The board will now come to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

How do the woman swipe, sir?

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Cone.

Present.

Ottaum and Ryan.

Howderman devotee.

Auto Woman Velasquez.

Audowama Sonier.

Auto Woman Cox Antoine.

Present.

Alderman Browning.

Auto Woman Clark Hubbard.

Auto Woman Keys.

Auto Woman Tithes.

Audo Woman Boy.

Present.

Autumn and Aldridge.

President Green.

Present.

Alderman Odenberg.

I didn't hear you, Ottoman.

Present.

Altaman Odenberg.

Present.

Auto Woman Velasquez.

Auto Woman Keys.

Auto Woman ties.

Present.

We have 13 present.

We have McCorm.

A quorum being present will be led in an opening reflection by the executive director of developmental disability resources, Shailen Plank.

Good morning.

My name is Shaylene Plank, and I'm the executive director for the St.

Louis Office for Developmental Disability Resources.

Our agency is funded through a property tax levy the city voters approved in 1980 to help fund services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities so that they can live, work, and participate fully in their communities.

This year we have been intentional about investing in North City.

One of our partners providing services is Horizon Housing Development Company.

They assist in providing housing services to St.

Louis City homeless individuals with developmental and mental disabilities.

In 2022, I moved into Horizon Housing during one of the hardest seasons of my life.

Soon after, I faced even more adversity, going through a divorce, transitioning into a new chapter, and becoming the full-time custodial parent of my son.

Even in the midst of these challenges, Horizon Housing became the stable foundation I needed.

With the support of the most amazing caseworker who consistently connected me to resources, guidance, and encouragement, I was able to not only survive, but truly grow into my potential.

During my time here, I've had the opportunity to accomplish things I once couldn't even imagine.

I graduated from women in leadership, moved from organizer to director of organizing at Bridge to Hope Parent Institute, contributed to We Powers Community Wealth Building Design Playbook, became a block captain with the Federation of Block Units in the Bill, and served as a strong advocate for tornado recovery, housing justice, and social justice in my community.

Most importantly, I completed my first-time homebuyers program, and now I'm preparing to move forward into my next chapter as a homeowner.

Horizon Housing was exactly the program I needed.

It gave me stability, dignity, and room to rise.

You should have all recently received our annual report for fiscal year 25, and in it you can read more success stories about our agencies and how they are helping people live more independently, work meaningful jobs, and socialize and develop relationships.

Our funds are helping your friends, relatives, and neighbors.

That's why what we do is important because people with developmental disabilities are important.

Please continue to support people with developmental disabilities during March and all year long.

Let's continue to work to make St.

Louis City an inclusive and accessible city.

And please let your state legislators know that the services funded through personal property taxes are important to you.

Thank you.

We will dispense with the regular order of business to take up the courtesy or the first reading of resolution's calendar.

Alderman from the 14th, you're recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolution 265.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board.

I move to suspend the rules and introduce resolution 265.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the uh alderwoman from the 7th that we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolution 265.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Rule uh or resolution 265 is a resolution to be able to uh suspend our rules uh to introduce a board bill that the city council gave me that needs to be introduced immediately that would um do easement work when it comes to the Peace App so Airman can start the uh work with doing power lines and other items so uh this resolution would change the last day to file board bills to today so that we can get this bill introduced, heard in public safety, and done through the board of alderman before uh we go down the session so that the work on the PSAP 911 call center can uh continue to happen all right it's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alder woman from the seventh that we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolution 265.

This is the non-debatable motion, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye, Alderman Oldenberg, aye, Alderman Cone.

Alderman Orion.

Aye, Alderman DeVote, I'm gonna flip because this is actually Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sonier.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox Antwi.

Aye.

Alderman Brownie, aye, Alder Woman Clark Hubbard, Alder Woman Keys, Alder Woman Tyus.

Thank you.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Thanks, Michael.

Sorry.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

We have 14 eye votes.

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

Madam Clerk, if you could please place board bill two sixty-five at the end of the uh first reading resolutions.

So noted.

Alder woman from the first.

You are now recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolution two six.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolution two sixty six.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the first, seconded by the alderman from the ninth, that we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolution two sixty-six.

Alder woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

This resolution, very similar to something we passed a few weeks ago around a House bill is opposing a Senate bill that would change how landfill tipping fees work and ultimately end with the D uh defunding of many very important programs that we depend upon in the St.

Louis region and across the state uh to work with the disposal of waste.

Um with the uh folks who spoke on this last time.

I do plan on sending this committee to committee if we're able to suspend the rules today to get it introduced, which is why I didn't want to have it introduced next week because we wouldn't have had time to have it go to committee.

So thank you so much for your time and I hope to earn your support today.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the first, seconded by the alderman from the ninth.

We suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolution 266.

This is a non-debatable motion.

Madam Clerk, call the roll.

Alder Woman Switzer.

Aye.

Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cong.

Alderman O'Ryan.

Aye.

Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sonier.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox Anthwe.

Aye.

Alderman Brownie.

Alder Woman Car Cover.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyes.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Cone.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

We have 13 aye votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the uh alderman from the uh alder woman from the first.

Madam Clerk, if you could please place resolution 266 at the end of the first reading resolution.

So noted.

First reading resolutions.

Resolution.

265.

Sponsored by Alderman Aldrich.

Thank you.

Resolution 265, sponsored by Alderman Aldrich.

Last day for the introduction of board bill for sessions 2025-2026 legislative session.

Whereas Board of Alderman Rule 56 of the rules of the board 2025-2026 legislative session reads as follows.

Rule 56, last day of introducing bills.

The President shall, upon approval of the Board of Alderman by resolution, establish the last day for introducing bills.

Notice of said date should be posted on the automatic bulletin board, whereas President Green established last February, I mean Friday, March 20th, 2026 as the last day, full board meeting meeting before Monday, April 26th, Signy Die meeting, which ends the board's 2025-2026 legislative session.

And whereas Alderman, Rashine Aldrich plan to establish Friday, March 13th, 2026 as the last day to introduce board bills for the St.

Louis Board of Aldermans 2025, 2026 legislative session.

And whereas President Megan Green sponsored and received unanimous approval on Tuesday, 5th, April 15th, 2025, from resolution number 5, which established Friday, February 13th, 2026 as the last day to introduce board bills for the St.

Louis Board of Alderman 2025-2026 legislative session.

And whereas in accordance with the board of rule number 60, the setting of February Friday, March 13th as the last date to introduce board bills for the 2025-2026 legislative session must be established by approval of a board of alderman specifying a date, and we're asked by adoption of the resolution, Alderman Aldrich plans to change the last day to introduce board bills established by resolution number five, approved on Tuesday, April 15th, 2025 from Friday, February 13th, 2026 to Friday, March 13th, 2026.

Now therefore it be a resolve that by adoption of this resolution, the Board of Alderman hereby establishes Friday, March 13th, 2026 as the last day to introduce board bills for its legislative session before Monday, April 20th, 2026, signing die meeting, which which will end the board's 2526 legislative session.

Introduced this 13th day of March 2026 by the Honorable Megan Green, Board of Alderman, co-sponsors, the Honorable Rashine Aldrich, Alderman 14th Ward.

Alderman from the 14th, you're recognized in the first reading resolution 265.

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

Uh resolution 265.

Again, as uh I mentioned earlier.

Uh this is to be able to make today the last day to introduce board bills.

The city council office reached out uh to me yesterday and saying uh there was a fumble and drop of the ball of getting the legislation to me.

Um, but what this would do, it would be an easement work that is needed so that um power lines from Amran and other uh utility work can be done at the 911 Peace App Center that is in the 14th ward, very close to the elevated 11th, and with that I would ask for uh to adopt resolution 265.

Uh would you like to ask for unanimous consent?

I'd like to ask for unanimous consent for resolution two five.

Hearing no objection, Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, madam president.

Uh move to uh adopt resolution 265.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alder woman from the 10th, that we adopt resolution 265.

Is there any discussion?

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

Motion carries.

Resolution number two twenty-six.

Opposing Missouri State Bill 15 1586 and supporting the continued local administration of Silent Waste Management District.

Where I asked the city.

Madam Clerk, we don't need to read the full resolution.

Okay.

Okay.

Resolution number 266, opposing Missouri State Bill 1586 and supporting the continued local administration of side of waste management.

Alder Woman from the first, you're recognized on the first reading of resolution 266.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I move to send resolution 266 to the public infrastructure and utilities committee.

Second.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the first, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we send resolution 266 to the public infrastructure and utilities committee.

Is there any discussion?

Okay.

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Introduction of honored guests.

Any introduction of honored guests.

Okay.

Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board.

As my uh honor guest today, I would like to have our newest member of the Board of Alderman, uh, Mr.

Sydney Johnson, who is executive secretary at this board of Alderman.

If we can make them all feel welcome.

Alderman from the third.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh my colleague from the 14th stole a little bit of my thunder there since uh actually a third ward resident.

I'm hoping to introduce them as my honored guests, but I'll defer to my colleagues.

Uh but I would like to have uh a few honored guests.

Uh we had with us this morning the director of personnel, the new director of Brian Light, uh, was here with us this morning.

I think he might have just left the gallery, but I'd like to have him here as my honored guests if he's still around.

Uh also we have uh several members of the painter's district council here, and uh Joanna Schooler from uh Wash U is also with us this morning.

I'd like to have them all as my honored guests.

Thank you.

Alder woman from the first.

Thank you, Madam President and members of the board.

Today I would like to have as my honored guest, Miss Emma Hain, who's sitting behind me here.

She is a junior at Nearings and a member of the Youth Council.

Uh, she lives just around just down the street from me, and I've known her since she was seven years old.

And in the time now she's 16.

She has just become such an incredible leader, both in her school community and now uh civically as a member of the youth council, and I am very honored to have her as a guest today.

So thank you for coming, Emma Any further introduction of honored guests.

Any further introduction of honored guests.

Seeing none, uh Alder Woman from the 10th, you are recognized on the approval of the minutes from Friday, March 6th, 2026.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move that we approve the minutes from Friday, March 6th, 2026.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 1st that we approve the minutes from Friday, March 6, 2026.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Report of city officials.

The report of city officials can be found in ABC and D of the agenda.

It has been placed in the Google Google Drive for your review.

Dear members of the board, I have the pleasure to submit the following individuals for appointment to the board of adjustments.

The appointment of Annie Grice, James Dallas, and Camel Desomey.

I respectfully be questioned approval for these appointments.

Kara Spencer Mayor.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move that we move the mayor's appointments to the board of adjustments to the HUDs committee.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we send uh Mayor Spencer's appointments to the Board of Adjustment to the HUDS Committee.

Is there any discussion?

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

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?

Alder woman from the 12th.

Yes, Madam President and members of the board.

I move that we uh take board bill.

I request that we take board bill 119 off of the bills.

Board bills for perfection and put it on the perfection calendar, please.

Madam Clerk, if you could please place board bill 119 on the regular perfection calendar.

So noted.

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

Seeing none.

Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the first reading of board bill number 175.

175.

175.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board.

I move to suspend the rules and introduce board bill 175 to the first reading.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alder woman from the 10th.

That we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing board bill 175.

This is a non-debatable motion.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Sweitzer.

Aye.

I'm sorry.

Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman De Ryan.

Aye.

Alderman Devoty.

Aye.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sonia.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox Antwi.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Ties.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Cone.

No.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

We have 14 aye votes, one no vote.

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

Madam Clerk, if you could please place board bill 175 on the first reading of board bills.

So noted.

First reading of board bills.

Board bill 175 sponsored by Alderman Alderman Aldridge.

An ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor of the and the comptroller of the city of St.

Louis to execute two utility easements which shall give grant, extend, and confer on utility electric company doing business as an Emran, Missouri, and his agents, successors, and assigns the right to construct, operate, use, maintain, repair, renew, and or remove electric power line or lines of underground and or above ground facilities and equipment on the land described in such easements and containing an emergency clause.

Madam Clerk, if you could please assign board bill 175 to the public infrastructure and committee.

So noted.

Reference to committee of board bills.

Board bill 175 to the public infrastructure and utilities committee.

Second reading report is standing committees.

The following board bills were reported out of the HUDs committee to pass recommendation.

Board Bill 168, sponsored by Alder Woman.

Alderman Aldrich.

Board Bill fifty one pass out of the public infrastructure.

I'm sorry, public safety committee.

Board Bill 151, sponsored by Alderman Aldrich, President Green, Alderman Odenberg, Alderman O'Ryan, Alderwoman Velasquez, Alderwoman Sonye, and Alderwoman Clark Hubbard.

An ordinance to amend the public nuisance ordinance by repealing certain sections and adding new ones to create a nuisance review bill review board.

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

Support a special report of special committees.

We have none.

We have none.

Sponsored by Alderman Cohn.

An ordinance amending chapter 3.160 of the revised code of the city of St.

Louis by establishing definitions and criteria for the impact assessment of redevelopment projects as required by section 3.160031, including the separability clause.

Alderman from the third, you're recognized on the perfection of board bill 66 committee substitute.

Thank you, Madam President.

Board Bill 66, as you can imagine.

You'd like to ask for perfection.

I would like to ask for perfection of Board Bill 66 committee substitute.

Sir a second.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the third, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 11th, that we perfect Board Bill 66 committee substitute.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President.

Board Bill 66 Committee Substitute as it uh passed out of committee.

Uh represents a uh step in terms of codifying the uh scorecard that SLDC uses to evaluate incentive projects in the city of St.

Louis, as some of you may recall, and for those of you that weren't able to uh participate in the committee hearing, um the uh couple sessions ago, we actually ended up passing an ordinance that required SLDC to create an evaluation process and a scorecard that was presented to the Board of Aldermen.

Um I was having lunch with my colleague from the seventh ward yesterday uh indulging in a little history lesson.

And uh I think for many of you that weren't here 16 years ago or 14 years ago or 12 years ago, uh when we had development items that came before this board, the only thing that we had was literally a board bill.

We didn't have a fiscal note, we didn't have a development scorecard.

These are all new things that we've implemented as a board to try and provide a level of transparency in our process, some expectations in general.

Um that scorecard uh process also uh provides for some community engagement that otherwise wasn't happening as well.

Um but Board Bill 66 essentially what it does is codifies the scorecard that SLDC created.

This board bill does not um well, it does still provide SLDC the flexibility to change metrics and other items associated with that scorecard.

However, if there are any drastic changes to the scorecard, it would have to come back for review at HUDS.

And so uh that is a summary of Board Bill 66 committee substitute.

I'd entertain any questions or would ask for your favorable consideration.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 8th, and then I'll go to Alder Woman from the 12th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Um I don't have any questions from the Alderman from the third.

He and I did have a discussion about this bill, and he understands my perspective on it.

I just wanted to share, you know, for the record on the floor today.

I certainly understand and appreciate all the improvements that have been made over the years and establishing the scorecard process.

I do think that is a good addition and making sure we have transparency and development.

That being said, uh the concerns that I have with this are as it relates to the section regarding approval and modification of the scorecard.

I think we all understand when developers are going through any sort of development process, there can be changes, and there can often be a lot of changes or questions depending on how long a development project takes.

If we are required to bring those matters back before the HUDS Committee and the Board of Aldermen, that can create an even further extended timeline for projects that we know we need to get done in the city.

I think right now we're trying to make sure that we can bring good transparent and positive developments to the city, and we should be doing things to make that process easier, not more difficult.

Um, my concern with this piece of legislation is that I do think that particular line could create some difficulties and challenges for folks as their projects change when they do need to make changes and review and approve their scorecards.

So that is my only concern with this piece of legislation.

I understand the Alderman from the third's intent and bringing it forward today.

Um, but with that concern, I don't think I'm able to support the legislation.

Alder Woman from the 12th thank you, uh Mr.

Madam President, members of the board.

Um, first of all, since the Alder Woman from the Eighth brought up her concerns, I'd like to ask if the Alderman from the third would yield.

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

Gladly.

Thank you.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Um Alderman, so did you have a conversation with the woman from the from the eighth about her concerns and what is your reply to her concerns?

Uh thank you, Alderman.

I I did have a conversation with her.

Uh I think that there might be a bit of a misunderstanding.

Uh you know, I can't speak to her concerns as much as I can what's in the board bill.

But uh, you know, uh if I were to try and clarify, you know, her concerns, uh, you know, this board bill does not put ownership on a developer or SLDC and the event that a project changes.

The board bill specifies if the scorecard changes.

So any of the criteria that are outlined in the scorecard, if those are to be dropped, amended, or changed, then the attributes of the scorecard itself would come back before the body, not any specific project as it relates to its evaluation within the scorecard.

So anything that there was scored, let's let's just say if one of the scores was chocolate candy and it became vanilla candy, then that would have to come back, right?

If what you're saying is on the scorecard, it says that you have to have chocolate candy, and then SLDC decides to change the scorecard to say no, you need vanilla candy, then the scorecard itself would come back to this body, not the project that's uh being evaluated by the scorecard.

And SLDC would have to have the body change it, they couldn't just change it um because they think it should be vanilla instead of chocolate or vice versa, right?

Correct.

And there are the language in the board bill is broad enough where there's flexibility on SLDC's part to further define the attributes that are in the scorecard.

However, if those attributes are to change, then it would come back over here.

Okay, and can you tell us some of the things that's on the scorecard?

I'm sorry, Alderwoman, you broke up there.

I'm sorry, I said could you tell us some of the things that are on the scorecard?

I can.

I actually just had it pulled up earlier and my browser closed on me.

Have to open it up again, but happy to do that for you.

Thank you.

Uh just off the top of my head, some of the things that are on there are things like um you know, placement tour near uh transportation nodes, uh the uh EJI, the economic justice index, and uh the placement or geography of uh projects and the uh kind of area of need, if you will.

Um, things of that nature.

Uh the required amount of jobs, the amount of affordable housing.

Okay, thank you.

The scorecard was created to make it more fair when we did development.

Is that correct?

That's that's correct.

Okay, because in the past there's been uh certain people that got certain things and other people didn't, and also um long-term development uh is that uh a lot of people have been left out of development, North St.

Louis particularly.

Um and um so we're trying to we were trying to make it so that things that were getting done in places that had not been done previously would have a better chance of of being uh completed if we gave it a better score because it was actually gonna be something that needs to needed to be done.

Is that correct?

That that's as you and I have had this conversation many year uh times over the years, yes, that's absolutely correct.

Okay, and then also um, and we've never been able to do this the way we should, it was to also stop giving so much help to places that had gotten all of the help.

I I unfortunately have been down here uh at the board to remember when it was only a few things downtown.

And I've watched the uh enormous amount of money that's been put downtown in the central quarter, um uh and witness block grant money that should have gone to North St.

Louis, go to downtown and central quarter.

So it makes me have a hard time feeling starry when people start saying we're not getting our fair share, because if we look over the amounts that have been received in certain places, then not only have they gotten their fair share, they've gotten way more than their fair share.

So um whenever you take something away from people who have had too much of it, they will never think it's fair.

Um, but we if we're ever to do economic justice and development, um, we're gonna have to stop giving so much to some.

We're also gonna have to at some point address our economic development depends on a lot of taking money from St.

Louis Public Schools, which we always say we support, then we have all kind of things, TIFF and other things that are not in the best interest of the schools.

So I understand the album from the eighth's concerns, but um I don't think that our scorecard goes far enough and wish it would be even uh more restrictive, and I even wish we would um place some uh some limits to say we only gonna do 10 or 15 percent of development or assistance in certain areas, in other areas we're gonna give 80 or 90 percent because they haven't had any.

Um, and surprisingly enough, a lot of South St.

Louis hasn't had any.

It really was downtown and support.

So I understand what the woman from the eighth is saying.

I just think that she does misunderstand it, and also that we have to have some kind of scorecard, and I think that we can do better than that, and I will be supporting this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Woman.

Any further discussion, Alderman from the ninth?

Uh thank you.

Uh Alderman from the third, would you yield for questioning?

The Alderman from the third yields questioning from the Alderman from the ninth.

Sorry, Madam President.

Yes, I will.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman, we had a great discussion in committee about this.

I think you know my thoughts and I made the case uh very well that I don't think we're currently following the scorecard in the first place.

Uh, that we I think as we just heard from the Alderman from the 12th, uh, not every member of this board is willing to follow the process that we put in place.

We keep reforming things uh and we keep adding requirements, but when we only pass a single LCRA abated project last year, just one.

If we passed any fewer incentives in this board, we would pass none.

And this city is not growing.

I don't know if anyone's noticed.

But I think it's uh a question of what what are you trying to solve with extra regulation and extra um requirements to check in with this body, which clearly has a uh differing opinion on incentive use in the city.

Yeah, uh are you finished with your question?

That's the question.

Okay, thank you.

Uh first of all, the scorecard is something that SLDC currently employs in their evaluation criteria.

So this is not changing anything from what they're currently doing, to be clear.

Uh you know, the scorecard itself uh was not part of the codified language uh and the existing ordinance.

And so what this does is take the scorecard that was developed by SLDC and the various you know criteria that they have assigned, not the evaluation itself, you know, there's flexibility for that and the definitions therein, but the capital investment, public infrastructure improvements, transit access, geography, uh points for minority women-owned businesses, points for historic preservation, points for environmental remediation, points for community benefits contribution, points for commercial corridor access, points for affordable housing, and those you know, evaluation criteria are uh in place now.

Uh this simply codifies those categories and the metrics associated with them.

The definitions within are flexible.

You know, we allow SLDC the opportunity to further define that as they need.

Um, you know, SLDC, the economic development arm of the city is supportive of this.

This is not changing anything as we currently do it uh in the city of St.

Louis, it's simply codifying our existing evaluation criteria.

Uh I would add, as I did in committee, you know, this board ultimately has the authority underneath state statute.

We do not have to abide by the scorecard.

If you have the votes to pass a piece of legislation, Alderman, you can pass a piece of legislation down here.

That is a fact.

You can still do that if you desire to do so.

What we've established as a past practice, you know, recently, well be it, is that we want to see certain criteria and values expressed in terms of where we would like to see those incentives go.

And so this board bill is simply codifying that.

Now, if those metrics were to change, if SLDC wanted to drop transit access or affordable housing from their evaluation criteria, they would have to come back to us.

A developer wouldn't have to come back to us for their project.

SLDC, if they're changing the scorecard metrics, would have to come back to us.

This is not targeting or impacting any individual project.

This is simply codifying an existing practice that we have developed over the last few years since we passed the initial board bill uh requiring us uh a scorecard.

So, but to answer your question, you know, this board still has the authority vested in us underneath state statute to promulgate rules related to development or pass incentives.

So we don't this is just a baseline evaluation tool is what it is.

And you know, if there's issues with the process, I encourage you to you know speak about those.

I encourage you, and as I mentioned in committee, I'm happy to work with you concerns.

Um but again, when I was first elected down here, we were giving away you know 20 years of tax abatement on a single family home in the central corridor for 100% abatement in places like Shaw, Tower Grove South, Forest Park Southeast, Central West End, downtown, those neighborhoods, when you're giving away the highest level of incentive that you possibly can 20 years at 100%, how are neighborhoods and North St.

Louis and Southeast City supposed to gain the attention of developers when they have a less risk investment in the central corridor because the prices are more stable, lending is more available, lending isn't available in some parts of this city, Alderman.

I don't know if you fully comprehend that sometimes.

Lending is not available in certain parts of this city.

When I first got elected in 2009 after the Great Recession, literally my house was underwater.

It took 10 years before I would be able to get a home equity line of credit on my home to fix things like roofs.

That is a reality for many people who live outside of the central corridor in this city.

So in order to attract development and those underserved, underrepres, you know, underinvested communities, it is important for us to be able to express our intent with an evaluation criteria.

And you know, we want more projects along transit.

This is an evaluation criteria that's in here.

So, you know, we now have these criteria that express our values.

Happy to talk about that.

Happy to change them.

You know, if there's someone that feels that we need more affordable housing or more direct access to transit.

But this is where we're at right now.

And you know, I think you know, some of your points that you made in committee are valid, but at the same time, you know, some of them aren't necessarily directly related to this legislation.

You know, I I won't hash out all of that on the floor here, but you know, as I mentioned, I'm happy to follow up with you and have those conversations as well.

Thank you.

That's that's all the questions I have for you.

I think I'll just um I'll I'll push back against this idea that like I don't know my history in the city that I don't know that it's not possible to develop in some parts of our city because there isn't the demand, there isn't the lending available, there isn't even the incentives available.

To be clear, the highest level of incentives that our city can offer are available for parts of our city that have seen disinvestment, that have seen a hard time developing.

The highest level are available for them right now.

People still aren't building there.

And so if we have this notion that if we just don't build elsewhere, that somehow it'll push it to elsewhere in the city as if we're ignoring that there isn't St.

Charles and Chesterfield, Illinois across the river, and all sorts of other areas where people can build housing, and those cities will throw incentives at developers to build housing there.

So we're going to lose out for housing that we desperately need in the city for homes that we desperately need in this city.

I don't know where everyone in this board lives, but I live in a house that was built by a private developer over a hundred years ago and then rehabbed by a private developer in the 80s.

And then I've hired private contractors to work on it over time.

It takes investment to bring up neighborhoods, but the numbers don't work in our city.

We are below the market on a lot of what we can charge in our rents, a lot of what we can charge in our home prices.

To use Forest Park Southeast as an example of a neighborhood that didn't deserve incentives is ludicrous.

Because that neighborhood was on the brink of collapse just 20, 30 years ago.

And now it is a strong neighborhood that's contributing to the city.

You know, I think the reform that we've done has been great.

When I ran for office, people asked me on the doors, how do you feel about incentives?

And I told them, I will follow the scorecard.

We've done a good job of reforming this process, and if we run these things through the process and they score on the scorecard, I will follow that and I will support that.

And that was an answer good enough for the people who elected me.

But I was in for a rude awakening when I came down to this board and realized that not only do not does not everyone else feel that way, but before we can even get projects to this board to vote on them and even debate them, because there are projects that I would I would fight for.

I would tell you the story of that piece of land and how it's been so difficult to develop.

I would tell you the story of how it's not contributing to our city right now, how a piece of vacant land or a piece of land that's owned by a nonprofit that's contributing nothing to our city.

We don't give a hundred percent abatement anymore as part of that reform.

But we do have lots of land in the city that is owned by nonprofit and contributes zero tax dollars to us.

And so if we can't lend that air of predictability, that ability for people to come to our city and know that we're going to be a good partner for them to develop here.

It's not that I'm opposed to this board bill today so much as that I'm opposed to the idea that we are introducing more regulation, more check-ins with this unpredictable body, more unpredictability in this process that will actually hurt us when it comes to what we need to do, which is to build more homes for people.

And it's stunning to me that we are at this place now where we are demolishing more, especially after the tournament, demolishing more homes than we are building.

And we think that we're just going to get what we want by putting more and more regulations on it.

But if we pass nothing, it doesn't matter what our wish list is, it doesn't matter what our values are in that scorecard, we won't get the housing we need, which means that people will not call St.

Louis home when we need them to I will sorry, I was gonna go to the somebody who hadn't spoken, but it looks like she's gone.

So I'll go alder woman from the eighth, and then uh and then she has her hand, Madam President.

So we have we have two folks who haven't spoken yet that I'm gonna go to first.

Um Alder Woman from the 13th, and then Alder Woman from the 7th, and then I'll go to Alder Woman from the 8th and Alder Woman from the 12th.

So Alder Woman from the 13th.

But thank you, Madam President Board.

Uh uh.

Could I get the Alder person from the third?

Could I ask a question?

The Alderman from the third yield for questioning from the alder woman from the thirteenth.

I will.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

And so uh I hear what you said in regards to bringing this, you know, to the forefront, added another piece to it.

But I think my concern is these neighborhoods that have benefited from it, even after the score court, that's still not it's still not to me, and it's just me speaking, it's not helping us attract developers in our community.

And that's the challenge that I'm having.

And so I feel like we keep nickel and diming this scorecard.

Is it a way that we could just sit down to look at it as a whole so we can get it once and for all because we keep coming back, and maybe I'm thinking off, maybe you can clarify.

It's to me, it's like discouraging developers from coming in because we're adding another step and another step and another step.

I so again, Alder Woman, this is not adding or changing anything from what we're currently doing and have been doing for the last three years.

So this is this board bill itself is simply codifying the existing practice.

That's uh so we're not changing anything.

I I don't know where this narrative is coming from, but we're not changing anything with respect to the existing practice and process at SLDC.

Uh they developed this scorecard in conjunction with this body.

And uh so we're simply codifying that scorecard at this point in time.

If there are changes that are desired by SLDC or by members of this body, we can have that conversation at another point in time.

But right now it's adopting that scorecard and codifying it.

Uh so that this does not change SLDC's existing practice.

Uh in fact, Zach Wilson, Otis uh Williams from SLDC were both on the HUDs hearing.

They both testified in favor of the board bill.

Uh and so I I hope that addresses your question and concerns.

Okay, thank you.

It's it's not addressed me, but okay.

Alder Woman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Is with the Alderman of the Third Leo T and Inquiry?

Would the Alderman from the third yields questioning from the Alder Woman from the 7th?

I will.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Um firstly, I just want to note that I am glad that this, you know, this board bill happened, and I would just note for the record that this bill was filed quite some time ago, and I was able to have conversations with the sponsor where he expressed that part of the reason that that time period was is because he was in conversation with SLDC and making sure that this bill really lined up with their current practices and was very clear that we're not changing anything, we're not adding an additional restrictions.

We are essentially codifying what is already their internal practices.

So I want to be clear that whether you vote for this or not today, SLDC will continue to operate under the scorecard as they currently do for every project.

And I'm also saying that as a SLDC board member.

So I just wanted to put that on record.

Um to the Alderman of the Third, I just wanted to ask you to clarify the Alder Woman of the Eighth question earlier about developers having to come back before us um after approval.

I know you were asked about that question again, but can you speak to um is there anything in this legislation that says that developer has to come back in front of us at any time based off of this?

No, and in fact, uh existing incentive and development agreements generally don't have timeframes associated with them.

So uh if this body passes something 20 years goes by, a developer leaves that project and then comes back, they can still use the incentives that this body had passed 20 years previously.

So as long as the legislation was on the books, it doesn't change anything for the developer.

Now that might be something that this body s evaluates and changes in the future, but as it currently stands, no.

And the there's that additional level of flexibility with both SLDC and potential future developers.

Okay, so there's nothing in this bill that requires the developers come back in front of us.

When do SLDC, according to this bill, when do they have to come back in front of the When does SLDC have to come back or when does a developer have to come back?

SODC.

You already clarified that there's nothing in this legislation that requires developers to come back in front of us.

So if it's SLDC, that's the entity, when do they have to come back in front of us?

Yeah, thank you, Alderman.

I just want to make sure that the developer does not have to come back to this body period once an incentive is passed.

Right.

Uh unless there are changes that they're requesting for that incentive.

With respect to SLDC having to come back, you know, as I enumerated earlier uh, you know, in my conversation with the alder woman from the 12th, the current uh definitions or metrics that are on the scorecard are things like public infrastructure improvements, meaning that the project is going to enhance public infrastructure, uh public transit access, meaning that the project is going to be near a bus route, near a metrolink stop.

Um the geography, you know, obviously, you know, uh we want to try to incentivize projects in North St.

Uh Southeast City.

So that you know plays a factor in terms of the evaluation criteria and the points that are assigned there.

Um things like historic preservation.

I think most of us would agree that we want to try and preserve the historic integrity of our neighborhoods.

So if any of those criteria and the others that are enumerated in the board bill change, meaning that SLDC wants to eliminate them or add something in addition to that.

That's when this scorecard would come back to this board of aldermen.

It's not any individual scorecard that would come back to this board.

It's the metrics that are associated with the scorecard and evaluation criteria that would come back to this body.

Thank you.

That answers my question.

So I just wanted to make sure that that was clear and on the record because we did have robust conversation.

And so I know one of the things that has happened with this is that the times that SLDC has come back in front of us in regards to this scorecard, it was to add living wage jobs and environmental impacts because that was not in the very first version of the scorecard.

SLDC, who was the development entity of the city said, we keep getting asked about this, neighbors seem to care about this, alders seem to care about this, so let's add a category on the scorecard that would give you points if you're able to meet a certain metric with living wage jobs and if you're able to um talk about the environmental impact of your project.

So I just want to make sure because I think that's a really important clarification that there's nothing in this legislation that requires individual projects to come back before us.

It is if the categories on the scorecard want to be amended, SLDC has to come back in front of us.

And I actually think that's good for developers because otherwise that means that SODC or alders could just change different things on a scorecard, um, and there's no official process for that to be codified and to happen in front of us.

So to me, SODC, if they want to change it so that the developers that we work with can have a consistent process.

I think it's important that they have to come back in front of us in order to change the metrics on the scorecard.

But that doesn't impact any individual projects that we as alders, you know, are moving.

So I just wanted to provide that clarification.

Thank you.

Alder Woman from the 8th.

All right.

Thank you, Madam President.

Well, the Alderman from the third, please yield for question.

The Alderman from the third yields questioning from the Alder Woman from the 8th.

I'm a popular guy this morning.

Absolutely.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President.

And and yes, you are.

Um first I want to say I appreciate the clarifications that you've made in your remarks.

I do appreciate that understanding, and I appreciate the Alder Woman from the 7th clarification for the record on whether developers have to come back regarding this bill.

I do think that is an important piece of clarification that we get publicized.

That being said, my question, Alderman, um, relates to your statement when you said that this bill is not necessarily changing SLDC's current process, it's codifying the existing process.

Is a component of the existing process um, well, actually, let me take a step back.

My first question is Did SLDC participate in each of the individual components that are defined in your bill and adding those original components to the art?

Yes, they did.

And uh even prior to our committee hearing, I uh had reached out to James Morrow, who's one of the attorneys that works over at SLDC.

There were a number of items that he had addressed and um kind of the editorial version uh as we were having conversations around uh definitions, structure, et cetera, within the committee substitute.

Um so I double and triple checked with as many people as I could to make sure that they felt that their voices were heard throughout this legislative process.

Uh and you know, they indicated that they had you know their concerns addressed.

And you know, so much to the extent that Otis Williams and Zach Wilson from SLDC both came to testify in favor of the bill last week.

Thank you during the committee hearing.

Um and was it a previous component of SLD's process that any change made to the scorecard had to come before the HUDs committee?

Was that a existing requirement?

I the requirement was that the that SLDC would develop the scorecard, uh which they've done, and now we're codifying it.

So this would now put in place a uh expectation that if there are changes, that those would since we are codifying it, if there are changes to it, it would need to come through this body.

Yes, so let me just make sure I understand.

So previously SLDC worked to establish the requirements on the scorecard.

SLDC did put together the requirements of the scorecard, and there was an extensive process to establish those requirements.

And what your bill is doing is now saying any changes that SLDC wants to make, whether it's adding or subtracting a component of the scorecard, has to come back through the Board of Alderman's process for review.

It's uh getting a little bit into the nuance of it.

We left broad definitions of the components on the scorecard.

And so, for instance, you know, the affordable housing component, um, you know, if we wanted to, or I'm sorry, if SLDC wanted to change that, they have the flexibility to change that from 80% AMI to 65% AMI or 90% AMI.

SLDC has that flexibility within the definitions currently.

However, if they wanted to eliminate affordable housing altogether as an evaluation criteria, then that would come back to this body for evaluation.

Okay, I appreciate that clarification.

And I think the reason I asked that um is because I think the the nuances of substantial pieces of a department's processes having to come back and forth between this board is I think the challenge that we're getting at.

And I think the alderman from the 9th um and the alder woman from the 13th articulated that very well because it it is hard to take a look at the development that we have being done currently in the city under the process that we do and say we have a robust swath of development taking place.

I think we do need to attract more, and I think as the Alder Woman from the 13th said, even with the existing processes, we're still having challenges getting developers that want to come into the city and build.

And so I think the processes need to stay clear and be clear.

If we are now codifying a requirement that any changes to administrative review have to come back and forth between our body, that is not assurance that we have clarity.

And if you look at other standards around the nation and other cities around the nation, they have a more administrative review process for this aspect that we're discussing right now, and that helps with development.

And so I think all I'm saying, and I want to make sure everyone is clear, I have no problem with the scorecard.

I understand the city has been doing development wrong for a very long time, and communities have been paying the price for that.

I think codifying the definitions that we have, you know, if that process were the proponent alone, I would have no problem with.

But again, I think it's signaling to developers that there could be substantial changes when they're evaluating St.

Louis as a place to build in a time right now where communities are saying, and we've seen that haven't had development for a really long time saying we want people to build here.

If we're making that unsure and uncertain, I don't think it signals that that that St.

Louis is ready for the type of investment we're demanding for people.

I don't, but I do appreciate clarification that developers don't have to come back, and I do appreciate the clarification that we're codifying a process that has been work with SODC for a very long time.

I think those things are good.

Again, I think it's just that nuanced piece that I have challenges, but I appreciate you answering my questions.

Thank you, Alderman.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Um, first of all, I'd like to push back on the Alderman from the 9th, um, and speaking to what can and cannot be done in certain communities.

It is a ridiculous statement.

There's things that can be done.

I am a living example before you probably was born.

What can be done in communities when people say what can't be done.

I got elected in 1991.

I always do this shout out.

Shout out to Mayor Vince Shamel, because everybody said what could not be done, but he worked with me and his then direct head of uh CDA or SLDC or both, Christopher Grace.

And the reason that we are not in a food desert right now is because we bought a piece of land and we built a grocery store that we had not been in North St.

Louis, which was Snooks.

Um when he left, I went on to build the first new school, Walgreens, churches, 50, 60 million dollars worth of stuff that people said that could not be done.

Strip malls, all the first in North St.

Louis.

There's things that can be done.

It's if people in the right places put the energy into it.

Besides Vince Shamel, the other mayor that did that was Clarence Harmon.

Those were the two mayors that put energy in North St.

Louis.

And any of the aldermen that served with me during the Clarence Harmon administration will tell you, and Benice Jones King's Perry May, that he did put energy into it, and we got things done.

Things that they think other mayors did really happen under Clarence Harmon.

But Vince Shamel was the first one to believe in North St.

Louis, and it takes energy from the mayor's office and SLDC.

I have been doing development since 1979.

All of my projects are successful.

My husband and I have built a career.

I understand development, and I've done it in North St.

Louis because it can be done.

I'm married to a city planner.

He understands it.

Um it irritates me for people to say what can't be done.

It hasn't been done.

And so when we come back here, then I will present to you all the facts about how they stole the block grant money, how they redline.

Um, when the Alderman from the 20th of I'm sorry, from the third now, because he was the 25th for a long time.

When he talks about not being able to get uh loans in my community, I had to, we didn't have but one bank.

I had to bring all the upper middle class black people who lived in my ward, which were many black doctors and lawyers.

We had a meeting then with the head of Mercantile Bank, and we said, You act like we don't exist here.

We're here and we're here because we want to be here.

Why don't we have a bank over here?

And the long story is that when they kept and they met at my house, and we got a mercantile built bank built at Kings Highway and Natural Bridge, which is now the U.S.

bank.

But uh people um assume what cannot be done.

Oh, when Vince gave that four million dollars and bought that land for uh the snooks that's there now, everybody said that won't work.

First of all, it was all nationals in North St.

Louis at the time.

And uh so when I told them I wanted a snooks, the people in my own wards allowment, you can't do that because snooks is not in the city.

Well, I'm fortunate to have lived in the central quarter, South St.

Louis, and North St.

Louis.

So I've lived all around the city, all up and down Kings Highway.

Not only did we reach out to Snooks, and it does count about who you know, because my husband got a master's in urban affairs from St.

Louis University with the people who were the develop uh people who ran the Snooks development department.

He picks up the phone and calls them.

We get a meeting with them at uh Mr.

Clark's property at Natural Bridge and Union, which used to be the card place.

And long story short, we're talking to Snooks about why you're not in North St.

Louis, came to a conclusion.

We wanted them, and we have them.

Twenty-something years later, everybody who said it wouldn't last, it's there.

It's a grocery store there.

Um, the Walgreens recently went out of business, but it wasn't because it wasn't a successful uh venture, it was there for 20 years.

Strip malls, schools, you can do all that things, but it takes investment and it takes um time from the mayor's office and SLDC.

Right now, I am so frustrated with SLDC, not because I can't get developers, because I got developers lined up.

They know me, they know how I understand development um with this uh tornado.

Speaking to the mayor, um, I said to her, when we tear these buildings down, and the current mayor, Mayor Spencer, we should not be burying this in this this uh the uh uh the leftovers from demolition, we shouldn't be burying uh anything because it when we do that, when you get ready to do development, then what happens is the developers have to go back in, dig everything back up, it cost developers money and it costs time.

We should be doing clean demolition, and there's a lot of demolition to be done.

And uh I am a uh I I am a uh I've rehab property since 1979, so I don't just believe you tear properties down, but you do tear down those properties that cannot be saved or are too expensive.

We're not gonna spend three and four hundred thousand dollars on uh we having shot good houses.

We're not gonna build all brick houses anymore, and there's a reason for that.

And the people who are out there beating the uh drums saying, Oh, build, oh, you need to put this back as all brick.

There's hardly any black place that builds all brick houses anymore.

When we did that, we were a city that we heated property with fireplaces, and we built tall chimneys so that when the embers and ambers and the hot things came out of the chimneys, that it didn't fall on a frame house and burn it down.

So we built a very uh uh large group of people who represented both either the stones, masons, or the brick uh layers.

And that was so we built those houses in St.

Louis so we wouldn't burn our city down, but we don't have to do that anymore.

So we can build houses, a lot of them have brick fronts and whatever, and um we can build houses like that, and they're good houses.

We also can build new kinds of houses.

There's all different kinds, and that will happen in North St.

Louis if we have the energy.

We don't, and I'll speak to O.

We get the energy when people from the mayor's office tells SLDC to put the energy here.

Since the people did not come from North St.

Louis except for Freeman Bosley, then um they didn't put the energy um into North St.

Louis.

Well, Clarence Harmon did too, I'll take that back.

And they did not put the energy, so you didn't get stuff done.

That's why I give a shout out to Vince because when I met him, then Shamel and I met about uh zoning issues and how to build up the middle class, middle income people that were already living in North St.

Louis and always have, and stop withdrawing services.

There's a reason that black people leave North St.

Louis because we don't get anything.

We don't get anything because people think nothing can be done.

If you put that energy into building, they will build.

And so when I was building, we had a group of people that were lined up to do more things until this racist board of Alderman in 2001, led by Phyllis Young and led by Francis Slave, tore up 20th ward and put it into awards that were not doing quite as well.

So now I've built that back up again.

We have people waiting, but what we can't do is get stuff through uh uh SLDC.

And don't get mad at the Alderman from the third because he says, Look, we can't get loans over here in his war.

Now, his war wasn't necessarily because of racism, but it was some other things that went on about deciding that it was poor whites that live over there, and so we're not gonna put the money over there.

It wasn't always a majority black community, and so you didn't put the money over there.

You put the money where you felt you can easily get the money back.

The redlining um articles that I have, although we're not about the former 25th or the former 10th, which then became the 20th, it's about how they systematically did not put any money into North St.

Louis, and then when we got block grant, we took that money and gave it to the central quarter, we gave it to downtown, we put very little money.

It was across the front pages of the post-dispatch, and they have continued that.

When you take money that was meant for something else, because when we apply for block grant, we apply for block grant based on the ills of the things that were happening in North St.

Louis.

And then we didn't put the money there.

If you for a bank loan, if you apply for a bank loan for 4968 MAFIA Place, and you spend it on 4972 MAFIP, they can put you in jail.

But this whole city did this with very little investment except for low-income housing to go to North St.

Louis.

So it made the black middle class flee.

People such as from the ninth that said, well, it can't be done, or it's not being done.

It's not being done because the energy wasn't put into it.

When we have people that put the energy into it, it gets done.

When you have people that know how to do it, it gets done.

But there wasn't any uh incentive to do it because as the Alderman from the third explained to you all, you don't want to hear, it's so much easier if everybody's putting the money to downtown.

If everybody's putting the money to the central quarter, um, this is something the Alderman from the 9th doesn't know.

My husband used to work for CDA.

His project was the central quarter.

When um the Strauss were building up Central Quarter when they blighted with imminent domain, the central quarter and put all the black people out.

Go back and look in the 80s.

Look at the post dispatch headlines saying we will move the black people back.

When the black people were 80 percent, and the white people were 20 percent, and guess what?

They didn't move the black people back, they just uh moved white people and upper middle class people and upper, upper income white people in, and they still never put the energy into building up North St.

Louis.

So then people say, Well, that can't be done.

Interesting to me though, when you look at the housing being done out in Wellston, because they got together, and Wellston is a poorer community than North St.

Louis, but they're building new houses.

The same McBride that is building on the hill, is building in Wellston, and other people have been doing it because they had people that knew that people want to live all over and they want quiet enjoyment where they are, and they put the energy out into Wellston to say we don't just need all low income housing, we need a diverse community.

But in the city of St.

Louis, they have not put the energy into having a diverse community in North St.

Louis.

They put the energy for other places.

They didn't do it in South, they didn't spend a lot of money in Southwest St.

Louis either because they didn't need to.

But you needed to in North St.

Louis because you have been so racist and withdrew all the uh services or the money that was supposed to go there, and now we got these new aldermen showing up many years later with no acknowledgement of the history that has gone on and saying, Well, but we're not getting stuff done.

If you keep giving all the development incentives to downtown and to Central Quarter, yes, the people are gonna go there.

It's easier to go there.

You got a whole group of people in the mayor's office and at SLDC that uh will back you up.

It's easier to get bank loans.

So the incentives were supposed to be to get incentives were supposed to be where you could not get things done.

But instead, we have taken over the incentive and given them to places that's the easiest to get done.

If I had my druthers, we would give about 10% to downtown and 10% to the central quarter, and that's including um the neighborhood that you talked about uh that oh they needed that money because uh they were on the edge of Fox Park, not Fox Park Southwest, whatever it is along Manchester, they needed that money.

Well, you gave them like 10 million dollars.

But while they don't need the money, the Alderman wasn't saying that they didn't need a help at a certain point, but at some point you gotta stand on your own.

You can't just keep taking all the incentives that was meant for someplace else and saying, but we need this.

Downtown, I get very angry when I look at that building, the Millennium Building, and the press said, Oh, they have one uh tree growing out of the millennium.

It must come down.

It's a blight.

But we live in South in North St.

Louis, where it's probably any place that you can't go anymore, that you see all these damn LRA properties and blighted properties and people things that need to be torn down.

Now we're now talking about everything except for what should have happened with this our proper money and should happen with this ram money is that we should put 10, 20, 30, 40 million dollars into demolishing this stuff that cannot be saved.

And I have a whole list that I turned into LRA that are now people's houses because they did not demolish them, and you do not keep people in a neighborhood by leaving rag the buildings next to their houses so that they can't, they're scared that it's gonna fall on their houses, or this uh hip group of people who live someplace else saying, save those buildings.

I actually have done rehab of oak buildings.

I still will do them, but you can't save them all, and some of them have to be demolished so you can do new development.

There are people that want to do development.

I have six uh developers right now waiting.

So when you say you can't do it, you can get it done.

But you have to have a push from the mayor's office, and you have to have a push from SLDC.

And SLDC takes their cue from the mayor's office.

So if things haven't been getting done, it's because the mayor's office didn't want them to and didn't care for them to.

And I know that because when Francis Slade, and I'm going to repeat what you said to me, Francis, came over and we did the grocery store, the grand opening of the grocery store.

He said, Automan, out of woman, you've done so much development over here.

And then he went about making sure that he tore that up.

That is a thing that happens in the black community.

They say, don't let certain people know what you're doing, because if they find out, they'll destroy it.

There's a history in Oklahoma and Florida that when black people start to be too successful, they're destroying it.

Okay.

They're not trying to make us have uh the same kind of neighborhoods that everybody else.

And that's the racism that has gone on in this city of St.

Louis forever.

And so the new people come and they're like dismissing it.

There wasn't racism, there wasn't slavery, there wasn't this, there isn't sexism, all of those things go into it.

So I did not tell you that when I brought met with the bank that I brought the poor people in my community, because we have those two.

I brought the wealthiest people in my community because I wanted people to understand that we have diverse people, so economic.

We have wealthy black people, middle, medium-income black people, working black people and poor.

All the development I did, not one poor person said, I'm moving because you're building a grocery store.

I'm moving because you're building Walgreens.

I'm moving because you're building strip malls and schools.

They all said thank you, Alderwoman.

And they didn't move.

So that in 2001, when they tore up the 20th war, it was only two black wars that didn't lose population and was where they were supposed to be.

That was the 20th war, and then it was the second war, which is uh uh other than that, all of them lost because it was too hard not to be able to get things.

We were working on that, we were working on that.

But then we came in with Francis Slate and he worked extremely opposed to that, and he didn't do anything except for low income, and and it got to the place before we got to 14 aldermen, we had 28 Alderman.

Most black officers said, don't talk to me anymore about low income.

Because that's all you talk about, because that's what you think is my neighborhood.

And so you make that so you won't do anything else.

You didn't try to help any developers that did anything else.

And again, that goes to Vince Shamelow because he understood when we sat down and had a conversation about this.

Hey, there's a black middle class population.

He had gone to school right across the street from my house.

Um, so he understood it.

And if you would understand that there's a diverse population and that you cannot build up other parts of the city, if you keep giving the city uh quarter and that and central quarter and downtown all of the money um and saying, Well, we need this too, you already had it.

At what point is it somebody else's turn?

It's somebody else's turn.

When I hear, and I'm and I'm friends with people downtown, and people who are constituents of the aldermen from the ninth.

And when I have conversation with them and they talk to me about downtown, I say, you kind of don't want to have that conversation with me.

And they'll say, You're right, Chick.

Because I do know the history, okay, and I know how much money was put downtown, and I know how much money was put in the central quarter.

And when we call up County Central Quarter, that was the seventh ward, that was the eighth ward, that was parts of the 15th ward, the 28th ward, the 17th ward, um, and then on the border of the black communities, the 18th ward, the 26th ward, because they bordered the central quarter.

And then it's been the racism and the ignorance of development in the city of St.

Louis, so that people say, Well, you can't get them.

Yes, you can, but you can't get them if you're saying, Well, you can build over here in the central quarter, and we'll give you the same development incentives that you over here where we haven't got anything going, and we're never gonna get it.

So you're gonna have to say no to some of the people that have been at the table for the longest.

And they're never gonna say, Oh, that's right, that's fair.

One of the things that I cannot stand in this incentive things is one that says reinforce the city's central quarter as the dynamic heart of the region.

That is a bunch of bulls.

You have the reason why you are is because you have gotten all the money.

You're not the dynamic heart, and you should not be classified.

And I have talked to SLDC and other people about that needs to be taken out.

All of the city is important.

And if everybody has gotten the same attention, we there were wars in the city that in North St.

Louis, especially, that would never have had hardly any vacancy.

That would be the first war, the second war, the 20th war, the 21st war, the 27th war.

Those were all black, middle and upper income black people that wanted to stay in their houses but were ran out by the racist policy, not given loans if you want to be able to get to uh to fix up your house.

Um, so much so that my husband and I are our own bankers now, because we got so sick and tired of every time we're trying to fix up a rehab, they act like we just got to the table, and we sitting here saying this is our look what we've already done and got done.

So we became our own bankers, but other people did not have that luxury, so they moved out.

Ferguson and Florence and Hazelwood are full of black middle income people that call me now and say, I will come back, Sharon.

Where are you going to build?

If you're gonna build middle income housing, I will come back.

The other one from the uh 13th used to represent the 27th War.

She knows this to be true, she knows it to be true about second war.

Um, people know it to be true about the 21st war.

This was purposeful.

We had a whole thing called the Team 4 plan that planned how to destroy North St.

Louis, how to withdraw services, not to give the equal services.

It's been ongoing forever.

So when you say what could not happen, explain how Wellston is doing that, but not North St.

Louis, because the people in Wellston decided to get together and work on that.

But in the city of St.

Louis, all of the attention is being given to the central quarter and downtown St.

Louis.

And so when other people say that's not fair, um, and we need to look at this from uh a fairness point.

Then other people start to say, oh, that's not fair because we're we only have one project.

We only have one project.

And I bet you probably was something that wasn't in North St.

Louis, because the only thing they want to put in North St.

Louis is North is uh low income housing.

When you talk about doing things fairly, we have to care about the entire city.

We have a group of people that do not, and then they get up and speak to what can be done and need to be informed about what can be done because it's black and white.

If I can do it, it can be done all in other places, and it's not because we do not have the wheel for 200 or from SLDC.

And right now they're holding up projects of mine that are feasible and can be done because they haven't done anything.

So if you're frustrated, I'm truly frustrated, because I've been in line a lot longer than you all from the ninth, and they that still won't do stuff and did just find it, but they can always find a way to do something that's low income, but nothing that's middle uh upper income housing in North St.

Louis.

And that is what is happening.

The argument from the third is act absolutely correct in saying that we need a criteria, but the criteria is not strong enough.

I'm just going along with that.

But it should be uh bring up how much has been done in the past years, how much money, how much incentives have been spent, and say this is you've spent your share.

If you were giving this to your kids as an inheritance, you would not say if the oldest kid has got 75% and another kids got uh 20%, but oh, whatever's left here, that's still something that we're gonna give to the oldest and the next kid.

At some point, North St.

Louis, and I would say Southeast St.

Louis has taken a uh a hit, but it wasn't because of racism.

I was here when people in Southeast St.

Louis just wouldn't do some of the things they need to.

Some of us incompetence from prior people.

But in North St.

Louis, besides incompetence, it's been a lot of racism and a lot of withholding of services.

So when you tell me what cannot be done, it can be done.

But it has to be the will of the people in room 200.

And that is not happening with the wheel of SLDC.

This is a good start here to uh to uh put this into a law.

I am going to support it.

Um people have to go through more bails and whistles in parts of uh the city that have already had too much, which is the eighth, now the current eighth war, that's one of those places.

I don't mind that they go through extra.

That's also the ninth war.

I don't mind.

They should go through extra because they shouldn't be getting most of the time because they've had enough.

And if they can't stand on their own two feet, if they're always going to have to have uh some kind of incentives, then that makes it so the places that need to be developed never will be developed.

Any further discussion, any further discussion?

Seeing none, then Alderman from the third, you are recognized closed.

Thank you, Madam President.

I very much appreciate the very spirited conversation we're having down here at the Board of Aldermen.

I do want to, in my closing remarks, just echo a couple items.

Uh one, you know, as my colleague from the seventh ward uh indicated, you know, if this doesn't pass, you know, we're essentially left with the scorecard as is.

Uh so it's not going to necessarily change the process from how we're currently operating.

But what codifying this does prevents changes from happening that aren't underneath the oversight of the board.

We could literally have a mayor come in, you know, in three years, two years that wants to change or 12 years that wants to change this or get rid of it, or you know, add things to it that are completely onerous, and we wouldn't have the oversight.

So this allows for some administrative oversight, uh, you know and partnership between the legislative and executive branch.

While also ensuring that we're living to the values that this body has, you know, espoused over the years.

I do want to, you know, mention because this seems to come up pretty regularly as well, that there's no incentives or no projects being done in the city of St.

Louis.

You know, which in my mind is false.

Uh, you know, in the third ward and my colleague from the seventh ward, we were just talking.

Yeah, we have you know many uh projects that are happening in our ward, partly because these reforms have taken place.

Uh we have the scattered sites plan with Marquette Holmes and Lutheran Development Group, the arcade building on South Grand, Gravway and Grand, which has been vacant since I moved into the neighborhood 20 years ago, is finally being rehabbed.

We have uh the DeSales project on the 5300 block, 5400 block of Virginia.

There has been uh a preponderance of vacant buildings down there.

When I first got elected, the 5300 block of Compton was going into foreclosure, an entire city block going into foreclosure during the Great Recession.

Uh de sales housing group stepped up, uh, bought that block, and now they've purchased the 5300 block of Virginia that used to have a family dollar that's now closed.

We worked with them to get Litech credits from the state.

We worked with them to get incentives from the city.

They're going to be tearing that building down and building a brand new three-story mixed-use development along that corridor.

They've also got contracts on another uh several properties around that site that would be included in that development project.

That likely would not have happened if it weren't for these incentive reforms that we've implemented over the years.

I also have St.

Joseph's Housing Initiative that's doing projects, often without the benefit of incentives, because they're relying upon community to pitch in and volunteer and donate to do affordable housing in my ward.

Projects are happening in the city.

Whether or not we choose to, as a body, incentivize projects that align with our values is what we're talking about.

I have been on this floor many, many, many times talking about incentives and various projects.

I have voted for projects in the Central Corridor and the Central West End and Forest Park Southeast and Shaw on the Hill in Seulard.

I've supported certain projects.

I've been very clear about projects downtown.

There is a need for incentives downtown.

That ATT tower, the one million square feet of office space that used to pay us taxes, millions of dollars in taxes that no longer does.

Yes, we should work to get a development project there.

The Millennial Hotel, which is currently being RASD, raised, razzed, uh, that's being raised, demolished.

Uh that's another site that I've been talking about for years.

That was bought by uh private equity group, I believe, um, and at one point in time had Japanese owners uh you know that didn't chose to close it, chose not to invest in it, sat on it for whatever reason.

Um, we've talked many a times about the railway exchange building downtown, another large building that's completely vacant.

Vacancy is a blight on all of our communities, and we need to work to address it.

I have been 100% committed to addressing vacancy in this city.

You know, we worked in the state legislature to get laws passed that allow neighborhood groups to sue private landowners to make improvements to their property, or the neighborhood has the option of getting a developer to do those improvements themselves and put a lien on the property.

We do have a lot of work to deal with vacant properties in this city.

It is a blight on every single neighborhood in our communities.

This board bill simply codifies the values that we want to espouse as a city and provides a transparent process for doing so.

Any one of us can operate outside of that process, as I've mentioned in committee and here.

However, I think that this has provided a level playing field, and I would ask for your favorable consideration on board bill 66 committee substitute.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the third, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 11th, that we perfect board bill 66 committee substitute.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

No, Altam.

Hi.

Altaman O'Reilly.

Otoman Devotee.

Hi.

No.

No.

Ottawa McClark Hubbard.

Aye.

Ottawa McKeith.

Auto Woman ties.

I woman Boyd.

No.

Altum and Aldrich.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

We have 11 eye votes, four no votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the third to perfect board bill 66 committee substitute.

Board Bill 155, sponsored by Alder Woman Cox and Twee.

Alderman Aldrich, Alder Woman Keys, Alderman Browning, Alderman Comb.

And Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

And ordinance approving the petition to establish a community improvement district, establishing the downtown St.

Louis Sports and Entertainment Community Improvement District finding a public purpose for the establishment of the downtown St.

Louis Sports and Entertainment Community Improvement District and containing a severability clause.

Alder Woman from the 8th, you are recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 155.

Thank you, Madam President.

I move to perfect board bill 155.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 8th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th.

That we perfect Board Bill 155.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, Border Phil 155 would allow us to establish a community district in the form of an entertainment district in downtown St.

Louis.

As it was just mentioned by our robust discussion, and then the Alderman from the third's closing remarks, there are a lot of great opportunities happening in our downtown fabric.

And actually, just last year, our state established a new form of a community improvement district in the body of an entertainment district for specifically in downtown areas.

So myself and Alderman Aldrich, who also represents a good chunk of the downtown community, received a petition to establish this form of entertainment district in our city footprint.

And what the entertainment district would do uh would allow us to access state funds.

So there would be no city funds, no sales tax or property tax imposed in this district.

It would allow us to access state funds from the Department of Economic Development to do things like improve public safety, improve lighting in the downtown community, establish planters and things like that to help support major events that are coming to our downtown in the form of, as we just saw, Olympic trials or things of that nature.

So I think this entertainment district will be a great asset to the downtown community, and again, what I think is the best part of that is that St.

Louis residents and St.

Louis taxpayers will no longer have to bear the cost of making sure that we can sustain these major events alone because state dollars will be coming into our city, helping us actually do the work.

And I know we don't often get a lot of support from the state, so again, I think this is an innovative way that we can access those resources.

We did have a robust conversation in the HUDS committee about this bill.

We had a number of community members come and test in favor of establishing this district.

So I would just ask for your favorable consideration and support of board bill 155.

A further discussion, Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board.

Um, as the Alder Woman from the 8th said, you know, this is a really exciting moment, especially to see legislation that comes from Jefferson City that uh typically is trying to hinder or hurt St.

Louis.

Um, but what they passed uh last session was to create uh these main streets and downtown corridors.

So while St.

Louis will be able to tap into it, this will help other main streets and downtown corridors throughout uh our state with the legislation that they passed, but St.

Louis is tapping it to um creating one that would run east of Jefferson all the way downtown was really great about I guess this is most IDs are a uh sales tax either on property um or one percent sales tax I forget the other way, but um this is will be no cost to residents, it will not cost the residents anything.

We will actually be able to tap into funds from the state uh that will be able to then trickle down to help with different programs such or different things such as like security uh beautification as we have the Olympics coming in 2029.

Um we want to continue to make sure that we support our entertainment districts in the area.

So I appreciate being able to work with the Alder Woman of the Eighth on this and her being the co-sponsor, and I think this is a really good uh piece of legislation that will benefit downtown, but hopefully expand out with those dollars to be able to help with other city services throughout the area.

So thank you.

And it would also help a little bit of the elevator 11.

So thank you.

Any further discussion uh alder woman from the first.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

There was a really great discussion on this in committee, and I just wanted to be added as a co-sponsor.

I had meant to do that then, but didn't so thank you very much.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

So noted.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, Alder Woman from the 8th, you're recognized to close.

Thank you, Madam President.

Again, I would just like to thank the alderman from the 14th for his remarks and also his partnership on this legislation.

Again, I do think this would be a great value add to the entire St.

Louis community.

We know lots of folks from across our wards come into downtown for these types of events.

So again, it will just be a huge benefit to allow us to be able to make sure that experience when tourists, community members, and most importantly, St.

Louis residents are coming downtown that they can feel safe and they can have a beautiful and vibrant experience.

And with that, I close.

Or ask for your favorite consideration of Board Bill 155.

It's been moved by the older woman from the eighth, seconded by the alderman from the 14th.

That we perfect board bill 155.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Board Bill 161 committee sub, sponsored by Alder Woman Sweiser, Alder's Otterman Cone, Ottawa and Browning, Audder Woman Clark Hubbard, Altaman Devote, Alderman Aldrich, and Alderman Naryan.

Amending certain ordinances by reappropriating certain amounts, specified here in in the argument amount of $5,464,157.84 cents for water infrastructure replacement and repair and containing an emergency clause.

Thank you, Madam President and members of the board.

I move to perfect board bill 161 committee substitute.

It's been moved by the older woman from the first, seconded by the older woman from the 11th, that we perfect board bill 161 committee substitute.

Alder woman, you may proceed.

Thank you so much.

This bill was debated uh during three separate HUDs uh committee meetings over the last few weeks.

I really appreciate the committee taking so much time.

We painstakingly went through line by line of the funds to be reallocated from previous ARPA uh allocations to revenue replacement for water, which is a treasury allowed uh change that we can make to ARPA now after the end of the 2024, December 2031st, 2024 deadline.

So that is why that spell is in front of us and is possible through ARPA guidelines.

And uh I think we have talked um as much as we need to about why water is important, so I won't belabor the point, but it is a really crucial investment to make at our water infrastructure to allow this money to go there.

So I'm happy to take any questions and I appreciate your time.

Sir, any discussion?

Alderman from the 12th.

Thank you, Madam Vice.

Um not madam, sorry.

Mr.

Vice Chairman and members of the board.

Um, my discussion is that um I'm glad we're doing this.

It's real hard for me to vote for this because the key sponsor was one of the people that was not going to be supportive of what we should have done in the first place with a lot of this money.

We should have gone to water infrastructure.

Um, she did admit that she made a mistake on her last bill, but I come from a members of the board that when you make a mistake and somebody else was the person trying to get you to do it that you acknowledge this wasn't really my idea, this is somebody else's idea.

From the beginning, I tried to get people to hear about that.

We needed to address our water infrastructure.

We spent a lot of money on things that I think they could have uh been put aside.

And um, holistically, there's no other thing that's so more important in the city of St.

Louis than water.

If you go from the chain of Rocks Bridge uh to down to Crown de Let, everybody in the city of St.

Louis needs good water, and we've been very uh lucky to have well.

We're not lucky because we had good people who worked on it, but we have good water.

We have a lot of problems.

Uh, this uh six million dollars is not a five million five point five million dollars, approximately million dollars is not going to be the money that we need.

I will say if we ever get a chance to get a big chunk of money like we did with the ARPA funds, that we really take note that um holistically, there's hardly anybody should be able to fight to say that water is not what we should we did.

We should have done and we should do in the future if we get a big chunk.

Um, it's again it's hard because we're dressing water now, but we have not addressed anything about demolishing buildings in North St.

Louis that the people have been put up for been putting up for a long time.

So I don't uh I'm gonna vote for this.

I'm gonna support it because I always have supported that we do water, but we really need to find a different way, maybe a bond issue or some other things to really address our water system um and to go about repairing it in a holistic way so that one day that we don't wake up and we have a problem that we cannot solve with band-aids because this is a band-aid, but it's it's better than nothing at all.

And we really wasted an opportunity back when we got the money in 2021 when we did not put a substantial chunk of money aside for water and then try to match it with some kind of bond issue.

We would have had a wonderful opportunity to fix the water problem that you couldn't.

Some of the very people leading it now, you could not get them to uh even acknowledge that that was something that should have been done.

And sometimes that's what happens when you knew and you think you know everything and you don't is that you actually then don't listen to good counsel, and then you have to come back and bring something that should have been done in a better way.

But I am going to support it.

Thank you.

Further discussion.

Any further discussion?

Alderman for the 14th, are you up or okay?

Just checking.

All right.

Then Alder Woman from the first, you are recognized closed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I renew my motion.

It's been moved by the older woman from the first.

Seconded by the alder woman from the 11th, that we perfect board bill 161 committee substitute.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Aye.

The motion carries.

Board Bill 167 sponsored by Aldman.

I'll just and Alderwoman Cox and Sweet.

Orn is amending ordinance number 68481 to create a limited exemption for civic for convention facilities within the city of St.

Louis for certain private events or trade shows.

This exemption applies only under specific circumstances and is intended to allow flexibility for convention-related activities while maintaining the overall purpose and enforceability of existing regulations, including the severability clause.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move to perfect uh perfect board bill 167.

It's been moved by the older woman from or alder men from the 14th, seconded by the older woman from the 8th.

That we perfect board bill 167.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President and members of the board.

Uh Board Bill 167 will be amending uh ordinance 68481, uh, which was passed to regulate where non-smoking is.

What we're trying to do, and I want to uh just be clear because I know uh my colleagues and others have been receiving a lot of emails on this.

What we're doing is we're giving an exemption to exempt out the convention center uh to be able to bring in a private event that we're looking at is a premier cigar convention uh that this uh convention center has been trying to get to the city of St.

Louis for the last several years.

Unfortunately, there was a hiccup because of the non-smoke air act uh that was passed, uh has a convention center in there.

Um, this is not to allow ongoing smoking in the convention center on a regular.

This is a one convention that we're looking at in the bill on page two of three, and I want to thank Brad Dean from Explore St.

Louis that made sure that there's gonna be a lot of protocol and a lot of um things that make sure that uh the smoke is mitigated.

So on page two or three, they talk about some of the safety um hazards that would be or the safety precautions that would be put in place, uh looking to install temporary as well as permanent ventilation systems.

These are the same ventilation systems if, like you go to Stanley Cigar or Cigar Um Bar, or if you go to a private club where they smoke, they install these ventilation systems so that that smoke does not seep out to the public, as well as what's really unique about the convention center, each uh room has their own ventilation uh system as well.

So room A has its own ventilation system from room B, room B has its own ventilation system from room C.

Um, and these will all be uh physically separated from smoking permitted areas to non-smoking permitted areas.

There's also um some safety precautions that we're gonna put in there to make sure that there's clear signage, notifying attenders, attendees, and workers of the smoking permit or smoking permitted areas.

And then one of the things I think that is extremely important is uh the convention center is gonna have the ability for workers to be able to opt out.

So if workers do not want to work this convention because of either health reasons or that they don't like you know smoking, that this won't be a forced uh opportunity that they would have to work.

We haven't uh we haven't got it yet, but this is the first step to bringing that uh convention here.

If that convention were to come to the city of St.

Louis, we're looking at over 1,200 jobs.

We're looking at a 4.2 economic impact within the St.

Louis region as well as 465,000, yes, in city tax revenue based off this one convention that will bring over 5,000 people.

So again, I want to be very clear.

This is raising the exemption to bring this one private uh event.

This will not be an ongoing thing that the convention center has.

And it's been great to be able to work with Brad Dean to try to figure out you know how do we bring in more um unique conventions that can not just benefit St.

Louis but benefit our region.

I'm not into cigars, but I do go to Stanley's off Washington, and it is a crowd of people that uh really take on these Premier Cigars and really get engaged and involved.

They do this in Vegas, they do this in New Orleans, and they do this in other cities.

So what we're trying to do is uh make sure that we are part of um being able to be part of what I think is a really exciting convention and to bring in again, we're talking about 4.2 uh million in the economic impact in this region and just 400 some thousand uh for city revenue taxes.

So with that, I would open up to any questions from my colleagues.

Any further discussion?

I'm gonna go alderman from the third and then alder woman from the 11th.

Alderman from the third.

Yeah, uh, thank you, Madam President.

I I voted against this in committee.

I was the I think the sole no vote uh in committee on this.

Uh you know, I'm not gonna take up too much time, but I was the I think maybe possibly with the exception of the I can't recall if the Alder Woman from the 12th was down here when we debated this or not.

Uh I think it might have been her uh predecessor, Charles Quincy Troop uh that was down here, but I was here when at the time Alder Woman uh Cruson had introduced the smoke-free St.

Louis Act.

Uh you know, we spent hours, hours debating this particular piece of legislation on this floor.

Uh it was probably one of the most contentious debates that we've had in my time down here.

Uh I definitely would put it in the top 10, if not the top five.

Um, you know, as someone who has always advocated for these uh public health measures, you know, I think I joked in committee.

My mom used to joke with me that my first words were stop smoking.

My mom was a lifelong smoker and uh past 10 years ago from lung cancer.

Uh it is really disheartening.

Uh you know, I understand that this is you know motivated by business and by wanting to get tax you know, tax dollars uh and revenue off of a particular convention.

Um there is no amount of filtration systems that are going to take out the carcinogens that are in the air that are created by this.

You know, as someone who grew up with uh smoking sections and restaurants, there is no amount of air conditioning, filtration, et cetera, that were in those that would prevent that from getting into the non-smoking section.

Even today, with the legislation as we passed it in the smoke-free St.

Louis uh Act, the casinos are exempted along with a couple other businesses.

Uh I don't know how many of you have been to the casinos, but you can still smell the cigarette smoke in those casinos when you're there.

You still smell like it when you walk out of them.

Uh and they have millions and millions of dollars of filtration systems that were a requirement of smoke-free St.

Louis.

Um I don't see a public entity like the convention center being able to pay that kind of money for filtration system.

Uh it doesn't matter how much charcoal you put in the air, it takes time.

Uh and there are still carcinogens.

And I appreciate that there's an exemption in here, providing for the you know, care of employees.

Um, but those employees are often low-wage workers and aren't generally able to take time off.

And if they do take time off, it's not paid time off.

And uh, you know, I still have concerns for them.

Legislation.

I would ask that my colleagues give some serious concern whether or not this is something that they want to espouse as a value for the city of St.

Louis.

And with that, I close.

Alder Woman from the 11th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board, and Alderman uh cone condolences on your loss, even though it's been some time, it's no small thing uh to lose a mother.

Um I am in favor of this bill, and here's the reason why.

Um I can appreciate that there are people who choose, and right now cigar smoking is trending.

I believe I have four or five cigar bars currently operating in the elevated 11th ward.

Um I support people's right to choose.

And this is a one-day event.

Uh, as the alderman from the 14th stated, my email has been inundated with people sending emails about board bill 167.

I appreciate them reaching out, but I want people to really hear what was stated.

This is not an ongoing event, it's a one-time event or may even be an annual event.

The measures that they could take, they are taking advantage of that in order to be able to conduct this event in the safest way that they know how.

Again, I support people's right to choose.

I am not a cigarette or a cigar smoker.

In fact, my addictions are very small.

I'd say food is my one impediment.

So uh trying to get that under control.

But to me, this being a single event, the people who are coming to that event and the people who would be able to work at that event have the ability to choose.

So I will be supporting.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

If the Alderman from the 14th would yield, the alderman from the 14th yield to questioning from the older woman from the 12th.

Yes.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Um so uh Alderman, thank you for answering questions.

Um as I understand it, the people who have the convention, the cigar is what is the convention called, by the way, so I can get it correct.

Do you know?

Yes, ma'am.

So this would be uh the event name is the premier cigar association.

Okay.

So the premier cigar association.

Have they refused to come to the city of St.

Louis because we have a restriction on smoking in the convention center?

Is that what uh have is that something that they actually told us that they would not come?

Yes, we did not remove that.

Yes, ma'am.

So the marketing director of um the convention center talked about this uh kind of a little bit in the convention or in the committee here.

They they can't come because of that exemption that we have uh that does not allow uh smoking.

They would like to one sell cigars and it's an association, so it's not just like a one company.

We're talking about cigar companies throughout the whole uh region, but due to that exemption that we have, um, they have not been able to come.

They continue to go to like Las Vegas, New Orleans, and other cities.

Uh so with this is to your question, yes, ma'am, they're not able to attend because of that exemption we have.

So the is that I'm gonna understand it.

So they want to come and be able to could they sell cigars if they didn't smoke them at this convention?

I think we have I think they probably could sell them.

So what they really want is a con exemption for to be able to smoke.

Yes, ma'am.

I mean, okay to be able to, you know, also try.

Go ahead.

I was gonna say to be able to try the cigar.

So um, like I say, I'm not a cigar smoker, but I've been at Stanley's, and I guess you know, people they they kind of tasted and then they want to try it, so it's to be able to try it to know if they want just buy one cigar or like to be able to buy the box.

Thank you.

Yes, ma'am.

Um I am want to thank my there's a gentleman that was when I was growing up, my sister and I always wanted to try things.

So there was a guy we called Papa, and we wanted to try, he smoked cigars and drank beer, and he let us drink just a little bit of beer and smoke cigars, and I want to thank him because that was my lifelong addiction to not smoking anything or drinking anything.

Okay, so I'm addicted to not do those things.

I'll pick that me emails.

You don't ever have to send me anything, uh email about smoking.

I will never ever vote for anything that allows smoking on our property because I was one of those people when I was an attorney at the public defender's office.

I was calling Freeman Bosley Sr., who was the advocate for non-smoking, um, and encouraging him and saying, What do you need me to do so I can help you?

Very hard, even before the Alderman from the third was here.

Um, when I got over here in 1991, we worked on removing smoking from the building.

Um no matter how you try to do it, and I don't care if it's weed, cigarettes, a cigar, smoking is harmful.

When you say that people who work at a uh convention center can remove themselves, most people who are working people are not going to remove themselves for a job.

Um, I am opposed to us changing one iota of our smoking prohibition prohibition because we work so hard to get it.

And what I don't like is that they can sell their product, but they want us to change our entire law for them.

If we do that, then somebody else is gonna come along and say something else, and it's are the cigarette people gonna come along and say, hey, you're letting a cigar people.

And so um that's a rabbit hole.

I don't want to go down.

I wouldn't want to go down for anybody.

I think uh I do believe people should be able to smoke.

I think they should have to wear a bubble so that all the smoke goes in their lungs and I don't share with me.

I don't go places where they allow smoking.

I don't allow smoking in my cars, uh, our buildings have just now um my rental property is now free.

I don't allow it on my property.

I don't care if you're a grandparent, great grandparent, whoever you are.

Um, it is a health matter that we should address.

Um, so um for that reason and others, I am not gonna support this bill.

I think it is wrong for them to ask us to change our laws.

And again, as I say, when you change it for the cigar, the cigarette people will come and somebody else will come, then you got you you you don't have a law that's uh in the best interest of the health of the city of St.

Louis.

And some things you just don't want to um encourage anyway.

I didn't when I I've said on this floor before that uh Brandon Bosley is the reason that we changed our mind as a black caucus about the um about uh weed of marijuana.

But um one of the still concerns I had was that about the smoking, not so much about the gummies and everything else is about the smoking.

It is a health matter that we should not go down that hole.

And if we do um we're on the way to eradicating it, and people can smoke all they want to, they can go back over to their uh uh rooms, but they could not they should not be able to smoke at the convention center for any rhyme reason.

And um, for that reason, I uh encourage other people to think about are we gonna then let the cigarette people because if we don't, we'll they then sue and say, Why do you let the cigars not the cigarette people?

It's all a health problem, and we should be concerned with keeping our ban on non-smoking.

Thank you.

Alder woman from the eighth.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Um, I first would like to thank my colleagues for all of their remarks and perspectives.

I certainly understand why this is an important discussion that we have and that we should take seriously.

I would like to reiterate uh just a couple of points that the sponsor mentioned about this bill, so to make sure that we're all clear about what it does and doesn't do.

The bill is not repealing by any means the the clean air act that we currently have in the city, nor do I think it is changing the standards that we've set for the importance of why we don't have indoor smoking in many components of our city.

It is just a bill allowing an exception for a one-time event and one portion of the convention center that is strategic to allow the city to be able to compete for this convention.

It's not necessarily that the convention organizers are asking us to change our law to come to St.

Louis.

They do have other options in other cities that they can go to.

Um, but the folks that explore St.

Louis really feel like St.

Louis does have a good ability to compete for this convention, but for this aspect that exists in our current law.

So I think that is the only reason why we're bringing it here today.

Um, and and I want to be clear, you know, as someone who also, you know, has family members that struggled with smoking addiction.

I know that smoking is is a challenge and is a serious public health risk in many of our communities.

And so I don't make this decision lightly to support this legislation.

That said, I I think that as elected officials, we have a delicate balance of to bear of being good stewards of information for public health and also making sure that we can make practical, applicable decisions for our city.

To my knowledge, and I know I wasn't a member of this body when this law was created, it was created with certain exemptions in certain areas, like one grandfathering in existing businesses that do have cigars and indoor smoking and allowing the exemption for the casino so that they can operate and do business and compete.

So our law was passed with certain carve-outs to allow the city to be able, and and businesses in our city to do um certain aspects to still allow them to conduct business.

I think what this board bill is doing is something similar to that spirit, which again was done when we established the original act, but it is not changing the intention or the message that we're sending to residents, which is that we understand the public health risks of smoking, and we're just trying to strike that delicate balance.

So uh I do support this legislation for that reason.

I think it was tailored with great taste and respect for the existing act, but also making sure that St.

Louis is in the best position on a business aspect to be able to compete, like we've done in similar decisions for this act.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, alderman from the 14th, you're recognized close.

Thank you, Madam President.

Excuse me.

Excuse me.

I had my hand up.

Apologies, alder woman from the 12th, that just popped up for me.

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Okay.

I'm sorry.

If the alder woman from the 8th would yield.

The alder woman from the eighth yields questioning for the older woman from the 12th.

Yes, ma'am.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Alder Woman.

Um, as I said, I was once the people who were sending over, we didn't have email then, but I was calling Alderman from the third Bosley about the smoking around City Hall.

Municipal courts used to be across the street when I was an attorney with the public defender's office.

And so people would be all outside smoking.

You couldn't walk through without going through smoking.

So I called him often about it.

And when I got over here, I worked with him to get rid of smoking.

Do you anticipate then that if we allow for cigars is the next step cigarettes?

Is that the next exception?

And if not, why not?

I don't think necessarily, ma'am.

Again, the bill says that it's for certain events and certain activities.

Um I don't think, you know, I'm not aware of any cigarette conventions that are seeking to come to St.

Louis, nor any conventions that Explore St.

Louis has heard about specifically for cigarettes.

Um, but the law is nearly tailored for certain types of specified events.

So I cannot say with certainty that that type of big uh convention wouldn't want to come to St.

Louis.

And why do they need to smoke cigars?

Um, if they can sell them and everything else, why is there a need to uh smoke cigars that they vent?

My understanding is that smoking would be allowed on the trade show floor.

So with any similar trade show, the idea is that different businesses around the country are coming to sell their product.

Um, and like the alderman from the 14th already spoke about, I think with folks that do indulge in cigars, there's a different taste or aspect.

So before you bought a cigar, you may want to try the cigar, which would require you to light it and smoke it on the floor.

But that would only take place within the trade floor.

Yes, ma'am.

And that would be in the trade floor.

And so what are the things and I'm so I'm asking these questions because I'm not gonna vote for it because I say I'm very anti-smoking.

But what are I thought I heard the alderman from the 14th say that something about there was a filtration system?

Is that would that be for the whole floor, or is there going to be some kind of smoking booth or something like that?

My understanding and what they presented to us in the committee is that they are able the convention center is able to filter the air and and lock the air within the trade show floor, so that if there is an employee or attendee that doesn't want to be in the smoking hall, they can still walk around in other areas like exhibit halls or in the main hall of the convention center without having to breathe that air.

So that is the filtration system that already exists within the convention center.

And so it's not like the whole entire convention center would be inundated with that smoke.

They can segment it off, is what they explained.

So they say so they there wouldn't be booths, it would be the entire convention center.

No, ma'am, not the entire convention center.

So in the main auditorium, which is the trade.

So you you could why wouldn't they segment it off into a booth or smoking booth or something like that where if you want to try it, you could try the cigars like that.

I'm not sure, and I'm not familiar with necessarily how trade shows always set up.

I think that would be a good question for Brad Dean at Explore St.

Louis if they were able to have booths on the floor, but that is not something that I think typically happens because when you go to a convention, you're going from stall to stall, I believe.

I understand what you're saying, and you could have booths at the convention where if people want to try cigars, they can go into the booth, which would be less a lot more, a lot less intrusive.

Because if I'm one of the employees walking around on the uh floor, then I don't want to have to try to uh avoid cigar smoke.

I don't want to even smell it because it makes me sick to my stomach to smell it.

Um so I I I wouldn't even want to smell it, but um, but if you were going to try to limit it, it would seem like you would limit it more by booths um placed strategically around the floor so that more than one vendor could go in there and they can try.

But okay, you say you didn't have that information.

Um, and you don't anticipate that there would be any other kind of smokers.

Would we then allow people who are selling marijuana to have a marijuana uh convention and then have smoking of marijuana on the floor?

No, ma'am, I don't think that's something that's currently allowed for the city, nor something that Explore St.

Louis has been approached about, to my knowledge.

What what what why isn't it currently allowed?

Well, again, I think I have never heard of that type of convention taking place.

I believe the state has current restrictions on marijuana use that would supersede ours.

That is just my understanding.

I'm not sure.

And I and originally we didn't allow smoking of marijuana in the city law to change.

I'm just trying to explore how many things do we change for one event, and is it um important to change our laws to accommodate one event?

Um, you talked about uh that we they allowed for the uh casinos.

I was here before we had casinos.

And uh and once we got consequences, a big mistake for a lot of us because it put a lot of people out of business um that were down on the landing, which we anticipated it would, talked about that.

But also, if you ever been, and I've only been when they first opened, they invited all the members of the board of Albaner went there.

And that was maybe one, I've been twice since um I cannot stand the smell.

The smoke is everywhere.

They should not have allowed it.

And sometimes we pursue money at the expense of health, and that's something that our values hopefully are changed over time as we talk about green energy and things like that.

That hopefully we are pursuing that we want healthy people and more and more insurance companies are looking to not even insure people who are smokers, which is also telling us something about what we should be doing.

And um, people who uh do cigars or dips and stuff and stuff like that have some other more uh health problems than some of the people who smoke cigarettes.

So I just don't understand why the city will be going in the wrong direction by going and rolling things back.

I think that we are correct where we are now, and that is something that should not be allowed.

And again, I will be opposing it, but I just wanted to see if we had explored uh limited, making it limited even more by having boots or something else.

And uh again, I don't think that we should pursue everything.

Um in politics, there's a saying that says all money is not good money.

And that's the same thing I feel with this particular uh venture that it might provide money, but it's also a health risk to some people, um, even though they may want to um do this their sales and want to smoke cigars, there are cigar places they can go to.

And um, so I don't think that's one of the conventions the city should be pursuing if it means changing our smoking policies.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board.

Um, I would say this is probably uh one of the trickier bills for me for sure.

I've certainly got a lot of emails and outreach and communication.

Um and I just wanted to make sure that I cleared up on the record because the misinformation that was the email that this was a permanent like elimination on any city smoking ban, that is not true.

Um, I just want to be clear that that is not what this legislation does.

Um, I do connect to the Ottoman of Thirds Point.

I actually had a godmother who died from lung cancer.

I'm very dramatic whenever people smoke cigarettes about me.

I cough really loud, I fall out on the floor.

I think people should do anything with their bodies except smoke cigarettes.

I say that all the time.

Um, and I'm very cautious of just kind of nicotine and things of those matter.

With that being said, um, I also think that as a government and um as political bodies, we have to consider the entirety of industries and the entirety of stakeholders, and we have to try to find a delicate balance between um, of course, public health and the well-interest of our of our city and our residents, and also um the realistic of being a city and the realisticness of having wanting to attract conventions.

These conventions are going to happen whether they happen in the city of St.

Louis at a convention center we have here is the question, but they're gonna happen.

And so if they don't happen here, um, you know, that is revenue and dollars generated for which many of us have great ideas for where they could go that are missed.

And so I just really wanted to say that I understand the struggle on this legislation.

I do think that this legislation strikes uh for me a delicate balance.

I was able to talk to the uh bill sponsor.

I was able to talk to Explore St.

Louis and ask a lot of in-depth questions about their ventilation system, and that was really important to me because I had a concern that if the convention happens and you're in another area, or you know, are you being forced to have to inhale that smoke?

I know a lot of the inquiries that I had from residents was absolutely around the public health and public well-being.

So I just wanted to emphasize that component, as well as um, I think the Audible from the 12th idea is excellent that you know it would make sense that they made it to an area, and I did not think of that, but I and I think that should definitely be a conversation.

But I did learn that there would also be some physical barriers to designate non-smoking and smoking areas, and so I wanted to make sure that I highlight and bring that on the record as well.

Um, and you know, also the point about the worker outside.

I think it is you know, unfortunate that workers who get paid hourly wages will have to miss out on those events.

But I do also think it's important that that option is there that they're not being forced to work those events and that there are other working opportunities.

So I just wanted to make sure, really, for the sake of seventh orders and folks watching this just to provide some context because I think there has been some uh misinformation.

I certainly understand folks who will vote no of this period as opposed to like no exceptions, but I think for me, this bill does find that delicate balance because again, especially given the many conversations we're having as a city.

I think to leave these dollars on the table and to not explore things that we could do to make it so that for strictly these sorts of events and strictly this space with these specific requirements that they're to able to happen would be you know an economic revenue loss for the city that I don't think that we should afford or just allow to go other places.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion.

Seeing none, aldermen from the 14th, you are recognized closed.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board.

First, I want to thank my colleagues uh for you know having this robust conversation.

This is you know, kind of where it uh happens.

This is one of those, I think, things that uh we want to make sure if we move in this direction that we strike the right balance.

Again, I do want to go on record and and note that we're talking about an exemption for a one-time event.

Um, an event that is gonna bring, I think, in my opinion, as we want to attract more and more people to it to St.

Louis, an event of over 5,000 people and revenues that I think would be really beneficial to the city of St.

Louis.

Um, as an older woman from the eighth explained, the convention center is aware of taking as they are in operation of the convention center, taking every protocol and safety measure possible from not just the current ventilation systems that they have in the uh hall.

They're gonna also go out and get additional ventilation systems as well as make sure that there's a cleaning company and everything hired because um I think I was talking with maybe uh an alderman of how I think at the um uh Missouri Athletic Club, they have this room where you're able to smoke, and they like are able to turn around within 24 hours to have a wedding that same next day.

So it is possible to be able to make sure that all that air that is uh filtered through um the convention center in those designated spots.

So we're not talking about just throughout the whole convention center.

We're talking about it in a designated area where there would be a lot for people to sell their cigars and to be able to smoke their cigars.

Again, I'm not one, but you know, Stanley's is uh cigar company that we pass a resolution here that celebrated 150 years.

One thing I noticed when I go in, you know, there is that uh appetite when people you know get a cigar, they want to taste it, they want to uh smoke it and make sure it's the right thing.

So I I totally respect uh where some of my colleagues is coming from, but I do want to say um that there's so many precautions that we're putting in place to make sure that as the Alder Woman from the 7th ward said, that we are one of those cities that people look at.

That we're not one of those cities that people continue to fly over, but they think about St.

Louis when they think about innovative ways uh to be part of the city of St.

Louis.

So with that, uh I renew my motion, Madam President.

It's been moved by the aldermen from the 14th, seconded by the alder woman from the eighth, that we perfect board bill 167.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Swip, sir.

Alderman Odenberg.

Alderman Cohn.

No.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devoting.

Yes.

No.

Alder Woman Sonier.

Aye.

Audible Cox and Twee.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

No.

Audible woman Keith.

Aye.

Alder Woman Thayance.

No.

Alder Woman Boyd.

No.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman devotee.

Aye.

Eight I votes, six no votes, one abstain.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the 14th to perfect board bill one's uh 67.

Board Bill 119, sponsored by Alder Woman's highest.

Yeah.

This board bill seeks to improve a chapter 99 redevelopment plan invited study for the 811 North Broadway redevelopment area.

Alder Woman from the 12th, you are recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 119.

Thank you.

Um Madam President, members of the board.

I move to perfect board bill 19.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 12th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we perfect Board Bill 119.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Um Madam President, members of the Board 119 is the chapter 99 um redevelopment plan study for not eighty 811 North Broadway in Baden.

It's a new area that I didn't represent, but the people there are doing some great things with uh vacant abandoned buildings.

They're making them into event centers.

Um, this is one of them.

It is a small event center, it's not large or anything, nothing like the uh uh some event centers, but it's small and it's it hosts birthday parties, uh gatherings, family reunion, sometimes things like that, and the lady there, they're working.

Um there's four of them right now that are going on in Baden right in a row, and they're just doing great things, and this is one of them.

Um, and I also have an amendment to board bill one nineteen.

Um, that I wanted to bring before the committee if this is the time to bring it before.

Go right ahead, Alder Woman.

Okay.

Uh Madam President, members of the board.

I'd like to move to uh perfect board bill one nineteen as amended.

It should be in your uh Alder Woman.

First, you need to introduce uh have the amendment adopted.

I'm sorry.

Um, I'd like to introduce to have board bill amendment number one to board bill one nineteen introduced um and um uh passed.

It is um just one little word.

Um the other one from the seventh.

Uh, when we were bringing this before the cuts committee had a uh concern because if you look at uh paragraph one in exhibit g of the sustainability report, it referred to a report in 2013, and in fact, we have a new sustainability report of 2025.

So instead of uh referring to 213, we now have the report as 2025.

That is the only um change for the amendment.

I seek to uh to pass the amendment to board bill one nineteen.

Is there a second?

It's been moved by the alder woman from the 12th, seconded by the alder woman from the seventh that we adopt amendment number one to board bill one nineteen.

Is there any discussion on the amendment?

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

Aye.

Opposed motion carries alder woman from the 12th.

You are now recognized on the perfection of board bill one nineteen as amended on the floor.

Madam President, members of the board, I seek to uh perfect our board bill one nineteen as amended on the floor, and again that amendment uh was to change just the report to update it uh as per the request of the uh Alder Woman from the 7th.

Uh that mistake, we were still using the old sustainability report of 213, and we we just recently in 2025, late 2025, passed a new report, and she did request that we have that uh updated and uh we did do that, and that is what uh board bill 119 has amended on the floor will do.

And um, as I said, it is something that is great that is going on in Baden.

Um small business people are using their own monies to try to rehab the buildings, and they have a vital uh Baden um rope rope that is about uh Baiton Association that is about um trying to revitalize the and to let people know that Baden is a part of the city of St.

Louis.

Um sometimes people don't know the extreme opposites ends of the city, like people in South St.

Louis may know Condolette.

I spoke to a young man who lives uh old Manchester, and he's when we talked about the workhouse.

He said, Oh, that's so far out, and I said it's right across the street from Baden.

Isn't even a part of the city.

Baden is a part of the city, it's a very wonderful neighborhood.

Um, it really could be it was an old German neighborhood, so that if you enter from North Broadway, you'll see the entries to it, and the people there uh that are uh picking up to go back and try to make sure that their neighborhood uh remains vital and also to rehab those parts that have struggled, are doing a great job, and this would just be one little small step in making sure that happens, and I'd ask for your favorite um uh uh favorable vote on board bill one nineteen at um as amended on the floor.

Right, it's been moved by the alder woman from the 12th that we perfect board bill 119 as amended on the floor.

Is there a second?

It's been seconded by the alder woman from the seventh.

Is there any further discussion?

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

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

That's the extent of board bills for perfection.

Alder woman from the first, you are recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bill 161 committee substitute to the third reading final passage of board bills consent.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh I move to suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bill 161 committee substitute to the third reading consent calendar.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the first, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 11th, that we suspend the rules for the purpose of introducing or of moving board bill 161 committee substitute to the third reading and final passage of board bills consent.

This is a non-debatable motion.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman Ryan.

Alderman Devoting.

Aye.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sonia.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox Antwi.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clark Cubbert.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyes.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Alder President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

Yeah, 15 aye votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alder Woman from the first.

Madam Clerk, if you could please place board bill 161 committee substitute at the end of the third reading and final passage of board bill's consent.

So noted.

Report of engrossment.

Board bill 119, board bill 111, 136, 148, 150, 156, 159, 170, 171, floor substitute, 161 committee sub and 110.

I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, 119.

110 and 119.

Instead of 119.

Correct.

Yes.

Third reading and final passage of board bills consent.

110 111 136.

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 third reading finally passage of board bills on the consent calendar.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we adopt the board bills on the third reading and final passage of board bills consent calendar.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cone.

Aye.

Alderman Ryan.

Alderman Voting.

Aye.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sonier.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox Antwey.

Aye.

Alder Woman Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clark Cubbert.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

We have 15 aye votes.

Are your vote you sustain the motion from the Alder Woman from the 10th to third read and finally pass the aforementioned bills?

Third reading and final passage of board bills.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item 20.

Reported the finally passed and signed by the president.

Board bill 110, 111, 136, 148, 150, 156, 159, 170, 171, floor substitute, 161 committee sub.

All other business being suspended.

Second reading resolutions, committee reports, and adoptions.

Bill 258, sponsored by Alderman Aldrich, President Green, Ottawa Mm Velasquez, Alder Woman Browning, Alderman Brown, I'm sorry, resolution two fifty-eight as amended, sponsored by Alderman Aldrich, President Green, Velasquez, Altuman Browning, Alderman Ryan, Alderwoman Sonier, opposing Missouri House Bill 3066, Senate Bill 1657, and the recent unaccountable actions of the Board of Police Commissioners.

Alderman from the 14th, you're recognized on the second reading of resolutions 258 as amended.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board, will the clerk read resolution 258 as amended.

Resolution 258 as amended, opposing Missouri House Bill 2066, Senate Bill 1658, and the recent unaccountable actions of the police board commissioners.

Whereas the St.

Louis Police Board, whereas the Board of St.

Louis Commissioners, a body of four of the five members are appointed by the governor, was has demonstrated a pattern of reckless fiscal behavior that threatens the financial stability of the city, we all want to see and thrive.

And whereas the proposed budget included a near doubling of Alfred's salary, which accounts for an increase of more than 30 million, which was submitted to the mayor's office with less than a day's notice before the board voted to certify it.

This denies the mayor, who is the only member of the board who represents the voters of the city from providing a meaningful opportunity to review, analyze and respond to its contents, and whereas the city of St.

Louis strongly supports its police officers and believes they deserve a competitive salary and the respect and the investment that is essential to the nature of work demands, which is why the city has been pouring a significant amount of resources into them.

And whereas on February 10, 2026, Missouri State Treasurer Travis Fitzwater stated Senate Bill 1657 would be which is identical to HB 3066.

And whereas HB 3066 and SB 167 would dramatically accelerate and entrench the city's problems by allowing the board to hide tens of millions of dollars from the city's budget while also stripping the Board of Estimate and Apportionment of its authority to approve transfers within the police budget, eliminating a critical check of how public dollars are spent and appropriated.

And whereas HB or AC 3066 and SB 167 becomes law, the liability for the police related lawsuits, settlements, and judgments will be transferred to the City of St.

Louis, meaning St.

Louis taxpayers will bear the full financial risk of police conduct while simultaneously being denied full visibility and to the true cost of the department their funding.

And whereas HB 3066 and SB 1657 will grant the police board the unilateral authority to move money between budget classifications without seeking approval from any elected or appointed oversight body, a power granted to no other city department.

And whereas the city has been working for several months in good faith with the Missouri Attorney General office on a memorandum of understanding to resolve the important legal issues of representation, liability, payment, settlement authority, and other key issues, making these pieces of legislation both unnecessary and potentially counter to its collective to its collaborative effort that all parties believe is close to being resolved.

And whereas the city of St.

Louis faces profound and layered public safety challenges that cannot be solved by budget increases alone, they require violence prevention, behavioral health response, trauma informed services, neighborhood investment, and the kind of trust between residents and officers that is built through community engagement and accountability, not state mandates by an unattainable police board, HB 3066 and XB 1657 make everyone of these proven situations harder to by constraining city's fiscal flexibility and containing and can and con and concentrating decision making power in a board that answers to Jefferson City rather than the people of St.

Louis.

Now therefore be a resolved by the Board of Ottermen of the City of St.

Louis that we pause not deliberations to oppose Missouri HB 3066 and SB 1657.

And be it further resolved that this board calls on the police department, the police board of commissioners immediately return to the table in good faith, partners, in order to help to develop a police budget that honors our officers, respects our residents, and reflects the realities of a city that must invest in all of its residents.

And be it further resolved, the Board of Audiment urges the city counselor on behalf of the city to file for a declare a decade declaratory judgment in a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain judicial clarification regarding the calculation of the percentage of the city's general revenue fund required to be appropriated to the St.

Louis Metropolitan Police Department pursuant to state law.

Such action shall petition the court to determine the methodology and the dollar amount constituating the required appropriation for the city's general revenue fund and including the statutory requirements that funding shall no less be than 25% by the fiscal year 2028.

Be it further resolved that we further direct the clerk of this board to spread a copy of this resolution across the minutes of these proceedings and to a prepared commensive copy of this resolution to the members of the House Missouri House Committee on Crime and Public Safety, the Missouri State Senate on Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety, and to the other she sees fit, introduced this 6th day of March 2026 by the Honorable Autumn Ottoman Marchine Aldrich, Albert of the 14th Ward, co-sponsors, Megan Green, President of the Board, the Honorable Dr.

Daniela Belasquez, Audible of the 6th, Michael Browning, Autumn of the 9th, Fred Naryan Autumn of the 6th, I'm sorry, 4th, Audown Son Yay, Ward of the 7th.

Attest this day, March as attested by the Alderman from the 14th, you may continue.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Also, thank you, Ms.

Uh Ross.

I knew that was a long resolution.

Um, but I think it's really important that it be read into the record so that uh people that are listening um back home can actually, if they don't see it online, can actually read the resolution.

And why I say that is because I want to be very clear, this isn't uh like an anti- or defund a police resolution coming from the board.

I don't want that to be the narrative.

This resolution is really call uh calling for caution of uh what we're seeing right now with our state control board.

Um several years ago, uh citizens of the city of St.

Louis voted to go back to local control.

I think two years ago, uh the uh MAGA Republicans in Jefferson City said we know what's best for uh the city of St.

Louis, and they passed legislation to make our police board a state control board.

And since that has happened, um we have seen over several weeks um a lot of concerns and a lot of problems, mainly not sure what uh the the aspect of what the police budget is going to do to the city of St.

Louis, especially uh when we talk about other city services.

The last several weeks we have heard that the police uh board is wanting from fifty million all the way to up to two hundred million um of funds to be able to continue to do the work uh for the police department.

We know as being the budget chair, you know, we allocate from the city of St.

Louis majority of the budget go to public safety, but majority of it go to policing.

And over these last three years, they have not been able to spend uh all the funds that we already are allocating to them, and now they're asking for even more, which is putting us in a place where we have to look at potentially other city services, uh, you know, what impact it's gonna do to our streets department, what impact is gonna do to our forestry, what impact is gonna do to our building division.

We have a board, to be honest, a board of individuals that have not been elected by the people that do not know um the ins and out of the budget process and making decisions that are really gonna uh cripple our budget and hope and hurt the city uh in the future when it comes to the way that we move forward.

So um, you know, this is calling on a responsible fiscal uh impact from this police board to make sure that they do not hurt our other departments, and at the same time, there's two pieces of legislation moving in Jefferson City, trying to take away even more local control from residents from the city of St.

Louis.

There's a House Bill and there's a Senate bill that is trying to take away the power from ENA uh to have final say so over transfers when it comes to this police board.

At this point, they basically are saying that the police board have uh the full power to do whatever, whenever, and however, and that's just not how city government works.

Um I do appreciate all my colleagues who signed on as a co-sponsor.

I appreciate everyone uh who voted for this yesterday in public safety, it came out uh 7-0, and everybody that showed up uh to the hearing to talk about the fear and the concern and just the frustration of the mismanagement of the way that this police board is moving and um really gonna hurt the city of St.

Louis if we move in this direction.

As we say, public safety is important, our police officers are important, um, but also public safety is uh our building division.

Public safety is a health department.

Public safety is having safe streets.

So when we talk about public safety, it is not just giving uh more than 50 percent of our budget to the men and women in blue, which we appreciate what they're doing, but this board has no idea uh and no experience on how to uh work within the city budget.

And I think if we do not speak up from the board of Alderman, um it's gonna set a very dangerous precedent.

We're already, through Paul Payne, meeting the requirements that we post to meet.

I think it's 23 or 24 percent, but they're saying that's not enough.

They want more and more and more, and at some point we have to say no.

Thank you.

Alderman from the ninth.

Uh thank you, Alderman Aldrich.

I really appreciate you filing this legislation uh and uh uh really bringing this resolution forward for us to not only discuss but to express our opinion.

As uh member is the vice chair of the budget committee.

I attended yesterday's public safety committee because I wanted to hear testimony from the public.

And what I heard was a call for us to fund our basic city services for us to fund recovery from the tornado and reject the notion that the state can decide how to spend our money.

It is a sign of a failing democracy for a state legislature to create an unelected board and mandate that our elected board follow what they say.

This budget request was not prepared with our budget director, and he and our elected mayor have expressed serious concerns about how this is going to affect our city services.

It is undemocratic to mandate the compliance of elected representatives to support a budget request and then to threaten penalties against those elected representatives for really just representing our constituents who elected us and want to see us do what's best for our city.

This resolution on its own is not going to stop this egregious state overreach, but I do appreciate it being filed because when the state passed this legislation to take over our police, they didn't talk to us.

When they put forward this with this unelected police board put in place this budget, they didn't talk to us.

So this is us talking to them.

And this is us telling them that they don't get to decide what's best for us.

And if they really do, if they really claim that this is what's best for us, then they can pay for it.

If the state of Missouri thinks that it can dictate what's best for the city of St.

Louis, then it can pay for it.

Because if this city fails, the State of Missouri is not far behind it.

Alderman from the third.

Thank you, Madam President.

I rise in support of this.

I would ask that I be added as a co-sponsor, Madam Clerk.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

I'll note it.

I think the Alderman from the 9th mentioned pretty much most of what I was going to say.

This wasn't an election by the City of St.

Louis, it was an election by the state of Missouri that returned the police department to local control after 150 years of state control.

So not only did the city vote in favor of it, but the state voted in favor of it.

And then the General Assembly and its infinite wisdom decided to overrule, as they've done time and time again, the voice of the people on this particular matter.

And we are now going back in time.

I feel like I'm going back to the future here often lately, and it's very frustrating because it is a lack of accountability.

It's a lack of transparency.

And when things go wrong, we have an uh unelected board of commissioners that has no accountability to the people.

They're not appointed by this body.

They're not appointed by the mayor, they're appointed by the governor.

And I don't know how many times the governor is going to pick up a phone call from a constituent in St.

Louis that's been involved in a you know crime or been a victim of a crime, or you know, had to deal with what happens on our streets.

They might get a phone call back from his office, they might get a phone call back from someone in the Department of Public Safety at the state.

But the governor isn't here making day-to-day life and death decisions for the citizens of this city.

And while the commissioners might live in the city, they're not elected to serve the citizens of this city.

And it is very frustrating.

And just I have a lot of choice words that I'd like to say now, but I'm not going to do that on the floor.

But it is incredibly angering that we are back in this situation where we have an unelected board of commissioners that does not have accountability to the citizens of the city.

Next thing you know, they're going to be having Board of Commission meetings and closed meetings.

Or not accessible, or at odd hours of the day and night.

Whenever contentious issues come up.

We literally are in a you know a bit of a budget crisis coming up here.

And they're going over the mandated, you know, percentage that the state has put underneath us.

And I just don't see how this plays out favorably for the citizens of our city.

And I rise in support of the uh resolution here, and again, I would ask to be a co-sponsor, Madam Clerk.

Alderman from the fifth.

I too uh rise in favor of this resolution.

And I think one of the disappointing and sad things, the fact that we're even discussing this here today, is it shows the sloppiness, the slip shatteredness, the utter lack of consideration that went into the legislation that put forward state control.

Uh we are in the position we are in today as a city listening to our residents because of a complete lack of disregard by Jefferson City politicians about how this structure, how this scheme would be employed.

The legislation was rushed, it was made quickly, and it was done without the input or consideration of one elected official that represents residents that live in our city.

I think that what makes the conduct in Jefferson City more you use the term reckless in the in the resolution, but but but disgusting is the idea that the same Shrewsbury risk manager that prepared and pushed the legislation leading to uh state control is now the one who filed first House Bill 30 uh 66.

A State representative that doesn't represent one person that resides in this city.

Uh he's he he has no in-law enforcement background, he doesn't sit on our budget committee, and he has no knowledge of how this city represents, but yet he was compelled to file House Bill 3066 to clean up a mess that he created.

And what makes that just completely reckless is that if passed 3066 makes unique the way in which our residents, our city gets stuck with the mistakes made by agents and employees of the State of Missouri.

There is no other zero other situation in the state, zero, where a master, an employer, someone who has the right to control another, has zero responsibility at the end of the day for their misconduct, their negligence, any harms and losses resulting from their bad act.

Zero.

Zero.

And what House Billy Sixty Six does is it creates an exception that applies to no other entity, no other corporation, no other limited liability company, no other partnership, no other individual in this state except the City of St.

Louis and the actions of the police officer.

Now, I completely stand behind our officer.

They must be paid a fair wage.

They must be provided with equipment and resources to do their job.

But the position that we're in today is that this legislation, along with what was passed this past year, pits the police department, its employees against city residents, as well as other employees, our street workers, our refuse drivers, anybody else who's in the employee.

And at the end of the day, that's truly the sad part about the situation we find our way in.

That the situation was created by, the circumstance was created by someone who represents nobody who lives in this city.

And what he has done and what the other outstate representatives have done have basically fitted posted, pitted city employees against our police department.

They have put us in an untenable position, one in which there can be no winners, and it shows the absolute lack of thoughtfulness when the original legislation was passed.

Whatever you think about State control, the way it went down was idiotic.

And the fact that the same guy, and now I'm repeating myself and I apologize, is the sponsor of 3066.

It is unexplainable.

I stand in support of this resolution.

I know that the folks that represent St.

Genevieve County, Rawls County, and Newton County or wherever else they would be, don't have to listen to us.

But if anybody out there in Jefferson City is going to pick up a newspaper or watch a media report and truly listen to the concerns of the elected body, the folks that represent residents, simply ask yourself, how would you like it if your local county police department, street department, whatever it would be, was told by the State of Missouri, this is what you're going to do, deal with it.

You would be up in arms.

And that's exactly what happened to St.

Louis.

So, Alderman, thank you for bringing this in and I will be voting in favor of it.

Thank you.

Alder Woman from the Sixth was standing first.

So I'm gonna go there and then Alder Woman from the Sixth.

Thank you, Madam President.

I want to echo everything my colleagues have said.

I want to say that that same step, state rep couldn't even be bothered to answer an email for me during the passage of that bill last year, which I found uh incredibly disappointing that in addition to all the things they've done, they can even be bothered to answer questions from representatives like me.

Um Alderman Aldrich, you know I support this bill.

We sat three hours last night um in front of public safety.

I would ask that uh the budget chair and vice chair continue to call on the police commission to come to budget and to um tell us.

I don't know if justify is possible, but tell us about why they're choosing to do this.

I do think it's reckless.

I do think it's irresponsible.

I also think it's completely unrealistic to present a budget uh that would exist in a silo of everything else that happens in the city.

I know my colleagues already know that as well.

Um we have to think in the conversations that we're having with our residents that public safety is broader.

It's the conversations that is Alderman Cohn said that we hear every day about um safe streets, uh lighted, you know, light lighting, all the all the other things that um trash getting picked up, all the other things that are part of what makes people feel safe in addition to having police on the streets and having our employees feel safe and not be pitted against each other, which is exactly what um Alderman Devotee said that this is an untenable position.

So I would ask that the budget meet budget committee continue to call on the commission to come here.

I would also ask that the people who um rose in support of this resolution yesterday show up at those police commission hearings too.

Thank you.

Alderman from the fourth.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Uh I want to start off by saying I'm supportive of the police.

I was supportive of their raises.

I work with them on a regular basis.

Um that being said, every year departments regularly ask for more money than we can give them.

Um there's there's just more problems than dollars to go around.

That's the way it's always been.

Um but ultimately the the reason why I'm supportive of this and signed on as a co-sponsor is because the city needs a seat at the table when we're talking about this budget.

Uh I I hear from constituents constantly, as I'm sure uh all of you do.

And I never hear anyone ask to defund forestry or to defund refuse or to defund streets.

Um that's there's a real possibility that that's what we're gonna have to do should this budget move through.

Um ultimately where the the budget director is and where the police board is on on the budget, we're millions of dollars apart.

Um, potentially a hundred million dollars apart.

Um I think that this whole setup here is ultimately also a handcock violation.

And I I hope that as this comes to fruition that we have the city councilor challenge this and say that this is an unfunded mandate.

Um, if the state wants this budget, the folks in Jefferson City should pay for it.

Um I I don't get to tell you how to uh to run your household, and uh that that is exactly what's happening here.

Um, and I think it's in violation of the Constitution.

Uh so I am supportive of this.

I want to thank Alderman Aldridge for bringing it.

Um, and with that I'll yield.

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the Eighth.

The Alder Woman from the First was up before me.

Alder Woman from the first.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Thank you, Alderman from the Eighth.

I simply want to be added as a co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

Thank you, Madam President.

I believe our colleagues all made very, very excellent points, and I don't want to belabor the points.

The only thing I want to add, uh, which I think needs to be emphasized here is that the ask that the police department are asking us to make are truly being made in a silo.

I think we have all heard and seen the request and the emphasis of the arguments for improvement to facilities and officer pay.

Um, and I don't disagree that those things need to be done.

But when you ask a city to create and make a budget without consideration of any further other departments and the fiscal conditions that we're in right now, knowing that we need to recover and help rebuild a huge swath of this our city, I think that's a major concern.

So I just wanted to make sure that emphasis was also made, and I too would like to be added as a close Madam Clerk.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the committee.

I just really have been made uh before me.

I cannot like I don't know that I've ever seen this type of example of uh just a complete separation of fiscal obligation and fiscal accountability.

I think that it is absolutely insane that we want to that the state wants to control an entity, wants to make the decisions on the entity, but then once the city to bear the impacts of that, while um, you know, I know the police board commission has come up.

The one representative that we do have on that board, the mayor, um, has spoken and been very clear that you know what is being proposed would be something that could potentially bankrupt the city and could cause massive layoffs.

Um, and when the state comes back next session, they're gonna continue to have this discussion and are looking into uplifting the mandatory minimums and bypass the board of ENA so that they could do whatever they want to do.

Um, so I only just want to make sure, like to the public.

Um, you know, I do think there are some hard times ahead.

I'm not sure what the response to these actions will be, but I do hope that it gives the city of St.

Louis's residents to see this type of unity amongst this board.

We have very lively discussions, but the fact that almost nearly every single one of us have a grave concern about this and are really highlighting the same points.

Um, I know we have a lot of folks who are strong on the fiscal responsibility.

I think there's no way that you can talk about the importance of revenue, that you can talk about fiscal responsibility and not have a critique of this legislation and not have a critique of what the state board is doing.

Um so I just want to add my support.

I want to thank the Ottoman from the 14th for this legislation and also add that I think it's really important that in any way that the city can push back, whether it is a lawsuit or anything else.

I think it is critical that we do that we not only say with our words that we don't support this and we see this happen, but we also take every action available to us to stop this or to at least hopefully require that if they want to control it, they have to pay for it themselves.

Thank you.

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Madam President, members of the board.

Um I actually have served on this board twice with state control.

Um back when I got elected in 1991, we had a uh police board that was a uh also unelected and appointed by the governor.

Well, some different board than we have now and was under uh some different laws.

Um one of the things we had is we had all Democrats controlling the state, and so they had some input on who sat on the boards uh of police commissioners.

The board of police commissioners used to have uh monthly meetings, you could go there and present um uh uh problems that you had with the police or just present uh questions or ask.

And so, although you know the the best situation, cities should always control their own police forces and and and uh also the fire department and other forces, it was not as it is now.

Um in 2013, I was here when we also uh regained control of the um police local control.

Um, and um I was not in favor of that because I had pretty good policing on the state control board.

We actually saw the police in um in North St.

Louis, we saw them drive it up and down our streets.

We had we uh had uh nine districts then, and so districts were represented and um as soon as we could regain control of the police department, we continue to reduce our districts.

I never see the police.

Even though one of their super stations, which originally called it, is located in the 12th ward and was located in the 20th ward.

It's been in my ward the whole time.

We don't see the police anymore.

Um, and that is the concern for us.

Um the Alderman, so I have conflicting emotions about this.

The problem that we have, and the Alderman from the fourth uh intimated he said about an unfunded mandate.

Unfortunately, back in 2022, the Hancock Amendment was superseded by amendment to the Missouri Constitution, and that amendment allowed for the police exception.

We didn't pay a lot of attention to it at the time because it was really only uh uh applied to Kansas City because nothing else in the state of Missouri was under this uh uh uh appointed police board.

But um in 2022 that did get passed, Kansas City actually went to court and um filed lawsuits about how unfair it was, and the same things we're saying now, they're saying then.

Um but we didn't pay attention, and sometimes you don't hear when other people are saying something that's unfair, and then it happens to you.

So now it's a happened to us.

We also do not have the supermajority that we had when I became a uh a new alder person.

So we didn't have the checks and balances with our state reps and people like that as to who could be appointed by the governor.

We had a uh Democratic governor and Democratic House and Democratic uh Senate.

So it was a little different.

Um, but we didn't, to me, when we had local police control, there was a lot to be desired.

Um the first thing that the former mayor did, and that was Francis Lay is do a double promotion and make uh Dotson the police chief.

He had been, I don't know, a captain or something like that.

That was very unpopular.

We begged him to have a police board and to set it up.

They did not.

That's something I I don't care who it is, we should have a police board.

I don't care if the states uh controlled them or the city, but we did not.

There was a lot of things that was left to be desired, and it gave the police a chance to go up and lobby uh uh a state legislature that had changed as well as the governor himself.

So now we went from supermajority Democrat to supermajority Republicans.

We also had what I thought was a foolish cry about defund the police.

I never agreed with it.

I understood the sentiment behind it, and the sentiment was that where there were problems and fiscal problems or irregularities or things that were not correct, that we should go in there and point those out and get those corrected.

But in no place in my community did the people want to defund the police, and I think that that was silly, and I told the people were saying that, stop saying that because you're hurting your cause.

We now are at a point where um somebody has a gun to our head, and uh they don't care what we think.

That's how my community felt when you tore up the 20th war.

When I hear people talking about the new people at the board, they don't know anything.

That's how I feel dealing with this board.

Exactly that is that you have people making decisions that don't have a clue.

Um, the only thing is these people are not elected, but whether they're elected or not, if you don't have a clue, you can have seismic uh uh uh things that happen to a community or a city that you should not have done because you just don't even understand the impact, or you just don't give a damn or you don't care.

Um I am really disappointed.

I was disappointed with when the governor appointed this board.

It is not representative at all.

There's not one single member that lives in North St.

Louis at all.

Um there are no black men on there.

That's a disappointment to me.

Um to have three white males um is uh uh unfair, okay, to have somebody who um actually um is sells cars and have to hear the mayor, our current mayor say that some people think that you have a conflict of interest.

I was really proud of her when she said that to his face, not behind his back, and he didn't get to be the chair of a committee.

Um at some point we need to get together with Kansas City and even talk to other cities to say, look, this exception that they carved out in 2022 to the Missouri Constitution, we need to challenge it.

We need to go after it and get it changed because there should not the whole problem.

I mean, the whole intent of the Hancock Amendment in the first place when it was passed back in the 1980s, is not to have unfounded men mandates, not to have um um things where you told people what they had to do and then you didn't fund.

And so to then go back in 2022 and change the Missouri Constitution, which is that time nobody's looking because they're only talking about Kansas City, but now they're talking about the city of St.

Louis, and they could be talking about other states.

I think this is something we uh should take it um get with Kansas City and take it to court.

But we also should start talking about doing a petition to challenge uh the Constitution.

I think it's very I think the Constitution itself, the amendment the way it was done, it's unconstitutional.

It only addresses the two largest African American uh groups of people in the state of Missouri, which are Kansas City and St.

Louis area.

And if you will know anything about laws that we had uh back from going back to when we had um this war between the states, is that a laws were made about Kansas City and Missouri based in St.

Louis based on that we had large uh minority populations and that who we were affiliated, would we not with the South, were we with the North, those kind of things.

And that kind of stuff is still going on now, and um I support the resolution, but I don't support it without claiming uh accepting some of the city's responsibilities for not doing some of the things we should have done, or the irresponsibility of putting out there to defund the police.

That just gave them the ability to go to the state and say, look at these crazies out here um pushing defund the police, and we don't have any protection.

I have always uh I am fortunate.

I've not had bad um interaction with the police when I was growing up.

A lot of black people tell me about that.

I didn't grow up like that.

I grew up in a small city, I lived right down the street from the police.

I was always pro-police.

The first time I ever understood that the police didn't always tell the truth.

In my first three cases I ever had, the police did not tell the truth, and I got not guilty and I was crushed.

I was happy to win the crush to find out they didn't always tell the truth.

So um, but that doesn't make all police officers bad.

We should pay them.

I have taken the position over years.

I vote no against the budget and talk about how we don't pay our city workers enough, including the police.

But that doesn't mean we throw the rest of our city workers under the bus and say, okay, we're gonna fund the police at all costs.

I think that uh if the police board doesn't know it, you're making the people who really are supportive of the police look bad.

You're making us look like that.

We are foolish to be pr um uh standing up and protecting you, and you're showing us that you don't care about us as a whole.

I used to tell the police all the time when they would talk to me, they didn't I can't find any place safe to live in the city.

And I would say I live in a safe place.

You're not any better than I am or the other elected officials.

I was I was very disappointed with getting rid of the residency.

It's nothing that when was put to a vote that the citizens ever voted for, they were always opposed to it.

So to see that go the way uh of a lot of other things was a disappointment to me.

If you want to make something successful, you have to stay in, you have to do the fight, you have to stand up, you have to work on it, you have to keep coming back, you get cheated, defeated, but you don't give up on your city.

The police, you're not gonna have anybody to uh protect.

You're not gonna be any people in the city.

You're gonna put people out of work that gonna clean your streets.

Oh, but you don't have to come in those streets anymore because you're the police and you can live someplace else.

Because that's one of the first things we got rid of was the public safety factor of it.

Um, and that was a mistake.

We want the police in our community, we want to have a partnership with them.

I would implore um that the this board not uh continue on their path.

Um we actually have subpoena power.

When you talk about you want to use your power, I'm gonna give you a little hint now.

Subpoena the board if they won't come.

Some send subpoenas over to the board of police commissioners and have them come before the committee.

We actually have that power.

And if they don't come, we can send people to bring them.

They should come and talk to us about why they think this is a good idea.

We should talk to the police um uh lawyer who I hear is pushing this.

Why do you want to bankrupt our city?

What is wrong with you that you would want to bankrupt our city?

There are I'm not the only person to sit on this board along with the police, want them to get paid uh properly, and I've made that statement.

There are others, if they don't want to say it, that's fine, but I will.

But you I cannot agree with you doing what you're doing now.

And I don't understand what the governor is doing.

Why would you do this?

I would say, Mr.

Governor Governor, uh please come and talk to us, explain to us.

I know you had some conversation with the mayor, but what is the point of this?

Why would you go along with this kind of thing?

Why would you want 25% of our our budget?

Are we also gonna have to pay the fire department?

Which we have this reciprocity thing going on, but they went up to the state and got this.

So do we spend 50% of our budget?

Is that what we're gonna do?

This is a mistake.

Why would you want to kill one of your thriving cities?

We work hard in St.

Louis to keep our uh uh population and try to stop losing population.

If you bankrupt us, we can't pick up trash, we can't cut down trees, we can't demolish houses.

Where are we gonna get the funds to fund the police?

Not defund the police.

We won't have any money.

Um I I don't understand what you're doing.

I feel really disappointed.

Um, I don't often add my things, my name to a lot of things that I will ask to be added to this resolution because it is a mistake for us to do this.

And this is from somebody, as I said in 2012, when they said that we should uh take the police back over.

I not only didn't approve of it and opposed it, but my ward, which was war one, then opposed it.

At the same time, we opposed going from four 28 to 14.

But and I am a supporter of the police.

That doesn't mean I don't believe that they should be held accountable.

I've passed resolutions about accountability to the police, and for you to want to separate the police, you're making an occupying force in our city instead of uh somebody who's supposed to be working with our community.

And everybody who's part of that ought to be ashamed of themselves.

And um, madam um president and miss and madam clerk, would you please add my name to the resolution?

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

So noted.

Older woman from the sixth.

Thank you, madam president.

I would like to make a motion to embank this resolution.

It's been moved by the older woman from the sixth, seconded by the older woman from the seventh that we embank resolution 250.

There is an objection to in banking.

So if there are other members of the board who would like to add themselves as a co-sponsor, please raise your hand and we will make note of that.

All right.

Seeing none, is there any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized to close.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I think uh I think my colleagues said it all.

You know, this is this is about again just making sure that a board that's not elected by uh the people aboard that does not understand uh the the road that they're heading down is gonna be very dangerous for our other city departments, our streets, our forestry uh and other things that make our city safe.

Um and I just appreciate all my colleagues and you know all the input that they put into this.

I do want to give a a shout out to the budget committee, because this is something we have been talking about for a while, is something that we wanted to do uh as a group to send a letter, but thought it would be even more powerful to get all our colleagues involved and uh I want to thank each colleague that signed on as a co-sponsor uh to hopefully send a message to the police board that at least this board of alderman from the president and all alders were open for conversation.

There's a right way to do it, and the way that they're going about it is not the right way.

So with that, I would ask or I would renew my motion to have not made a motion yet.

I haven't made one.

No, we just been going.

Yes, all right.

I make a motion that we uh adopt resolution two fifty eight as amended as amended roll call.

I couldn't see who the second was second, so it's been moved by the alderman from the fourteenth, seconded by the alder woman from the seventh that we adopt resolution two fifty-eight as amended, and there's been a request for roll call.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Switzer.

Aye, Alderman Odenberg, President Green Alderman Cohn, aye, Alderman O'Ryan.

Alderman Devodey.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye, Alder Woman Sonier.

Aye, Alder Woman Coxantwee.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Ties.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Alder Woman Boyd, are you operating a vehicle at the moment?

No, I'm I'm parked in my court.

Okay.

Alderman Aldridge.

Alderman Aldrich.

Alderman President Green.

Aye.

14 aye votes, one present.

By your vote, you sustain the motion of the alderman from the 14th to adopt resolution 258 as amended.

Alderman from the 9th, you'll recognize the and to the rules for the resolution 264.

Thank you.

I move that we suspend the rules to introduce resolution number 264.

It's been moved by the alderman from the ninth, seconded by the alder woman from the 11th that we suspend the rules for the purposes introducing resolution 264.

This is a non-debatable motion.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman's wife, sir.

Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman DeRyan.

Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sonier.

Aye.

Alder Woman Coxweight.

Great.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Ties.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

14 aye votes, one no vote.

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

Madam Clerk, if you could please place resolution 264 at the end of the courtesy resolution calendar.

So noted.

Courtesy resolutions.

Alder Woman from the 10th.

All right.

Alderman from the 14th.

You are recognized on the motion to adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar.

I move that we adopt the courtesy resolution.

I want it to be added.

Can you give me one second?

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

I want it to be added as a coast monster resolution 264.

Clerk, please make note of that.

Right.

Then Alder Woman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adopt the courtesy resolution calendar.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move that we adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar.

Okay.

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

Seconded by the Alderman from the 3rd that we adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Miscellaneous and unfinished business.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item 25 announcements.

Tuesday, March 17th, HUD Committee.

11 a.m.

in the Kennedy room.

Legislation and rules, 2 p.m.

via webinar.

Wednesday, March 18th.

Public infrastructure and utilities, 3 30 p.m.

in the Kennedy room.

Friday, March 20th, 2026 for board meeting, 10 a.m.

in the chambers.

Any further announcements?

Any further announcements?

Alder Woman from the first.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I would like to add a red tape committee meeting on Wednesday, March 18th at 12 noon, for the purposes of hearing board bill 152.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

Any further announcements?

Alder woman from the 10th.

I'm making my announcement as you can see.

You could tell what my announcement is gonna be.

You notice some what tomorrow is 314 day.

Happy 314 day Eve.

There's way too many 314 day events for me to stand up here and talk about, but notice that everybody today is rocking their 314 day gear thanks to our very own Aura.

So thank you, Aura, for kicking out the spirit.

Thank you, Alder Woman Sign Yay and others that helped uh to get us together over in the leisure room.

We have all of our St.

Louis favorites, and we were intentional about supporting our St.

Louis businesses.

I picked up Papa Parade from the Foundry yesterday.

We have emos, Gus's, Vest's, OVANA, all kind of of our again, St.

Louis favorites with GUI butter cakes, dad cookies, everything over there.

So please, after we take our picture, make sure you go back over uh and enjoy.

And then today from 4 to 6, shout out to our collector of revenue, Greg Daly, um, in the efforts, not only that he is doing on the ground right now, but also he is having a happy hour today that will benefit RETAP.

RETAP is our real estate tax assistance fund.

You know that we have all continued to support down here when we talk about anti-displacement um funding spirit movement um and programming in the city of St.

Louis Retap is just that.

And so um shout out to Gregory FX Daily and Urban Chestnut in the Grove in the Ninth Ward, the brewery and beer hall from four to six today.

They are have a beer event is going on.

You can stop by meet your collector of revenue Gregory at Fest Daily and proceeds do benefit and go to the real estate tax assistance fund.

I hope to see you there.

Alderman from the fourth.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Uh I know there's a little uh parade going on downtown, um, but I think more important this weekend, but more importantly, uh on Tuesday at St.

Patrick's Day, and uh there'll be uh a big parade going on in dog town.

I'd encourage you all to uh come out, drink a beer, have fun.

Alderman from the 14th, are you up for an announcement?

Are you up for an announcement?

Yes, happy 314 Day St.

Louis.

Uh Alderman from the third.

Yeah, just to clarify my colleague from the fourth, I believe he was referring to the St.

Patrick's Day parade that's happening tomorrow, along with the St.

Patrick's Day festivities that are happening in the dog town neighborhood next Tuesday.

I look forward to participating and seeing everyone there.

Any further announcements?

Any further announcements?

Seeing none, just before you slink out of the room, Alderman Narayan.

I'm looking at you.

We want to make sure that we gather on the steps here to get a 314-day picture of everyone.

Uh Alder Woman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Um, I want to wish my least favorite all the I'm just kidding.

I want to wish the Alderman from the 14th an early happy birthday.

His birthday will be on Sunday.

So happy birthday to you, Alderman.

All right, with that, 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.

Second.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move that we adjourn until Friday, March 20th, 2026 in the Board of Alderman Chambers at 10 a.m.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by lots of folks over there.

I will say the 11th, I think is I heard the loudest.

Um that we adjourn until Friday, March 20th, 2026 in the Board of Alderman Chambers at 10 a.m.

Any discussion?

Nothing.

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

Aye.

Opposed.

No.

Motion carries.

Everybody is adjourned except for the alderman from the second.

Oh, was it?

It sounded like it's over the I'm going.