to have parks.

And I always remember the first time I ever went to New York, and when I came back to St.

Louis and saw all the green space, how thankful I was that I lived in the Midwest, because although they have that great big park in the middle of New York, they don't have the green space and trees like we do, and that's very important.

And um, well, we um don't think that's important.

We at least, even if you want to vote for if you believe in it, we at least ought to follow the charter.

So for the city council to be arguing that it's not a park is disingenuous because it doesn't require it to be a park.

And I've I've asked any other lawyers who I could talk to, where does it say it has to be a park?

It does not.

So that argument does not hold uh water, and also that we will put our clerk in the um position of having to certify that we are intend to violate the city charter, and then the board of election will have to have a um uh an election anyway.

And we should have just written this legislation to say we want to put it to the people if you want to sell this.

And I want to say also uh kudos to the all of them from the ninth, because I agree when you pay that much for uh a piece of land, and then you sell it for a hundred thousand or two hundred thousand dollars.

Um, that's despicable and that's misuse of taxpayer money, and that should not happen.

And um, I will not say that parking lots are not important.

They are.

We want to keep our corporate citizens in St.

Louis if we can, but we also want to have parks, and they don't always have uh um trees and things like that.

But when I got to read the article and I had to get out a uh my glasses and some something else to amplify this piece of uh uh post-dispatch uh literature that was given to us, but in it they talk about where the trees are planted along what areas they were planted, and it talks about the city maintaining it.

So I don't know why um Mr.

Garvin didn't read this article, and in fact, Mr.

Garvin, I don't know if he was here, but he's been here for a long time.

If he wasn't here, it was close to the time he was being here, and he knows daggone well that uh it doesn't have to be a park, but it was designed designated by a park and it was uh declared that by the mayor, then mayor of the city of St.

Louis, and then if we all have to have ordinances for our parks, then we better get to finding out which parks are not by ordinance and then changing that.

And I don't think that is required.

If you use something long enough, it's been a park, and even though they uh fenced it in as the sponsor would talk about, that doesn't make it not be a park anymore.

Um we had the park across from the city hall fenced in for four three or four years that didn't stop it from being a park.

In fact, City Hall was fenced in and that didn't stop it from being a park.

Interco is a park, and I appreciate the uh work that was done by the Alderman and the staff from the ninth, and I will continue to vote no for that, and I do not think that we should be selling our parks at all.

We need our green space, and that's one of the things that makes St.

Louis a great city.

I went to an event uh last night at the Chase Park Plaza where we talk about celebrating 250 years of the 4th of July in the city and they're gonna have this big place.

Um, and we want to celebrate our green space all over the city of St.

Louis.

Again, I would ask um people to think about what we're doing and why is it that we don't want to have an election?

Don't we trust that the citizens in our city know if they want to lose a park or not?

I think we should have to um prove we should have to submit it to the voters to make sure that they are in alignment what we want to do.

We get elected.

There should be nothing wrong with putting this to an election, except for that we think that we don't want that kind of information about how much money we spent to be out there and then say what we're gonna do with it, and we don't want to have to take the chance that the citizens will say no.

But those same uh almost 60 something percent that voted no are probably those people gonna vote no and bring their friends.

Um, and so I don't think this is gonna hold up um to scrutiny and it's not holding up to scrutiny right now.

Thank you so much.

I have nothing else to say.

Alder woman from the eighth.

Thank you, madam president.

Um again, I also uh don't want to belabor the discussion I know we had last week regarding this legislation, but I do just want to raise um a couple of things that I know the alderman from the 14th um spoke about, which is uh the comment from the people in the residents that do live around the plaza.

Um, and as the alder woman that also shares the eastern portion of downtown, I know myself uh from the residents that I have in the area.

Um, and when you ask them about the uses of public space and green spaces and parks they have in our community, uh, this plaza has never been named one.

And in fact, uh this plaza has been quite a challenge for the residents that live around this area in this community from the a very long time.

I think the Alderman from the 14th did a great job of getting testimony from all of the enjoyed adjoining uh businesses and institutions and areas around just the perimeter of the plaza.

Um, and I believe, and I know the alderman can speak for himself, um, that all of those perimeter businesses as well uh agreed with the city's decision uh to sell the remaining portion of this property.

So I just want to challenge my colleagues as we talk about the importance of listening to the voices of the people and the voices of the public.

Um we do have voices from the people that are in this community.

And I think while we talk about bringing something to a general public view, I think we must must recognize that for the 14th ward and the areas and the portions of the eighth ward that are north of Washington Avenue, often those voices um go unheard and unrecognized and are quite frequently outweighed by people that um never have really ventured uh in the area that we are talking about to actually witness it firsthand.

So I do just want to make sure, as my colleagues and I are having this discussion and taking this vote today, that we remember um those people as well, and we hear them on what they're saying is best to happen in their community.

Elder woman from the 12th.

Um, Madam President, members of the board.

Um, I used to work downtown at the library when I first moved here.

Um, and this was before all the gentrification that has happened.

Um, I have been one that's always been appalled that they closed uh Reverend Rick Larry Rice's place because when I worked down there in the 70s, nobody was downtown except for Urban Rice.

Um, gay men and women were there, and the people who came into the library.

Um, one of the things that we have seen happen is that, and um the black aldermen know this because we've had many discussions about it before many of these people came here, is that as the homeless population was uh moved away from the gentrification, um, is that they pushed all of these things into North St.

Louis.

And so when you look at the list of where homeless shelters and things are, they're in North St.

Louis.

Um, and so it's interesting to me to hear the 14th Ward Alderman talk about um what his people don't want to say, see or be around when many of the homeless population was there before.

And you also have not had considerations about other neighborhoods and what they want.

So if you want that consideration, um, that should be the conversation.

And I would go on to say that I if something is already there, that's something that you deal with, um, not just close down like it's what has been going down on downtown, but you don't push it into one part of the city, which is what has been happening.

And so when we, before we became 14, we had 28.

One of the things that the 12 of us agreed on that was really strange is that they pushed everything into North St.

Louis.

And it wasn't just an agreement, it was actually a listing of what was done.

So whether you came from one side of the track to the other, they pushed it all into North St.

Louis.

It is my contention that all parts of the city should have shelters and homeless shelters, but that the park was there for the homeless and anybody else before gentrification happened.

And grification should not push it out.

What should happen is that we had might have to have a security guard.

We should clean it up.

Of course, it's gonna look bad if you put a fence around it for years and then say, now look how hard, horrible it looks.

That is the same thing that happened to the library, um, the park behind the library, um, uh the main library.

Um, the park behind the library, um, uh the main library.

So they put a fence, then they fixed it up, and then they came with all these things about how you couldn't sit in the park during the middle of the day because they were going to be cleaning the park.

I went over there so many times and took pictures of myself sitting there.

Nobody ever came and cleaned the park.

That was to keep the homeless out.

And I do not think that the homeless have a right to uh make it so that it's unbearable for people to live.

But I also think that the people who moved down there, especially if you move downtown, and there was a homeless population there, which it was, and there was Larry Rice, that you don't just move it away from you and your group of people and say that's all right if it's someplace else.

Um one of the things that the black hawkers did uh when the former mayor became uh became into office in she came in April of 2021.

We sent a letter in June of 2021 that remains unanswered, addressing the homeless population, saying this is something that is uh not only citywide, but regional metropolitans that we should have a meeting, talk about how we address this in a fair manner, but not to keep pushing everything in North St.

Louis.

So I do understand what you're saying, Alderwoman from the 8th, but the Alderman from the 14th has been very careless in not considering what other people want in their wards, and then saying, oh, but we don't want this here.

I would prefer that they stay right by the businesses than at people's houses.

I understand one of my favorite people in the world is the Alderman, former Alderman from the fifth, Mr.

James Page.

And I know where he lives, so I know he's very close to this.

Um, but um the people were there before, and the uh plaza was there before, and the plaza was a park.

And so even though they, if they wanted to go, then what the people should do is encourage the uh election to happen, and then they go out and get enough people to vote for it, and then that's what will happen.

But if it doesn't happen, then we we should not sell the park because we should.

And so that's what we're looking at.

And I even if we do sell the park, I think that when you're looking at what we spent on it to sell it for such a small amount is um fiscally irresponsible, is the word I would say.

And I'm sorry that we would do something like this.

So I don't want people to be bothered.

I want downtown to be a productive place.

I've watched longer than anybody the billions of dollars we poured into um the city at the expense of North St.

Louis, by the way.

I found I often talked about that these articles that they did when I first came in '91.

I actually found them yesterday.

So I want to be sharing them with you.

They took block grant money that was meant for other parts of the city, namely North St.

Louis.

They spent it downtown.

They spin it in the central quarter.

And so then they said, what's wrong with North St.

Louis?

Nothing wrong with the money if you had given the money where it was supposed to be.

So I say that to say this park had a lot of federal money and it is a park.

And so I know you're the new people come and say, Well, I don't like that.

That is one of the problems of gentrification that people all over, not just St.

Louis talk about, is that when people gentrify stuff, then all of a sudden they try to change everything.

But I will always know that when nobody else cared about downtown, because it was only mansion center down there when I worked down there, um, is that we had a healthy group of gay activists that would come to the park, and then we had the homeless that would come to the park.

I mean, I'm sorry, to the library.

And so they've been there before everybody else, and I am um hesitant to move that population out someplace else.

Let them have a park and service that park correctly because St.

Patrick is right there.

So that is why I and um former Alderman Paige and I have had healthy discussions about this, because I do not believe that you move something away, and this was already here, and that is unfair because that's saying we don't have to put up with this, okay, and other people do.

And there are challenges when you live next door to homeless things, and it's challenges when they move shelters next to your house, and you weren't anticipating that.

But if it was already there in the first place, that's part of what you bought when you came downtown or you live downtown, and it should not be pushed on other neighborhoods.

Everybody should uh address population, a homeless population in a sensitive manner.

And the person that I've seen that addressed it the best um has been the former Alder Woman from the 19th, Marlene Danis did such a good job in uh near St.

Louis University that you don't see the homeless population hanging out, and she did shelters and she and I've often said she should be the commissioner of homeless for the city of St.

Louis because she showed us how to do it right.

And if you drive down Washington Lotus right now, there are plenty of places that uh she has had built right so that people don't hang out and that people are not harassed because I don't want the population downtown to be harassed.

And if you drive down Washington Lotus right now, there are plenty of places that uh she has had she built right so that people don't hang out and that people are not harassed, because I don't want the population downtown to be harassed, but I don't want us to harass a population that already was there before any of us got here.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President, and members of the board.

I believe this is pretty clear.

Actually, the charter says that this kind of sale requires a public vote, and I think it's incumbent upon all of us to follow our most important governing document.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, then aldermen from the 14th, you're recognized to close.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Uh, I do appreciate all my colleagues' input on this and also all of uh the activists and people that have been writing in on this.

I want to kind of bring it back to what this actually is.

I know we was just talking about unhoused and us closing this down, is moving the unhoused.

I will note uh and always stand and support our unhoused community.

Uh the 14th ward alone has the most unhoused um individuals, shelters.

And I know when we attempted to pass legislation at the Board of Alderman around that, we didn't uh get that across the finish line.

We recently just opened up another unhoused shelter, uh, Peter and Paul, which is uh housing hundreds of people that are not only unhoused, but also been impacted by the tornado right by this plaza is Biddle House.

Uh not too far, not too far from there is also another unhoused um place.

So um again, you know, one of the things I want to thank the Alder Woman from the Eighth for bringing up is you know, we're now talking about this plaza, and I know a lot of people in the last week or two has gone down here and made videos or um, you know, toured it.

I'm glad it's bringing attention to uh this plaza.

I hope those that that same energy also, you know, come to the 14th award as a whole and not just this plaza, because as somebody who lives down there and has been speaking to residents, uh as Jamie said, this isn't something that uh even serves as a purpose of a park.

Nobody has uh you utilize this place for its residents as a park.

And I want to also thank St.

Louis Public Schools, St.

Patrick Center that sits right next to this plaza, who wrote a letter of support, interco trust um the Globe Building, Oliver Properties, Washington Ave, Sid North, and they have been working a lot of times when we talk about downtown.

I appreciate uh the the Sid North that is actually focusing in and Mr.

Berglin, how do we develop the northern part of downtown, which just to be honest, is black folks.

It is not the people that live off Wash Av, but they're intentionally trying to figure out uh how do we develop more of just that northern part when you get north of Delmar, uh, where more people of color stay, as well as I want to thank downtown uh Ford for all those letters of support.

You know, there's a lot of back and forth that we believe is a parka plaza.

Our city councilor, if this were to get sued, like many other legislations that we have passed at this board of Alderman, has um been sued on, and like I say, I don't legislate on getting sued, I just legislate and what I think is right.

We have a city counselor who's willing to step up and fight for us.

Also, the register has stated there's not an ordinance on this park.

If you know now the energy is to make sure out of the uh several parks that do not have ordinance, we put them into law.

I absolutely agree.

Uh, we should do that, but that's not the issue on this matter, as well as uh the parks department not maintaining this.

So uh with that, madam president, members of the board.

I would ask for your uh support on this so that this not utilized plaza uh can be developed uh for bringing development uh down into the area as we're looking also to bring tenants around the surrounding area, and I want to thank everybody's uh input and opinion on this conversation over the last several weeks, and I close.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alder woman from the seventh.

That we third reading finally passed board bill 82 as amended in committee.

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Alder Woman Swipe, sir.

No Alderman Aldenberg, Alderman Call, Alderman Orion, Alderman Devotee, Alderwoman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sanya.

Alder Woman Cox Antwerp Alderman Browning, Alder Woman Clark Hubbard, Alderwoman Keys, Alderwoman Thais, no Alder Woman Boyd, no Alderman Aldridge, President Green, no 10 eye votes and five no votes.

And five no votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the 14th to third reading finally pass Board Bill 82 as amended.

Board Bill 68, sponsored by Alderman Browning and co-sponsor Alderwoman Keys.

And ordinance re renewing the previous blighting determination made by ordinance number 66847 and ordinance number 66985 as renewed by ordinance number 68754 and ordinance number 70119 and ordinance number 71214 for the Cortex West redevelopment area, such as Cortex West Redevelopment Corporation can continue to exercise its rights to use imminent domain granted by the city to complete the redevelopment plan.

Alderman from the ninth, you're recognized on the third reading and final passage of board bill 68.

Thank you.

Um thank you to my colleagues who uh were willing to reconsider this bill.

Um we had a little bit of a mix-up last Friday where uh some votes were missing, and uh I appreciate the chance to to bring this up again.

I won't go long uh just to reminder that this is a renewal of a development tool for the Cortex District.

It's required by Missouri statute that we renew the ability for Cortex to use blight determination uh to continue to to continue the development of the 200 acre area that they were charged with developing by the city back in the early 2000s.

Uh this development tool is necessary to continue the success of the district, and that is why the planning commission unanimously recommended that we uh extend this tool so that the district can continue to deliver results for our city.

Uh since its beginning, Cortex has added hundreds of companies and thousands of jobs to the St.

Louis area right here in the city, and it's turning a formally vacant and underly underutilized industrial area into something that uh brings innovation and opportunity.

I'm happy to take any questions from my colleagues.

Do you want to make a make the motion?

I'll do and I think I need to move to read and finally pass correct board bill 68.

It's been moved by the alderman from the ninth, seconded by the alderman from the second, that we third reading finally pass board eight.

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Yes, madam president, members of the board, if the alderman from the ninth yield.

The alderman from the ninth yields questioning from the alder woman from the 12th.

Yes.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Um Alderman, so it has been your testimony that they've never had to use eminent domain, right?

That's my understanding that they have not used it yet, but um, this is something we went over on committee.

Sorry, it's been a couple weeks since we went over in committee.

Um, so and so my question would be, and I told you I'm not I I uh have a difference that I don't think that we should be giving eminent domain to private companies or not for profits.

I think if you need imminent domain, it should come back to the city, and then we should sparingly use it in uh years I've been here.

Um maybe I've put it maybe in three or four bills, and it's three or four more I might have coming up, but we never had to go to a full uh sale because it is used as a way to bring people to the table.

So is that the reason that you still want imminent domain in the uh uh to be uh retained by the cortex is the ability to bring people to the table?

Uh to be clear, that's the reasoning that's been stated.

Um in committee.

I know that that is something that Cortex is committed to to make sure they continue to deliver for the area, and uh that is why the planning commission recommended that it they extend the tool because when you have an area that is coming up, uh you get what you we call speculators.

We get people who sit on property and then say charge unfair prices because they know that they've got something that is in the way of that progress.

Um you know there's always a situation where there's uh use of land that is not uh the highest use of that land, and so uh when you have something like um you know, a vacant parking lot or something with a clouded title, uh this is helpful in order to get that area redeveloped.

Uh, I know I don't I don't have to remind you, Alderwoman, of what Cortex used to look like, and and I think that they've got a proven track record of bringing progress and bringing new buildings, new jobs, new companies to St.

Louis, and so that's why we want to continue to give them this tool so they can fulfill that agreement they have with the city to develop the area.

So I I do remember um and I would say they got too much TIFF, too much tax abatement, too much redevelopment, and as I said yesterday, I found the paperwork that I will share with you all.

Uh the post of dispatch did a great job about the misuse of uh funds that was supposed to be used in North St.

Louis and other place that got used downtown and in the central quarter.

So this is my question to you.

Then why, if we can just bring if we have a redevelopment area and we did designate that as such, and we put imminent domain domain in it, why do we need to give it to the developer itself instead of keeping it with the city?

Can you explain that to me?

I that's what I never understood.

If you need to use it, I've I've had it in fact I had it in my snooks bill.

After we had um had long conversations with a person who owned a piece of land that was vacant forever and they were unrealistic, we did put it in a bill, and they did come to the table.

But that was through the city.

What is it the need for private developers and not for profits or whatever to have imminent domain?

I think there's twofold reasons.

I think that one, it's it's so that they can expedite the process and add some certainty to it.

Um we know that currently when things have to go through the political process, not only do they take a long time, but there's some uncertainty there.

Uh and the other reason that I think it's necessary is because the city, when it created Cortex, uh it got together these five institutions.

Uh, you know, Umsoul, SLU, WashU, BJC, the Botanical Garden, uh, all of these, all of these institutions, if you map them out, kind of sit around the district uh and have located themselves in the city.

Uh and we appreciate their investment in the fact that they have come here and decided to stay in the city, and then to go beyond that and help develop and bring jobs, bring opportunity.

Uh I I know that it feels like a private entity shouldn't have this power, but when you see what they've done with it and what they've been able to do with it, uh, you know, 42 buildings in the district, 574 companies, 5700 jobs.

That's such a benefit to our city.

And they're only they've they've only been doing this for the last 10, 15 years.

They still have some room to go.

Uh I'm happy to anyone who's curious, I'm happy to take them down and we can walk around the area and I can show the you know the area at the corner of Sarah and Duncan, which is a stalled construction project that died during the pandemic.

It's it's not even half completed.

It's got a foundation, and that's it in the ground.

There's again vacant parking lots and all sorts of things that still could be improved.

I'd like to see that area continue to bring jobs for our city, continue to bring progress for our city, and continue to bring innovation.

I mean, in Cortex, we might discover the uh cure to Alzheimer's disease.

We might make advances in cancer research.

We have companies that have brought diagnosis abilities for COVID via a device that just senses molecules in the air.

Uh we you I mean, remember in the pandemic, you used to have to shove a swab halfway into your brain uh and to test for COVID, and now we can just simply do it with this device, and that is the kind of innovation that we see coming out of this district.

So I I guess my answer to you, Alder Woman, is that I believe that Cortex has earned the city's trust on this and continues to deliver results for our city.

And so I want to say to you, I heard your your answer was in the first part of it.

The rest of it was a gut commercial.

I am not opposed to what uh the Cortex has done.

I'm opposed to the power that we gave them.

Um, and your answer was the political climate could change, and the next alder person may not want to sponsor eminent domain, so they want to control the political process, and that's also part of the problem I don't that I have with it.

Um I liked that they had to come back up and ask for it again.

Um, and again, reasonable people would give it to them if it was reasonable, but there's always that one time when they're not reasonable.

And um, unfortunately, in African American communities, uminent domain, the central quarter that you now represent.

When I moved here, I lived in that, and they did a lot of eminent domain up and down the fifth 50, 51, 52, 5300 blocks, um, watermen, Pershing, and all of that that you see with big promises, which uh, oh, we're gonna bring the people back.

Many, many black people live there.

They never brought them back.

So it is not something that my community um embraces because zoning has been a way to keep them away from things or keep them out of things, or even um in the area that I now represent, I never did, but I actually represent the Shelley V.

Kramer house, um, which is very important about uh the preventing certain colored peoples from living on a street.

I live on a street that had uh a restrictive covenant about black people um not being able to live there.

Math a place years ago, that's what it was.

So um I like to see that things come back up and you take a look at it, and that people are not uh who are not um equally yoked with the powerful, don't get run over steamrolled.

Now, this you say has not happened um in this case, and that's good, but it's also this very potential for it will happen, and then there's nobody to protect the people.

So I like the coming the the bring it back before the board.

I did not like that St.

Louis University who I attended and graduated from.

I do not like Washu, school of law that I attended and graduated from.

I do not believe that they should have that power as umps or any of the others.

Um and I would also say I'm really disappointed in Wash U has uh you know gave a lot of money surrounding the Cortex of over on why the Grove now exists.

And I have always challenged them as a graduate that they need to be doing something in North St.

Louis.

Uh the the hospital doesn't pay their fair share of taxes.

They don't even have a uh any kind of medical facility north of North St.

Louis, out north of Delmar at all, of north of Page.

And so that's kind of shameful to me as a graduate of something I'm very proud of that they do not participate in um across the board, all across the city.

If you want people to celebrate the city and it's cultural diversity and the things like that, when much is given to you, much is expected.

Um, and so um these people who um are uh entities that are getting all of this benefit or not spreading it out uh the way they should.

Um I will remember that um when the president first came when she was a come uh not a committee woman, but an older person, she talked about some benefit uh uh that went with um with development.

And I was supportive of it, but a lot of the people didn't want that.

And I thought that that was a good answer that when you're doing development, you should also have to do development in places that are not or you should help or put some money that are not getting benefits.

And that's not to say that they shouldn't get the same benefits, but I don't see that um I'm getting the benefit of development that uh your area is, and we're handing over a powerful piece of uh legislation that I believe should be in the uh hands of the government.

So I do appreciate what you're saying, and I hope that they don't have to use it.

Um, but I think it hopefully maybe one of these days we'll get somebody who doesn't believe that that kind of power should be in the hand of private or not for profits.

And that's what we would have a healthy conversation like we're having now about if that was needed and not just leave it in the hands of people who um I don't feel like I've been fair to North St.

Louis at all.

And I've said this to people who um at the law school and um I helped them um at the hospital when they had to have a crosswalk uh across one of the streets.

I was the chair of streets and I worked with them to get that, and it's not a crosswalk, but it's a skywalk.

And the one that they're actually working on now from park of the parking lot also helped them with that.

But I've also just been very disappointed in um them not being more holistic about the city and taking that responsibility that they often preach about about doing development and doing something north of not say Dalmar, I want to say north of Page that they should be participating in that.

But um, thank you very much for your uh conversation, and I will be voting no, as I said, I voted no from the beginning because I don't think that that is a good way to give the power of the government to private uh entities like that.

Thank you so much.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

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

Uh thank you.

Um and other one while uh we were talking, I just wanted to clarify that there was one instance in which it was used to clear a title uh for what is now IKEA.

Um I also want to just uh talk about the benefit that this brings to the whole city, uh, not only in the terms of jobs, which employs people, they do a really good job of trying to create a diverse workforce too, and I really appreciate them for that.

Uh they have goals they have to meet, but they all far exceed those goals, and they do that on purpose.

Um I will also say that um there is uh again a tracker record of success, and that the institutions that that gave money to start Cortex don't really receive a financial benefit from it.

Uh it is more about how this benefits the city.

Um I I also know that there have been this is beside the point, but I just it was brought up, Washington University did recently a couple years ago, expand their employer assistant housing program.

Uh it's now called I think live near your work, but they expanded that to all of North St.

Louis and some of North County as well.

Um, and I I think that's an excellent tool.

It's actually how I purchased my own home uh and why I'm able to live, you know, where I live.

So uh it's it's one of those things where I I see the benefit that this brings to the city, and I appreciate uh the healthy discussion that we were able to have about this.

Um again, I I just ask for everyone's favorable consideration and appreciate uh everyone's willingness to reconsider this today.

It's been moved by the alderman from the ninth, seconded by the alder person from the second that we third reading finally passed board bill sixty eight.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderwoman's white, sir.

Aye.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Call.

Alderman O'Reilly.

Alderman Devoti.

Alderwoman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alderwoman Sanjay.

Alderwoman Cox Antwerp Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard.

Alderwoman Keys.

Alderwoman Thaez.

Alderwoman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

President Green.

Aye.

Votes and five no votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the ninth to third reading finally passed Board Bill 68.

Report of the finally passed and signed by the President.

Board Bill 53 as amended on the floor.

Board bill sixty-three.

First reading resolutions and reference to committee.

Resolution 136 by Alderman Aldrich.

Co-sponsors include Alderwoman Sanjay and Alderman Cohn.

Insuring ethical investment of city retirement funds.

Madam Clerk, please make sure I'm a co-sponsor as well.

So noted.

Alderman for the 14th.

You're recognized on the first reading of resolution one thirty-six.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I will save uh the clerk from reading the resolution at the moment.

I just want to thank everybody in the gallery who has been part of months and months of organizing to make sure that uh we do ethical investment in the city of St.

Louis.

We look forward to continuing to have conversations with alders about this uh topic and why it's important.

We've already taken major stands here at the board uh of Alderman if it was last year with the ceasefire resolution and always standing up uh for the rights of individuals throughout the world.

And with that, madam president, I would ask that we send this resolution to the budget and public employees committee.

Sir Second, it's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we send resolution 136 to the budget committee.

Any discussion?

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

Aye opposed, aye.

Motion carries.

Resolution 137, sponsored by Alderman Aldenberg.

Requesting legislators and governor of Missouri to establish a system for appointment and removal of the sheriff by the judges of the 22nd judicial circuit.

Alderman from the second, you're recognized on the first reading resolution 137.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move to refer resolution 137 to the public safety.

It's been moved by the alderman from the second, seconded by the alderman from the fourth, that we send resolution 137 to the public safety committee.

Is there any discussion?

Alderman from the fifth.

Madam Clerk, if you could please add the alderman from the fifth as a co-sponsor of the resolution.

So noted.

It's been moved by the alderman from the second, seconded by the alderman from the fourth.

That we send resolution 37 to the public safety committee.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Aye.

Second reading resolutions, committee reports and adoptions.

Report from the Health and Human Development Committee, the mayoral appointee to the Senior Citizen Service Fund Board, William Seedolph, and the mayoral appointment to the Developmental Disabilities Resource Commission, Katrina Adams.

Alder Woman from the 13th, you're recognized on Mayor Spencer's appointment to the senior citizen service fund.

Thank you, Madam President and the board.

And uh Katrina Adams to the Development Disability Resource Commission.

Alder Woman, we need to do them separately.

So we're going to take a senior citizen service fund board first.

So uh I you need to make a motion.

I asked to make a motion for the mayor's appointee to the senior citizen service fund board of William Seedow.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 13th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointment to the senior citizen service fund board.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

And I'd and uh Madam President and Board, I'd like to submit the mayor's appointee to the Development Disability Resource Commission, Katrina Adams.

I ask for your unanimous consent.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the 13th, seconded by the alder woman from the 7th that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Developmental Disabilities Resource Commission.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

That's the extent of second reading.

Resolutions, committee reports, and adoptions.

Courtesy resolutions.

We have not.

We can dispense with line item 24.

Miscellaneous and unfinished business.

We have not.

We can dispense with line item 25.

Announcements.

Tuesday, November 4th, 2025.

HUDS will have a committee hearing in the Kennedy room at 11 a.m.

Wednesday, November 5th, 2025.

Budget and public employees will have a committee hearing in the Kennedy room at 10 a.m.

Thursday, November 6th.

Personnel will have a meeting via webinar at 9:30 a.m.

Friday, November 7th, 2025, Ford Board Meeting in the Chambers at 10 a.m.

That's the extent of the announcements.

Any further announcements?

Alder Woman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I just wanted to announce that tomorrow there is St.

Louis Winter Outreach Volunteer Training where they will be covering de-escalation, harm reduction, sheltering best practices, updates on shuttle and transportation, knowing how close we are getting to winter and freezing cold temperatures.

If you're interested in this training, there will also be a light breakfast provided.

It will be from 9 a.m.

to 11 to noon.

And it will be at 1315 and Avenue.

Um the Americ St.

Louis building.

So again, if you are interested at all in getting trained and ready to meet that we know is definitely in our city.

That training will be at the Americor building at 13 15 and from 9 a.m.

to noon.

I hope to see you there.

Thank you.

Alderman from the 14th.

Alder Woman from the 13th.

Thank you, uh Madam President.

I'd like to make an announcement.

Uh Annie Malone will have their trunk retreat tonight from 4 to 6 at 5355 page avenue.

And the North Patrol will have their boo with a badge at 4014 Union Boulevard from 4 to 6.

And Annie Malone kicks off their uh Annie Malone Parade registration.

It starts tomorrow.

So you can go to the Annie Malone website to sign up for sponsorship and to register to be in the parade.

Thank you.

Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board.

I would like to announce that we will hear board bill 93, 94 and 95 in HUDs next week if the clerks can budget.

In budget next week, if the clerks can make note of that.

Thank you, Madam President.

And also I would uh like to in budget committee is at 10 a.m.

Uh announced tomorrow, November the first.

Uh the firehouse at 1421.

North Jefferson headquarters will be holding also a uh trunk retreat just because Halloween will be over.

We're gonna make sure that the kids continue to have fun.

Uh there's many sponsors for that uh event that's happening again that will be at 1421 North Jefferson from 2 to 5 p.m.

And I just want to wish all the kids a happy, safe Halloween.

Thank you, Madam President.

Alder Woman from the 10th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

First, I'd like to thank my colleagues for their support this morning.

I was late on a call about a constituent that is still dealing with some like many uh needs 168 days after the tornado.

So you all support today and suspending the rules to move those bills means more than you can know, more than us on this floor, and more than we can now try to work and play our very important role as we meet this season.

And then I wanted to thank everyone that reached out to me yesterday.

I wasn't on a family emergency, I was at a family celebration.

So I want to ask my colleagues um for a moment of silence.

Yesterday, I was at Mary and Willie Baker's funeral.

Mary and Willie Baker, uh fashion known as My Baker was a pillar in the community on the 4200 block of Priory.

And you might not know her name, but 92 years of love was shown and shared yesterday as she brought the city out.

And so I want to thank if you don't know her name, my baker, who is not only a friend, but a family to city government and departments and our St.

Louis Metropolitan Police Department that showed up and showed out yesterday for her.

Um, thank you all.

And I would like to ask that we have a moment of silence in recognition of the life and legacy of Mary Ann, my baker.

We could please stand and bow our heads for a moment of silence.

Thank you.

Any further announcements?

Any further announcements?

Seeing none, Alder Woman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to excuse.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board, all members were present this morning.

Alder Woman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adjourn.

Before I make the motion to adjourn, I forgot something that I wanted to say.

I got caught up in the emotions of what I did say, but I also want to make sure that we reflect those of us that are in costume and some of us are not in costume.

We are also reflecting pink.

The reason we wear in pink today is because of breast cancer awareness.

We close out this month.

We want to make sure that our advocacy and ability to uplift this on our platform is doesn't stop today, especially since we celebrate with our very own Aura Higgs with eight years of surviving, being a cancer survival.

So again, I will be remiss if I didn't do that.

And with that, I would like to make the motion that we adjourn until Friday, November 7th, 2025 in the Board of Alderman at 10 a.m.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th.

We adjourn until Friday, November 7, 2025 in the Board of Alderman members at 10 a.m.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

We are adjourned.