The board will now come to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Cohn.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sany.

Alder Woman Cox Ann Tweet.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Present.

Alderman Aldrick.

President Green.

Present.

Alderman Odenberg.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sanyer.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Alderman Devotee.

Nine present.

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

Is there any introduction of honored guests?

Is there any introduction of honored guests?

Alder Woman from the 11th.

Good morning.

And thank you, Madam President, and members of the board.

Oh, I see one of my honored guests just walked in.

I'm looking up at the uh the gallery.

Uh, and I'm uh wanting to uh have as one of my honored guests first of all is uh Mike McMillan.

Mike McMillan is the president CEO of Urban League, and I am always in awe of the work that he and his team produce for our city.

Um it was an honor and is continuing to be an honor to work with uh him and the organization of the urban league on so many initiatives.

Um earlier this week I was able to join them for the uh slow down kickoff of this year's um session or season of slow down St.

Louis reminding people that um it is important that they they slow down and save lives, save property, uh save heartache.

So I just wanted to acknowledge him and the whole team over at Urban League.

Uh as I was speaking earlier, Brooks Gedaker, St.

Louis University is here with us this morning in the gallery.

Thank you for being here.

Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Today, as my honored guest, I have Miss Kendrick, who is a intern that will be interning with my office.

She is from Harris Stowe in the back, as well as uh State Representative Marty Joe Murray from the 78th district, who uh represents uh part of the 14th.

So if we can make them both feel welcome, and I was going to uh save it for the Alder Woman of the 7th, um, but the streets kind of blocked off, so people are still pulling in, and I'm sure she'll still say it, but I also want to have Miss Chelsea Murder as my honor guest, who's a former legislative assistant of the 7th ward here with us today.

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

Seeing none, alder woman from the 10th, you're recognized on the approval of the minutes from Friday, March 13th, 2026.

Thank you, madam president.

Members of the board, I move that we approve the minutes from Friday, March 13th, 2026.

Second.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 11th, and we approve the minutes from Friday, March 13th, 2026.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Report of city officials.

Report of city officials can be found in A, B, C and D of the agenda.

The copy has been placed in the Google Drive for your review.

Dear members of the board, I have the pleasure to submit the following individuals for reappointment to the Hollyheast Special Business District.

The reappointment of Nick Hartzler serving as a real property owner within the district whose term will expire December 31st, 2029.

I respectfully request your approval of these appointments.

Sincerely, Cara Spencer Mayor.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I move to accept the mayor's appointment to the Holly Hill Special Business District.

Second.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the first, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Holly Hill Special Business District.

Is there any discussion?

No.

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

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Dear members of the board, I have the pleasure to submit the following individual appointment to the detention facility oversight board.

The appointment of Marlin Codwell and the appointment of Christy Griffin.

I respectfully request your approval of this appointment.

Sincerely, Cara Spencer, Mayor.

Alderman from the 14th, you're recognized on Mayor Spencer's appointment to the detention facilities oversight board.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board.

I move to approve the appointments for the detention facility oversight board.

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

Seconded by the Alder Woman from the 10th that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointments to detention facilities oversight board.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

That is the extent.

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

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

Sorry, my hand went up.

Accidentally, I was trying to uh click onto something else.

Please forgive me.

Okay.

Seeing none, first reading aboard bills.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item 12.

Reference to committee aboard.

We have none.

And dispense with line item 13.

Second reading report of standing committees.

The following board bills were reported out of HUD's committee with a due pass recommendation.

Board bill number 113, introduced by Alder Woman Sonier.

An ordinance amending ordinance number 70981.

Effective July 24th, 2019.

By modifying the terms of real estate tax abatement.

Board Bill No.

138 introduced by Alder Woman Sanyer.

President Green, Alderman Cohn, Alder Woman Sweitzer, Alder Woman Keys, Alderman Browning, Alderman Aldrick, and Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

An ordinance declaring moratorium until January 31st, 2031, on all approvals for non-municipal detention facilities proposed within the city of St.

Louis, including the approval of building permits, special use permits, plan review, project plans, and development plans, where the subject matter of the project is a proposed non-municipal detention facility.

Board bill number 163, introduced by Alder Woman Sanye and Alder Woman Velasquez.

An ordinance approving the petition of owners of real property seeking the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the South Grand Community Improvement District, finding a public purpose for the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the South Grand Community Improvement District and containing a cerebrality clause and an emergency clause.

Board bill number 166, introduced by Alderman Aldrich, Alder Woman Clark Hubbard, and Alder Woman Keys, and ordinance approving a redevelopment plan dated September 23rd, 2025, with the Cass Avenue and I-44 area in the City of St.

Louis.

Board Bill No.

169, introduced by Alder Woman Keys, and Artness amending ordinance number 71830.

Effective June 1st, 2024.

An ordinance to standardize the current authority of city departments prepaying qualifying expenses from qualifying organizations who are under contract with the City of St.

Louis to provide the City of St.

Louis a product or service by requiring that minimum documentation is received and by installing a cap on the prepayments allowed to be given.

The following board bill was reported out of the special committee on reducing red tape with the due pass recommendation.

Board bill number 152, committee substitute as amended, introduced by Alderman Aldrich and President Green, an ordinance which amends certain sections of chapter 8 of the St.

Louis Revised Code to streamline mobile food vendor operations.

The following board bills reported out of public infrastructure and utilities committee with a due pass recommendation.

Board bill number 149 introduced by Alderman Board Alder Woman Boyd, Alderman Browning, Alder Woman Cox and Tweet, and Alder Woman Clark Hubbard, and ordinance authorizing the honorary street name Reverend Alfred Gainey Junior Way, pursuant to ordinance number 68937, which shall begin at the intersection of Astra Avenue and Riverview Boulevard and run north on Astra Avenue to the first intersection of Astra Avenue and Vivian Avenue.

Board bill number 175, introduced by Alderman Aldrick, and Artin is authorizing and directing the mayor and the comptroller of the city of St.

Louis to execute two utility easements, which shall give grant, extend, and confer on Union Electric Company doing business as Amory, Missouri.

It's grantees successors and assigns the right to construct, operate, use, maintain, repair, renew, and or remove electrical power lines or lines of underground andor above ground facilities and equipment on the land described in such easements and containing an emergency clause.

That is the extent of second reading and report of standing committees.

Alder Woman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 138, 163, and 149 to the perfection consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move that we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 138, 163, and 149 to the perfection consent calendar.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we suspend the rules to move board bills 1.

Sorry, apologies.

I'm gonna need to ask you to amend your motion uh board bill 175 as well.

I withdraw my motion and now answer the motion to move board bills for the purposes of suspending the rules to move board bills 138, 163, 149, and 175.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 138, 163, 149, and 175 to the perfection consent calendar.

Uh this is a non-debatable motion.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Cohn.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devoty.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sanyer.

Alder Woman Cox Antwee.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyus.

No.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrick.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Norayan.

No.

13 votes, two no's.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the uh Alder Woman from the 10th.

Madam Clerk, if you could please place board bills 138, 163, 149, and 175 at the end of the perfection consent calendar.

So noted.

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Please do.

Um appropriate time.

I would like board bill 138 taken off of the perfection consent calendar and placed on perfection calendar.

Madam Clerk, if you could please make note of that.

So noted.

Alder Woman from the 10th, you are recognized now on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 113, 166, 169, 165 committee substitute, and 152 committee substitute as amended to the regular perfection calendar.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move that we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 113, 166, 169, 165, committee sub, and 152 committee sub is amended to the regular perfection calendar.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th, that we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 113, 166, 167, 165 committee substitute, and 152 committee substitute as amended uh to the regular perfection calendar.

Uh this is a non-debatable motion.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Alderman Oldenburg.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Nrian.

Alderman DeVote.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sanyer.

Alder Woman Cox Antwe.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyus.

No.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrick.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

What's the issue?

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

This is wrong.

Should we look at the good?

I said 167.

She said 169.

Oh.

Everybody.

You said the loan bill number is not on.

Oh, who said this?

Who called the number?

That was that was not even.

That wasn't me.

I can just call the number.

She means that was showing it's how it's 167, she just must have missed her.

Okay.

That's all of all papers.

Are you done calling?

But is everybody's voting no because of that?

Point of order.

We're in the point of order.

Yes, you gotta finish the vote.

Point of order.

Alder woman from the 12th.

Can you please state your point of order?

We are in the middle of a vote.

Um so whatever is going on, we need to finish that vote, and then we have to figure it out.

We cannot stop in the middle of a vote and figure out what happened.

Correct.

There was a little bit of confusion on one of the board bill numbers that was called, but we are finishing the vote now.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

11 aye votes, two no's.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alder Woman from the 10th.

Madam Clerk, if you could please place the aforementioned bills at the end of the regular perfection calendar.

So note it.

Report a special committees.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item 15.

Board bills for perfection consent.

Board bills number 163, 149.

Madam Clerk, you need to read the bills.

I'm sorry.

Board bill number 163.

Introduced by Alderman Woman Sanyer and Alderwoman Velasquez.

An ordinance approving the position of owners of real property, seeking the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the South Grand Community Improvement District.

Finding a public purpose for the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the South Grand Community Improvement District and containing the cerebrality avenue and Riverview Boulevard and run north on Astra Avenue to the first intersection of Astra Avenue and Vivian Avenue.

Board bill number 175, introduced by Alderman Aldrick, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor and the controller of the city of St.

Louis to execute two utility events, which shall give grant extend and confer on Union Electric Company Darm Businesses Amra, Missouri, its agents, assessors, and assigns the right to construct, operate, use, maintain, repair, renew, and or remove electrical 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.

That is the that is the extent of board bills for perfection consent.

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

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

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

It's been moved by the alder woman from the 10th, seconded by the alder woman from the 11th that we adopt the board bills for the perfection consent calendar.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Board bills for perfection.

Board bill number 168, introduced by Alderman Aldrick, Alderwoman Cox Antwerp, Alderwoman Clark Hubbard, an ordinance approving the petition amending the boundaries of the soccer stadium community improvement district, making certain finding relating thereto, including that the redevelopment area described therein is a blighted area and authorizing and directing the taking of other actions and approval and execution of other documents as are necessary or desirable to carry out and comply with the intent hereof.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board to perfect board bill 168.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we perfect board bill 168.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Board Bill 168 is an existing seed that already exists over there by the MLS Soccer Stadium.

This is just amending it and extending some of the boundaries to the ALO Plaza.

Um this was heard in HUD's committee.

It came out unanimous.

Um they need to extend the areas.

It was kind of left out when they first did the SID.

Uh, this would just be able to give them the ability.

One of the great things they already do is they do a lot of maintenance of Aloe Plaza.

So this is just making sure that that part of the SID uh is included within the work that they're already doing.

And with that, I open up for any.

Any further discussion.

Seeing none, it's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alder uh woman from the 7th, that we perfect board bill 168.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

Board bill number one fifty one, introduced by Alderman Aldrick, President Green, Alderman Oldenberg, Alderman Ryan, Alder Woman Sany, Alder Woman Velasquez, 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 board.

Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the perfection of board bill 151.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move to perfect board bill one.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we perfect board bill 151.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Board Bill 151 is a board bill that uh in conjunction worked with uh the Alderman of the 7th or 2nd on, as well as our nuisance property, Miss Mia Woods.

Uh we also had the building division at the table.

Um, but towards last year, we was trying to figure out how do we make uh the nuisance property a little or the nuisance ordinance a little bit stronger, but also make sure that there's kind of a public transparent process.

So what this board would do would it would establish a seven-person member board on page three of nine, it breaks down those individuals.

The board shall consist of three members from uh the city department, which could be um a representative from the building division or their uh design, uh, somebody from the health department or public health or their design, a licensed Missouri uh person from the municipal or administration in law, and then made up of four members of the public.

Uh again, this would allow residents to be able to collect signatures uh if they feel that a nuisance or a property is a nuisance issues that we were struggling with within my ward was the easy vape, and just I think some similar in the ultimate of the second war was like these vape shops.

So we came together to figure out what can we ultimately do to hold these uh these comp these um properties as well as residents more accountable.

This board will uh if somebody would want to uh take their their opinion to the nuisance board, they would have to get signatures of a 350 feet radius of where that location is.

We took the same language of what we already do with like platinum petition or what we do with our excise department, so residents could be able to collect signatures to then kind of trigger a hearing for the nuisance board to review to see if it was a nuisance.

Uh, this is something when we look at our board of adjustments and conditional use, those meetings are public meetings.

Unfortunately, when it comes to nuisance properties, a lot of times those meetings are not public.

So residents do not know uh after they have reached out to the nuisance department if their uh nuisance complaint is actually moving.

During their process of collecting the signatures, the nuisance board will then review any evidence that has been provided uh that would make this property a nuisance.

Uh it would also allow residents to come in to have their voice heard on it, just like we do with conditional use or board of adjustment, and then the nuisance board will make a recommendation of how to abate uh the property.

Once that um recommendation is made, it still go to uh the city council office to have the final decision, just like now if a property is considered a nuisance, an individual who um has been deemed a nuisance, they still have kind of due process where they can um kind of uh push back on what they believe is considered a nuisance.

Uh so that isn't a final determination, but it allows ultimately this board allows for a community aspect process for residents to be able to collect signatures to figure out how to abate those nuisance and for a public hearing to be had on the potential nuisance.

Again, I do want to thank Ms.

Mia Woods and uh members of the mayor's office who is in these conversations, members of the uh uh building division, uh, to kind of bring this new process that would allow some transparency in our nuisance process and hopefully allow for actual abatement to happen when properties are considered a nuisance.

And with that, I would open up to any questions from committee members.

Madam President, members of the board, if the Alderman from the 14th would yield.

The Alderman from the 14th yields questioning from the Alderman.

Yes, ma'am.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Thank you, Alderman, for yielding.

Um, first of all, I have uh uh mixed feelings about this because the reason our nuisance laws don't work in the as it currently is written, is not because they don't have power, because one of the powers gives the director of public safety if they have reasonable belief that something is a nuisance to close it down.

They just never have because the city councillors uh uh office falsely assert we had to have so many calls to citizen service and to the police.

No place in that legislation does it say that.

And I have on many occasions challenged them, show me where it says it, and they can't say it because it doesn't say that.

Okay.

Um, and so that is just something that they have decided to gather power, but that's not what we, the board of alderman said about who had the power.

It wasn't the city council's office.

The power lied within lies within the uh public safety director who is has reasonable reason to believe that there is a nuisance.

And so some of the things that make perfectly good sense that's reasonable belief is if you're having to put police cameras by a place over and over again.

If you're having shooting, actually, if you have murders inside of the buildings, these are all the things that uh if you start driving around the neighborhood, you can always tell where my nuisances are because the people leave them.

That means that the people actually move out of their houses and move away from it.

You'll start to see burn down buildings because then people come in and burn the buildings up.

Half of the time it's the nuisance.

So these are all things that are very easy to identify as a reason belief, especially the shooting.

But uh public safety directors always shy, shine away from that.

In fact, one of them, when I pushed him, pushed this person enough, said, I'm out of here, Sharon.

Um, so um it I don't believe that the city council is a good place to uh uh give the last thoughts to what should be a public nuisance over these years about certain nuisances.

And they and I kept saying they don't do them in North St.

Louis.

They said, Oh, yes, we do.

So I sent asked them to send me at that time the last five years of what was uh public nuisances that had been closed down in the city.

And what came out, and they weren't looking for what I really was looking for.

So what came out of that that is in North St.

Louis in five years, only five places have been closed down all over the rest of the city.

They found nuisances, but they could not find them in North St.

Louis, even though there were shootings, people had moved away and everything.

So that was irritating to me.

Um, and the uh person who was charged to North St.

Louis would argue, well, we don't have enough people calling in.

Um asking people who are victimized by nuisances in their community to sign petitions or to call in is to put them at risk a lot of times.

And so they are a frightened to do that.

Much as this we don't want to admit it when we talk about that thin blue line with the police, it is because the police will not tell on one another often because there is a threat and and uh silent that their partners won't back them up, and it's not so silent because people police have told me that.

Well, if we do that, then our partners won't back us up or uh we won't have cover.

Well, just think if you're Mrs.

Jones and you live next door to a drug house.

Are you gonna sign that petition and and and and be frightened that somebody would actually see that and then come after you so they don't?

Recently in my community, after 13 years on February the 13th, we closed down Sam's package packaging at Shreve and Anderson.

This has been a 13-year fight to close it down, and the Fed the county police went in and they closed it down.

Hallelujah.

But the the point I'm telling you is that they had shootings every in 2023, almost every month they had a shooting.

The owner's uh uh son was killed in that building.

Okay, all if you drive down Shreve, you can immediately, if you didn't know where Sam's package liquor was, you would know by that one block in the 4200 block is horrible.

Every place else over in Penrose Shreve is beautiful little streets.

The people lined their uh yards and cut their yards, and it's beautiful.

But this one block is like people gave up.

And there was nothing that we could do that we could get the police to close it or the public safety directors to close it.

And I took pictures, I turned them in, took pictures, pictures, hey.

I turned in, hey, there was a shooting this month, there was a shooting this month.

The police themselves put up cameras uh and uh and left them up, and then the people would disappear.

They broke zoning laws, they they uh advertised cigarettes buildings, everything they could, they did it.

They were saying, close me, close me, and nobody could.

And the only reason that it got closed is because the feds came in, much as they did in 2017 when they arrested 35 Arab nationalists who had these stores only in North St.

Louis and a few in North County.

And the next few days after they did that, eight of them went up in in flames.

That's the same things happened to Package Liquor, Sam's Fackage Liquor as Shreve and Anderson.

A few days later, it was up in flames.

But what was so sad, I want you to hear about is my constituents because we let them all know and they were happy.

But they told stories of how they would not drive down Shreve anymore.

Now they live, if you lived in the Penrose neighborhood, Shreve is one of them, the secondary streets.

We got Euclid, King's How is the major, Euclid, Shreve, and Marcus are secondary streets in the part that I represent.

And the people who would live on Lee and Shreve would tell me we drive right down Lee, go to Marcus, make a left, go uh back up Carter, and then so we don't have to go by that store.

People said, I have been in that store for years, or I don't even go that way.

So it made me really sad to hear this for the last couple of weeks about, you know, and I even mailed out because part of this uh of uh Penrose when I was gerrymanded, racially gerrymanded illegally, they gave it to the 21st ward.

So I didn't have it anymore, and I didn't have Shreve most of it.

And I was so saddened to hear these stories of people that were scared to go by the store, or uh the people who lived on Anderson, it's a one-way headed west.

So they had to go by the store, most of them, but people would tell me, oh, we went down Anderson the wrong way from Euclid because we didn't want to be by that store.

And I'm I'm telling you, every time I went by it, I braced myself.

I took a picture, I would send it and say, why can't you figure out that this is a nuisance?

Finally, we had a sixth district police officer uh uh captain that was there temporarily, and uh and I have a full file on this.

And um he's he wrote me and said, Auto woman, I'm probably gonna get in trouble for this, but everything you've been saying is true.

That should have been closed down a long time ago.

The LRA properties that you've been requesting should have been closed down a long time ago or tore down, not rather closed down but tore down.

But that didn't happen.

So there is something wrong here in this building.

There is something wrong that we don't we don't need all these changes.

We need people to follow the correct uh laws that are already there.

So I just wanted to talk about that because recently we've discovered a way we closed that place down.

We closed one on St.

Louis Avenue and Vandervent are down.

Um so we discovered a way uh to do it, and I'm nervous because I don't want anybody to get in the way of what we're doing now, because we got about four more that we're gonna close down.

But the fact that people uh think that um it's okay to be in North St.

Louis, because the person who was assigned to us from the city council's office, she is no longer there.

Oh, she got so mad at me because she argued that I wasn't telling the truth.

But when I presented their own evidence, which came from the city councillor's office where I got this from, is because I asked for get me citywide, and they didn't understand.

You don't think I'm gonna go and do it by ward, which I did.

And when I did it by ward, it was even how can you only have five nuisances closed down in all of North St.

Louis?

And that's when we had 28 wards.

Five nuisances, but every place else you could close them down.

In fact, the person who was assigned to North St.

Louis, she was put over into downtown or Washington to close what's the store range, the club, because they didn't want it to say it was a racial thing, so they used her black face to close it down.

The problem is in our building with people who are not doing their jobs.

I understand what you guys are trying to do.

But it there's a lot of power that is not being used, okay?

And we also do not uh define negligence already have been working on something.

We don't, I mean, nuisances.

How can we not define nuisance as gunfire?

If you have one uh incident of gunfire, you ought to be put on notice.

Two or three, uh two, you should have your liquor license taken.

Three, you're closed because people, if not two, you should be closed.

People don't have uh to have to live in a neighborhood, and they should not be required to drive through gunfire.

Right now, we who live on Kings Highway in the Kingsway East uh have to deal with Salamas, which we went as a group and said, please uh don't let Salamis build this gas station here.

And most of these gas stations in North St.

Louis were put in when Francis Leigh uh helped push them in.

And the current city counselor worked with them and they pushed them in, okay?

And we had everybody testifying about how Salamas had been on Euclid and St.

Louis Avenue, and that they were a nuisance and they hung out and they drank and they and you can go to that area and labity and you will see that it's all tore up.

But they pushed it and disagreed disagreed with what we said, and we said it's gonna be killing.

I've had the forethought to actually get a police report of what kind of crime had been at that corner before they built it.

Basically none.

Now we have shootings, loud music, because uh many of the gas stations are attractive nuisances.

They attract nuisances.

We have people hanging out on the corner, everything that we said in that file, and I I have the file, so you can look at it.

That is going on.

So that's if I go north.

If I go south, there is the gas station at Martin Luther King and Kings Highway that Gerald that uh Gerald Christmas's brother got killed that I didn't know at the time, except for when I talked about these gas stations, and there was such an uproar, which I've been tracking them since 2014, who owns them.

So when I said that they were Palestinian owned, they are Palestinian on, because I've been tracking them and I found out who owned them.

But Gerald Christmas, when I called him about uh uh sewer and channel four, because no, five, because they said I didn't have any proof of what I said, and I was like, I called them and they're like, oh, we didn't mean that because we didn't even talk to you.

I know you didn't mean that, because I do have proof.

But when I called Gerald Christmas, he said, Sharon, my brother got killed there.

I've been trying to get that closed.

How and then when I read the articles around it, which was in Ryan Cruel, I think, uh wrote it.

I don't know if it was the River Front Times or something else, but I have the article.

It talked about there being 300 and something calls and all the incidents.

So there's not any uh reason that we don't know that these are nuisances.

We don't close them down because they're not in our communities, and that's all right uh if it's not in the people who's making the decision community because they think that's okay for it to be in North St.

Louis.

When they arrested the 35 people, um, and they blew up eight of their uh uh uh properties, there wasn't any 35 people in the central quarter.

In fact, the central quarter only has like four, three or four gas stations left.

They've gotten rid of them all because they are an attractive nuisance.

Uh South St.

Louis, it wasn't in South St.

Louis, it was in North St.

Louis and a few in North St.

Louis County.

So when I see that you got these members from the board, uh what you don't have is assuring that community members would come from the neighborhoods most adversely affected.

We don't have that.

Just like when we come up with this nomination for the Board of Adjustment, in the last 24 years, we haven't had anybody except for an alternate on the Board of Adjustment that comes from any place in North St.

Louis, and only none that was that lived north of Page.

And so we don't have people who live north of Page.

That is racist, that is in um impermissible government, it's unfair.

And so when I look at what you're writing now, I know you're trying to address the issue, but you're not addressing the bigger issue.

Where are many of the nuisances and why aren't they?

Who doesn't close the gas station down where there's been killings and um 300 calls for services that have been verified, but it's still open.

Why is that?

Why don't we check about the debit card thing that's going on?

Because there's something in City Hall that thinks that's okay.

And when we had a hearing at one of the nuisance about one of the nuisance, a gas station that's now in my ward again.

The guy said to me, because I went in my car, three different cars to watch them sell drugs, people drive up, brought all this evidence, and the guy said to me, Well, we have a right to make a living.

He lives someplace else, but he has a right to make a living in our community and make it unsafe.

So this is this legislation is not gonna solve the real problem because the real problem is in City Hall, starting with the city councillor's office, who gives bad advice to me.

Um, and I and I and I can talk about it more, and Michael Garvin knows I can, and was uh encouraging people to put gas stations where we had laws that cleaned up that spot and could not be gas stations in your own very ward, the 14th ward, that Van Pool gas station is uh embarrassment that they would put uh gas station up against people's houses like that.

When I went over there and saw that, uh you almost cannot put a ruler against the house that's next to it, and I know the gas station bought it, because that's the other thing I want to bring up.

When they have these nuisances, then they started buying, they start buying the property that's closest to them in the circle so as to neutralize our uh laws.

And they just did that.

I want to say, I don't know if it was in Alderman Collinsville out in Albany from the third, but they just did a thing where uh to get liquor, they ran around and put 10 or 15 people on a on the um the D so that they could water down our laws.

So they're watering our laws down when we make them.

Um so when it's a nuisance, it's not just the people that are 350 feet.

The gas station at Salamas, it sits on the corner of Terry, which is a one-way street headed west.

No matter the other people come down, Terry, all those people are affected.

So to limit it to just 300 feet is not a good idea because the people are affected every place else.

So in the neighborhoods infected because on St.

Louis Avenue, the people all are leaving.

Uh um, Ontario, this nuisance gas station is buying up the property within the three or five hundred feet.

So we should um look at a broader uh consensus if we're doing this to talk about what people are affected.

If you have to come down my one-way street to get to a nuisance gas station, and I live at the 500 feet or 700 feet, but I'm on that street, and they're driving down the street, boom boom, MF, MF, MF, boom, boom, and that gas station open of adjustment, put it there against the wishes of our community, which many of us came out, and the nuisance people hire people in our community that are the nuisances that hang out and bring them and say, Well, look, these are black people want it.

They don't own anything, they don't care what happens there, they're the people drinking on the corner.

When you go to St.

Louis Avenue and Kings Highway right now, you will see a guy in a wheelchair, other people hanging on the corner.

We never had that until Salonas got there.

And they pushed that through, and Michael Garvin was part of it, and so was Francis Slate and others, and Michael was back in the background advising them.

We're not getting rid of nuisances where they need to get rid of.

And yes, I don't want them to be in the first or second or fourth, but I don't want them to be over in North St.

Louis in abundance.

And and and just to leave and look at the gas stations in North St.

Louis.

For us to have what you say is such a low population, the number of gas stations we have in North St.

The number of gas stations we have in North St.

Louis compared to the population is ridiculous.

When I tell you, if you live in the central quarter, you can go to King's Highway in Manchester on the edge and go to the gas station.

You can go to Kings Highway in Delmar, which was really counted in North St.

Louis because it's on the north side.

But you can't go to Skinker and Delmar, because that's a CVS now.

You can't go to Delmar and Union because they closed that 25 years ago and never opened again.

You can't go to King's Highway in Delmar because that's on the north side.

You can't go down, and I'm glad that Laura closed it to Olive and what's uh right by um uh by um the the uh Harris Stowe, you can't go there anymore because that's gone.

So you'd have very little places you can go to Boyle and King's Boyle and Lindle, but when you go there, you can't buy liquor, you can't buy uh uh uh I think you can't buy uh tickets to uh win the lottery because they don't allow such things.

They also made them put a brick wall up so that they would not bother the residents and they couldn't be in the alley.

So they if they do let them, and the only reason they let them come back because they were already there and they just rebuilt, but they put all these conditions.

And when Jimmy Edwards worked for Lyda Crusin, and I and he was the director of public safety, and I took this all to him.

He sat on many of the hearings and said, Sharon, everything you said is correct.

They do not put conditions on things that go into North St.

Louis.

So when you get ready to say you need to get rid of these nuisances, they say, Well, we can't do anything because uh there were no conditions.

I don't need a condition for gunfire.

We shouldn't have to say that.

That's just like if somebody gets their head blown off, then we will hear it.

One of the people who did support the Salamis on August the 8th, we had a gunfire there.

She's calling me, she's screaming and hollering.

She said, Audience, everything you said was the truth.

We shouldn't listen to your leadership.

Now she's mad as hell.

But she was one of the people who supported it because she lives up in Kingside condominium where it's closed and private.

So, but she forgot she had to drive through that corner.

Right now, I cannot go north or west without the danger of gunfire.

Neither can the people who live in my community who own their homes and do not create the problems.

It is created by people who live someplace else and go to their houses and don't have to put up with it.

So this uh may be a first step that's doing something, but it doesn't guarantee anybody from North St.

Louis or from North of Page or anything that we would be put on it.

And the thing that has happened for the last 20 years, 24, 28 years, has been that Francis Slate started the the uh agenda of not putting people on these boards and commissions that were important that lived north of Page.

Lida kind of went home, although I will give Lida Crusader, she did have uh looked into it and said, Oh my god, I have the book that she had our former clerk lawyer do, and they had to admit I wasn't lying if this was what's going on, so they did start trying to change it with the Forestry Commission and some other things, Forest Park Commission, but then Tishara Jones tripled down and wouldn't do anything that wasn't a Francis Slate, so she left all those people that we're replacing today, have been on the board of adjustment for 20 some odd years, and not a one of them lives north of uh of uh page, one of them is my personal friend.

I'm not voting for it because we do not make sure that the people who are the most affected sit at the table.

That is the problem of that I have with this legislation.

There's nothing, it just says we can have uh people who are from the city, but it doesn't guarantee that the people who are most affected would be um part of the decision making or sit at the table or tell us what they're doing.

I do applaud that it's gonna be uh open, but if it goes back to the city councillor's office, I'm definitely opposed to that because they have been part of the problems over the last several years, and why we have all these gas stations that are nuisances in our community while we have this hair store at uh in the Board of Adjustment and zoning, while we have a hair store that's so big that the people park on the sidewalk, and they have 20 um uh different poses of models and hair all sticking out, and it's so disrespectful of Martin Luther King and all these flags and everything, all of this is nuisances that I get calls about all the time, and people say, Oh, we can't do anything about it.

Yes, you can.

We can close these things down, but we have to have better laws about when they should be closed, not just set up a commission saying, Well, we're gonna have a hearing and we're gonna limit it to 350 or even if we said 500 feet.

How are you gonna limit that when my house is being negatively affected?

Well, I can't sign that petition, even though you're driving down my street to get to the gas station, or you're driving down my street to get to other nuisances in the community.

But because I'm not within 350 feet, I can't sign a petition.

I think that's wrong, and I think we need to revisit that.

And we need to revisit it for liquor and everything else, because they they do the people who are doing that, they play our laws.

They play they go around our laws.

We have a thing about for the liquor.

So they put their, if they have uh a corner store, they'll put their address on St.

Louis Avenue or on Kings Highway so that they don't have to deal with the people who uh live on Terry.

There's a lot of places where um people uh know how to go around these laws.

So ultimately, the person who is director of public safety ought to stand up when it's a gunfire.

There should never be a second gunfire uh without the public safety director issuing some kind of letter saying, Hey, you got gunfire over there.

Uh you this is not gonna be uh tolerated.

We do that with with uh uh swimming pools.

We call swimming pools uh uh attractive nuisances, and it's not that the swimming pool is anything wrong, but children are attracted to it and they they uh drown in it.

So we require uh gates, fences, covers, all of this stuff.

And if if you don't do that, they can make you uh dig up your swimming pool or fill it in.

We ought to be able to do the same thing with these nuisance places.

If they're nuisance, you and whether it's a house or a business, there ought to be a limit on how many times we can call the police, and it is.

We just don't do anything about it.

How many times we can put a police camera up and not depend on the people who live right next to it to uh report that it's a problem because they're scared to do it, they are scared to do it, they are frightened, they are frightened something is going to happen to them.

So I'm not gonna support it, not because I don't think you're trying to address it, but I don't think that 300 feet is correct.

I also don't think that uh uh 300 or 350 feet not uh mandating that people from all parts, in fact, it should be more people in North St.

Louis north of Page because that's where all the gas stations are.

I just told you the whole Central West End got through it.

But when you come to North St.

Louis, there's one at Kings Highway in Delmar, King's Highway in Hodomot, Kings Highway and Martin Luther King, Kings Highway and St.

Louis Avenue, and the only black gas station that's left in the city of St.

Louis in a black neighborhood is Kings Highway and Natural Bridge.

And guess what?

He doesn't have gunfire at his place.

That's so interesting.

But all those other ones I tell you about, they have gunfire, but he does not.

When I got in office, there were six black gas stations.

They have all been closed down.

And my question to everybody is how are these gas stations letting people have gunfire?

Why is the police doing that?

Why is City Hall doing that and they are open?

So we want to do something really well.

Let's close them down.

Let's do what we did with Sam's Package liquor.

Let's do what we did with the gas station over on the Vandervent or between Maffitt and St.

Louis Avenue.

That was horrendous.

Let's do what we're getting ready to do with two other locations.

And it's not gonna be with this legislation.

It's because we figured out a way to do it, and let's figure out a way the same way that we close rains throughout Washington and the things in South St.

Louis and downtown.

Let's figure that out for North St.

Louis.

And until we can do that, this is not a good piece of legislation.

I will be voting no.

And I will ask you, have you ever considered that we should have people on the board or commissions by uh districts or something, so that we would make sure that people are included north of Page.

Like we could say, okay, we're gonna have one from the 13th and 12th and 11th court that and they have to be north of Page.

Have you ever considered anything like that?

Uh thank you, Alderwoman uh for that question.

Uh no, I haven't considered it, but I'm open to Censera Four, uh open to uh a friendly amendment or amendment that says two has to be north of Delmore, two has to be south of Delmar, but I don't want to get into the geographics where that uh kind of hinders it too, um, because that would make maybe it harder for the city council office.

And I do want to address something that you also said about the 350 feet.

We did originally in the bill have 500 feet um to make the scope bigger.

Uh the bigger the scope, you know, since it'll need 50 percent of the signatures mean that there will be more signatures uh that would be needed for that.

So, you know, I do hear your your point of is 350, you know, too small.

We also wanted to stay in line, I guess, of what we already do for our liquor license or what we already do for plan petition and not kind of create a new system.

But everything that uh that you said and appreciate the story that you talked about.

Um, you know, I I understand where you're coming from, um, and know that there is a lot more nuisance properties, uh, probably north of Page or Delmore, whichever you know, line we want to use, but in North St.

Louis compared to other areas.

I do agree with you.

Um, Alderman, I wasn't, I wasn't even trying to do a friendly amendment to your board bill now, because if all of us, I could have approached you earlier and talked to you about it.

Um I actually was busy closing down these gas stations, so I'm in like heaven that uh uh or closing down on this store, especially as Shreven and Anderson, just like, oh, thank you, thank you.

Why would it take 12 or 13 years and even the police are agreeing with me?

But we always have to have the feds come in.

That says something about our police, and it says something about City Hall, and it says something about people, like I said, some there was a police, I mean a public safety director when I pushed this whole issue and said it doesn't say that.

They got up and left.

Okay, so I don't want you to change your legislation.

I'm just gonna vote no.

But I would want you to be open to this is not good legislation.

And I said Michael Garden's name on purpose because he already knows why I say his name, and he is part of the problem, and that's why we did not put the city counselors in charge.

They inserted themselves.

If you look at the legislation, it does not say you have to have the current nuisance legislation, it says none of that.

And they are, and I like Mia Woods, she's a nice young lady, but uh part of the problem is people making decisions, even black people that don't live in North St.

Louis or live north of Page.

I prefer a white person, which I have in my community who lives north of Page to be on that board who is affected by that.

Because I have some and they're sending me stuff that are white.

I don't want a black person that lives someplace else, and when they go home, they've made a decision that they're not affected by.

Okay.

So this is not just racial, it isn't that predominantly north of Page is uh uh black, but uh you have to ask that question, and and I can show you my numbers, and I can show you what Lida had Tim Um uh McConnell put out.

Why is it that in 20 something years you don't have anybody that lives north of uh page uh on the board of adjustment?

How is that?

What is do what is that about?

Okay, do we have some positions that only can be for people in the central quarter and South St.

Louis?

Is that right?

We already have these big wards in North St.

Louis that are ridiculous.

You know, I got 14 neighborhoods.

Other than North South St.

Louis Wards got three or four.

We have to really start looking at effect and cause and what is doing, what is happening and what's causing this.

Our laws we're putting in place are not working.

I've been saying this for the long time.

This is not gonna work because the people are gonna feel safe to make decisions that don't affect them.

Will they make decisions about their neighborhood?

Absolutely, which is why I told you go count the gas stations in the central corridor, which has a big population, but no gas stations, then come into North St.

Louis.

Why did we need to have Salamas?

We already had four uh gas stations on our quarter in Kings Highway, and yet it was forced in.

And Salamas didn't even own that land originally.

It belonged to LRA, it had been cleaned up, and we actually have an ordinance that says that they there cannot be a gas station.

Like there it sits, and that's why I tell you it is city hall, often it is rule 200, it's all these people behind the scenes not following the law, and then now we put it on people to say that these few these people have to be the ones that come and uh stand up and put their lives in danger.

Because when you start talking about closing this stuff, lives will be put in danger.

And and Miss Jones or Miss Taylor, whatever, uh they are not going to get out there and um and uh risk their lives because they gotta go home every day.

And as I said, the police know all that I said because when they talk to me about it, I tell them you first.

I said, How do you have a thin blue line?

If you think Miss Jones ought to report in, then the police ought to report in and report other police.

And if we accept that there's a thin blue line, we have to accept that Mrs.

Jones is not gonna normally sign that petition.

And that's what might work downtown.

That's how they got rid of Larry Rice, who was there before they jitrified downtown, which I think still to this day is horrible.

If you move down there by Larry Rice, then you should have known all this stuff because I because it's been going on since the 70s.

But you can get it when people are uh uh uh the same and social and economic and the same, and you can get that.

But what happens in our communities, they buy people off, the people who don't own anything, they have them come down and say, I like them because they give me 25 dollar credit, and um gunfire should not be open for debate.

When you're having gunfire, it should not be open for debate.

And we also have them attacking black women.

People are texting me as I'm speaking now because they're reminding me that up on uh Del Mar and Good Zone at the gas station, they attacked the black woman and kicked her and almost had a racial incident.

We just had that at Union and uh um uh Theodosia in my ward, something that happened.

And so we are going to have to start looking at these news and stores and gas stations, not as some committee, but holistically, why is this happening?

Tell the truth and close most of them down.

If you only need three for all of South of uh Central Quarter, and then when you go to South St.

Louis, they don't have any stores like we have, or they don't have the gas stations that we have.

And when they build new gas stations, they built them in commercial areas, not like they do, because this is the other thing they do in North St.

Louis.

They build them up against the best neighborhoods and run the people away.

And the whole thing of F neighborhood commercial was supposed to be uh building things up that were uh an asset to the community, not a detriment.

The first time you fire a gun, you're a detriment.

And it doesn't have to be you inside because people will say, well, it's not their fault, but a funny thing happened on the way to closing Sam's package liquor.

Since it's been closed, nobody has been on that corner, nobody is being blocked.

And since they blew it up, whoever did, set it a fire, it's gonna be gone, so we won't ever have to deal with that.

So if we just can close them for a few weeks and then they would blow it up and get rid of it, whoever they are, then we could get rid of a lot of nuisances in our in our community.

And I'm talking about the business news is it's a whole nother thing when you get to the houses.

I got 4800 block of farm.

The feds have come in three times and closed the house ongoing.

The feds had to come in because we couldn't do it with the police.

And part of the reason we couldn't do it with the police, because the former police uh public safety director that just left.

His house was right next to them.

They did nothing.

The city didn't close it down.

It wasn't enough for them to know that the feds had come and closed it down, but the city council and anybody else did nothing.

You write letters, so I have no faith in them, Michael Garvin or anybody else that's doing it.

I do not have faith in them.

Because how can you have on a residential street three feds, uh federal raids at the same place, next to the public safety director's house.

Now he don't live there, but it's one of his rental properties, and nothing happens.

Shout out to the sixth district captain, because Captain K, he is great at coming in and trying to do stuff.

So it's no disparagement on him.

He is a great captain in the sixth for trying to get things done.

But it's in City Hall that we have a problem.

And we and giving the uh solution to the city council's office is going to me heighten the problem, not correct it.

And for that reason, I thank you, Alderman, because I will be talking to you later.

For that reason, I will not be voting for it because I think it's going to make it worse.

And right now I'm just trying to get rid of as many as I can with the way we found it before this new law goes into effect, and everybody starts to say how great it is.

Like when people get up and say, Oh, in Covenant House is the only one.

Covenant House has had 95 complaints, not one of them for me, even though I live across the street, because the seniors that live there, we think that the homeless have more rights than the seniors that live next to it who are scared to come out of the house.

And the kids themselves saying people hate us in the neighborhood because we break in their houses, have a conversation with me.

We break in their houses and we do, you know, we get high and we have sex, so they hate us here.

They do.

So why are you still here?

We used that used to be a school that closed at three o'clock.

So why is Covenant House?

And not to say that we don't need a covenant house, but it doesn't need to be up against people's houses.

So the people who actually pay the taxes and been there before, these are seniors.

So the people who are homeless and they're homeless young people, men have a right more than the seniors that live next door to that.

That's crazy.

We do not understand that we are running people out of the city of St.

Louis, mostly middle and working income, and we're just got this whole agenda about how we're gonna help people.

But you're you you don't have to have them up in the middle of a neighborhood destroying the neighborhood.

And you can come right about Covenant House also, and you see where the kids set fire to the buildings, they got graffiti, all of that attributed to the kids at Covenant House.

I'll catch catch them smoking drugs and doing drugs on the corner, but nobody says anything about let's close it.

It shouldn't have been there in the first place.

We used to have Echo's children's home.

Echo's children's home is now the home of a charter school.

We should have left that.

We did not have the problems.

They weren't uh um they had they were right up against people's houses, but now the charter school is there, and we got the uh uh uh covenant house in a little place, but it's too small, and you shouldn't have that many young boys there anyway, that age because they cause all kind of havoc.

And anybody who's saying how great it is, put your house back there.

Don't come and sleep on uh occasionally say we had a sleep in.

Nobody cares about your sleep in.

Do you care about the citizens?

But you want your mom, your dad, all the people who bought and had to fight uh restricted covenants to live there and uh and and all kinds of zoning so that they can live there, live out their days in their 80s and 90s, calling and complaining all the time because they are being uh tortured with this nuisance property that everybody thinks it's okay to be there because it's not by their house.

So again, um I don't think this is going to do anything for the real uh problems in North St.

Louis.

And I'm looking at Alderman Bowie's name, and um everybody knows about that store up on uh West Florence in her ward.

When you start tracking down all those gas stations and stuff, they all are connected to that store, which is connected to the gentleman that got removed from our board of aldermen, but the people who uh own that store, he is one of the people, and yet he is out after four months and running around this city, opening up uh uh uh laundromats now, and thank you to all the people who are uh protesting his laundromats, go to the corner of Kings Highway in West Florida, because he just opened one there, and please protest in front of that one too.

Not just the other ones, please.

Every place I find, I'm gonna, I think it's ridiculous because when these people got arrested, we see that they were not gonna be able to keep their property, and we've not done anything except for let them out after four months, and we put the gentleman from the board of aldermen in jail for a year or more, and it's ridiculous because to have had somebody uh buy somebody, you had to be the person that was doing the bribing, and they should have stayed in jail as long or longer.

And it wasn't the only charges that were against them, it was guns, illegal money, all of that.

But all of that get washed away and they get ready to try case because they don't want that to be brought up.

So we clean these people up and convict them of cigarette charges only, and they let them testify against people as though they have clean hands.

They do not, and all of that is in North St.

Louis, and it connects to the store up in the 13th ward on West Florida because when I started to do the research, every time I would look up the registered agent was there, and when I called them and talked to them, and I did not know at this time who that person was, and he had met me before trying to open up a gas station, which I said no.

I was shocked how many people uh who got these gas stations have their registered agent coming from that place.

We don't do, and Matt Moes it because he and I have gone on that journey together.

We don't do enough for North St.

Louis to get these uh instances out, and this is not gonna be enough.

Thank you.

Thank you for that Alderwoman.

I really appreciate it.

Alderman from the fifth.

Madam President, members of the board, permission to inquire of the alderman vote.

14th.

Alderman from the 14th, would you yield to questioning from the alderman from the fifth?

Yes.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Uh thank you, madam president.

Uh Alderman, uh, a couple questions with respect to clarification.

Just a couple.

Just a couple, and I I will try to keep my questions brief.

Uh, first, with respect to the petition process.

My understanding is that that was a it wasn't a requirement, but rather it was creating an option for the community to initiate action with respect to a nuisance.

Is that correct?

Correct, sir.

So, in in other words, the the avenues that currently exists still exist, but we're adding in additional process for community to become engaged.

Is that right?

Yes, sir.

I I I frankly like that part of this bill.

Uh, I think that that is an excellent way to engage the community.

And I think that's a wonderful addition to the way we we currently do things in the city.

However, this is the catch, right?

I I am concerned about the the idea of the nuisance board.

I think it's a novel idea.

I think it's very interesting.

But I do have a couple of concerns.

Yes, sir.

Uh my understanding is this is seven members, and you've identified where those folks come from.

These are essentially volunteers.

This is set up.

Is that right?

Is there compensation or are these folks appointed and then they're taking on this uh this task to serve on the board and hear these nuisances?

Yes, Alderman.

So just like most of our board in the City of St.

Louis, most of them are voluntary.

I think there's maybe a few that's compensated, but it's not a large amount.

The process will be just like the one we did for DFOB, all those members are sitting on that board because they care about the issue.

Those appointments will go through the mayor's office.

You know, they could be vetted in committee, and then if vetted in committee, they would come to the board of aldermen.

But most of our boards in the city of St.

Louis uh are all voluntary individuals who want to serve on these boards uh because they they care about uh making our city better than what it is.

Yes, sir.

And and I know you've worked closely with with Ms.

Wood and the the City Councilor's office.

Do can you educate us or explain to us the anticipated volume that the citizen board would be undertaking should this legislation pass?

Yeah, we that was one of the questions that came up in public safety, and I think Ms.

Mia Wood did a really good job explaining that.

You know, I think it it each area and neighborhood is different.

Um it just all depends on uh you know where nuisances are.

We do not expect a large volume of petitions being um signed or brought to this board.

Um but we do expect that this process would create, as you mentioned, a community process so that residents can buy in, but we're not expecting that the board will be meeting on like a monthly basis because uh there is such a high volume of signatures being collected.

So as I understand it right now, we have two chapters that that set out or provide various responsibilities to city departments to deal with nuisances.

Chapter 1542, and you mentioned this provides certain responsibilities to the uh the the Board of Public Safety.

It talks in terms of may take action.

It's actually not mandatory, which I think is is one of the issues.

Uh maybe that's what the Alder Woman from the 12th was referencing.

The the idea that there isn't a requirement for BPS to take action, and then second, Chapter 1158, which provides certain responsibilities on the health commissioner.

Is it is it your thought that should this legislation pass that it would serve that is this nuisance board would serve to supplant or replace these two provisions or these two ways that we currently deal with nuisance as set forth in chapters 1542 and 1158?

No, and I know that uh Alderman, I believe you and Alderwoman Boyd is working on bigger overhaul of the nuisance chapter.

I look at this as being uh kind of part of it where there is recommendations that can come from this board and community that can go to the corrective body to be able to deem these uh properties a nuisance or not, but not to replace them.

So in my mind, that's the problem.

That's the problem.

And the problem is that right now there seems to be a lack of direction.

Uh in other words, accountability.

The idea that there is a nuisance in a citizen, a public official, uh a city department knows which line of sight to go.

And so I think one of the problems with this is we are creating now a third wheel, and which I think potentially could lead to additional problems with respect to accountability.

In other words, who's responsible for following up with a particular matter?

Is it BPS?

Is it the health commissioner, or is it this new board that this legislation tends tends to create?

Maybe I missed it, but could you point to me within this legislation how one would determine where a particular issue goes for handling?

So the uh BPS or the Board of Uh Public Safety will be the body that is over uh the nuisance board.

So they would be kind of that body that is in charge of supporting it just like any other uh commission, they will be the board that's supporting it.

Um all testimonies, I think some of that may be addressed to you on page six of nine, kind of just talking about the hearing process.

Um, and then from that hearing, any written facts uh or information that come from that will then go to the city councilor's office, where the city counselor would make that determination.

And this is one of the concerns I do share with the alder woman from the 12th with respect to may take action.

And and in my mind, that's one of our problems as we have it today, is we have the use of the language may.

May is in Chapter 1542.

We're talking about the City Council may take action.

Again, I think one of my issues is this doesn't correct the problem that exists today, which is shall.

It doesn't, it doesn't compel or otherwise force any particular body or office to take action.

And in my mind, that leads to some of the frustration at the Alder Woman from the 12th.

And maybe I'm speaking on her behalf, and I apologize.

But but it adds, it adds to that frustration because there's no mandatory action.

Yeah.

And I think in if and if I can add to it, in this one, it does say May.

I think in our current code it says may the reason we left May in this is because we didn't want it to be if the board make a uh recommendation, it shall take action.

It still goes to the city council, and I agree with her that there are some uh you know concerns with our current city councilor, uh, which I will address in the previous or another piece of legislation, but you know, we kept that May language so that the bodies that know the best can take those decisions.

But I'm believing you will probably clean all that up next session and put shall for all those.

Uh well, I I appreciate your trust.

Uh I I truly do.

Uh part of my review, I took a look at the fiscal note, uh, and I noticed that despite the creation of this additional layer or additional process, there doesn't seem to be, at least that I could tell, any consideration with respect to staffing needs uh or or the uh any cost with respect to implementing these changes or any uh again the idea of what is the operational workload that's in place.

Those seem to be those three questions seem to be items that we didn't have answers to because of how this legislation is drafted, which didn't permit the creation of a fiscal note.

To what extent are you concerned that we are considering legislation that mandates action without necessary funding to then support the adequate implementation of this legislation?

Yeah, aren't we doing that thing that we criticize all of the time, which is telling somebody what to do without giving them the funds or the personnel to get the job appropriately?

Yeah, and I would, you know, reference you back to listening to that committee hearing in public safety where Mia brought up that she don't believe this would be a huge constraint within on the city councilor office uh to have somebody from BPS to actually, once there are hearings on this, to have somebody sit in on those hearings or for STL TV, what they currently do to record these uh hearings just like BPS or Board of Adjustments is recorded, conditional use and others.

So we didn't believe that there would be additional funding needed uh for this board that would be added.

I thank you for your patience.

Thank you, Alderman.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Madam President, members of the board, um if the Alderman from the fifth would yield.

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

I will, yes.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Um Alderman, you were expressing my sentiment of uh of um frustration.

But also my frustration is that people didn't do their jobs.

If you're the public safety director and there are shootings three months in a row at a location, would that not put you on notice to say that this probably that you would have reasonable belief that this is a nuisance property?

I uh uh Alder Woman, it would put me on notice.

And and that's one of my concerns here is what we're not doing is addressing the underlying problem.

Right now, as you know from looking at chapter 1542 as well as 1158, there isn't mandatory language.

So what we're doing, what we now do is we give those folks the ability to make the call.

I I think my concern about this is this is a feel-good provision.

This is something that gets media attention.

This is something where we're talking about citizen control and the ability to be heard, but at the end of the day, it doesn't address the underlying fundamental problem.

Okay, Alderman.

So we talk about the petition that can be uh walked for the people who are within 350 feet.

But if your own uh street and the people who live 350 feet don't say anything from the nuisance, but you're on the same street, and you're experiencing the same nuisance.

Say it's gunfire.

People, um, we have a store at Hammond Place in Euclid that we almost had closed before they tore up my ward.

And um several years ago, they left that store and went down the 4900 block of uh Cobrillion, which is a very quiet uh street, and they had gunfire and they killed three people in the middle of the street, and that uh our current city marshal, John Hay was the police chief then, and he and I talked all the time, and he grew up in the neighbor one of the neighborhoods that I represent.

And he said, Audible man, you've been trying to close that store for over 20 years.

That was the police chief that said that to me, okay?

And I'm saying his name because he knows the incident.

Um, so would you want to live on a street that limited you from signing a petition when the people went down your street and did gunfire?

This is what I'm saying about uh limiting who could sign that petition.

The neighborhood often is held uh uh at bay or uh hostage when there is a nuisance.

So wouldn't you want to be able to sign the petition if you wanted to if you're affected?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so um that's why and I want to say we didn't always have 300 feet.

We used to have 500 feet.

Um, and the other thing is that I want to bring to your attention I talked about, and you tell me your feelings.

So we have these things about nuisance properties.

So when the person then buys up the land within the 300 feet, shouldn't we uh expand that and do something different and say, okay, you bought this land up?

So now, and that's what they're doing.

So now what do we do about that when they buy up within the 350 feet?

But the nuisances are ongoing.

Well, I I I think you are you and I are on the same page here.

I I think I think that that's an issue that needs a deeper dive that isn't addressed by this legislation.

Wonderful questions.

I'm happy to talk to you about it later on, but I I don't know that that that's addressed here, which I agree is problematic.

And also, I don't know if you've uh addressed uh or read the current nuisance law, but I have and I and what I would tell you is that there's a part that says if the public safety director has reasonable belief, then they can uh shut a place down.

So why would we have to have uh anybody reporting in or anybody signing a petition if we have a police report that shows that we've had gunfire at this uh particular place, or we have uh we have had to place police uh uh cap sky captains at the place, or that kind of or we've had all kind of uh dangerous situations happen at the place.

Why wouldn't we just require instead of saying the public safety director may uh issue an order closing it?

Why wouldn't we just require them to do that?

Just what you said.

I agree.

We you you and I are on the same page.

Uh I think to the alderman from the 14th's point, what this does is it provides another avenue.

Which frankly, I do like.

I like the provision of another avenue.

But I also agree with you that in that type of situation, the ordinance, the legislation should direct that the that that the the official take action.

And so, um, and I've uh read the ordinance also that we have.

There's no place in there that gives the city council any kind of uh power that they've had a power grab with.

Okay, so when we're now giving them uh the uh uh power, I'm opposed to that because they grabbed the power that they didn't have and then gave us a requirement that well, not enough people called in, not enough people um uh signed something, but not enough people did whatever.

And I want to point out to you, we've always had a petition process.

We have it so that they can get rid of a conditional use if you didn't follow that at the board of adjustments.

So there's always been a petition process.

Larry Rice was closed with a petition process, okay?

So um, which I you move next door to a foundry, you can't complain and say I live next door to a foundry.

So I am opposed to that.

But what it do are you from you're a lawyer?

Are you?

I don't know, did you do criminal law at all?

No, ma'am, no criminal work.

Okay, okay.

So, but just um let's just talk about a neighborhood.

So you have older people that live in a neighborhood.

Um is it really realistic to believe that if somebody is living next door to somebody who is terrorizing the neighborhood, shooting guns, doing drugs, uh a really bad actor, that they're gonna sign that petition um and put their life on the line?

Uh no, ma'am.

Okay, so um I hear what you're saying um about uh that it's another avenue, but if the avenue is the same uh response that we currently have, that's my frustration, okay.

Um, and when I just told you, and again, this could easily be shared because it came from the city council's office.

How can you only have in North St.

Louis five in five years, five places that were closed down?

And in case you you weren't here, but Pam Boyd knows it in other people.

I've been talking about this ever since I got it, because it just blew me away.

In all of North St.

Louis, you have five places that you closed.

None of the businesses that I've just told you about that uh have uh uh liquor and Lucent's behaviors, they were at private houses.

How can the city how can I have trust in the city council when they were the very piece of people that did not do anything and did not recommend closing and didn't didn't do anything?

How can I then believe that they're gonna do something all of a sudden when in five years they couldn't do anything?

And then when I raised it and said, and look what I got from the city councillors, they ran over to then was the third board and they closed uh a gas station that had been called murder road uh over on West Flores and St.

Louis Avenue, and but if you go there now, that gas station is open again because that's the other thing that doesn't happen in North St.

Louis, they don't stay closed unless they blow them up.

It's not just gas stations, it's nuisance stores.

So if we're letting people reopen the bad actors, what is the what how tell me what you think the message we're sending to people?

Well, that's that's part of the problem uh is is we're not sending a good message, and that's why my belief is that effective legislation on these nuisance issues, whether it's a problem gas station or a problem uh smoke shop, whether it's an issue on the north side or it's an issue in Northampton, uh, is that it demands uh additional legislation that frankly this just doesn't touch exactly.

So I I wasn't trying to stop it.

Um I like I said, I am frightened about the part giving uh the uh city councilor any more uh power because they haven't used their power for good, and everything that I said, you guys ask, I'll give it to you, and you'll look at it.

Um I've put it on the record before, and they and I didn't get it from someplace else.

I got it from the city councilor, uh, the report of how many they had closed.

So I just thought it was outrageous, and that and that comes from people thinking that it's acceptable to leave things in North St.

Louis, and just to add something to it, I have I know people at the federal level, and I was practicing lawyer and I was a public defender.

I know those people from when there was a judges and when they were uh not city councillors, I'm sorry, circuit attorneys.

So I know these people.

So one of them said to me, but Sharon, you guys need those stores in North St.

Louis, and I said to that person, bring your family and put right by it.

And when the first bullet flies, I bet you won't say that.

I would much we don't need those stores, and often when they're trying to open up, there is a big group of people that come um to testify against these problem properties.

But we have some people who are paid by these people to be um to come and testify.

And so one of the things I also want to do is require those people to uh register as an agent, like they do in the state.

Would you have problems with that?

If we if the people who are doing these nuisance uh properties and I have some problems, if they're hiring hiring people and paying them to come and testify in their behalf, would you have problems with us requiring that they have to register them, register them as an agent?

No, ma'am.

Okay, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Oh, one other thing.

Um I want to say that the health commissioner has the most power in the city.

The health commissioner, if it's a health problem, they don't have to go through all the due process that other board of adjustment bo uh public safety, they have the most power in the city to close things down.

I just want to put that out there.

Thank you so much.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, aldermen from the 14th, you are recognized to close.

I renew my motion.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the older woman from the seventh that we perfect board bill 151.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman's wax, sir.

Alderman Odenberg.

Alderman Cone.

No.

Altum and Narayan.

Alderman to voting.

No.

Alder Woman Belasquez.

Alder Woman Sonier.

Alder Woman Coxantwee.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keith.

No.

Alder Woman Ties.

No.

Alder Woman Boyd.

No.

Alderman Aldrich.

President Green.

I have 10 aye votes, five no votes.

May your vote you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the 14th.

In fact, Board Bill 151.

Board bill number 113 introduced by Alder Woman Sanye.

And ordinance amending ordinance number 70981.

Effective July 24th, 2019 by modifying the terms of real estate tax abatement.

Alder Woman from the 7th, you're recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 113.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I would make a motion to perfect board bill 133.

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

Seconded by the Alderman from the 14th.

We perfect board bill 113.

Alder Woman per se.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

So Board Bill 113.

This was placed in place many years ago before I was Alder Woman.

It was time to have this conversation again with neighbors and residents.

We want to be a little bit more specific and narrow in scope as opposed to being able to develop any projects.

And there's actually a developer in the pipeline that we are waiting on because I have two senior buildings within that neighborhood that will be able to be rehabbed as well as some affordable family housing.

Should this pass and on this board today, they will be able to take advantage of these tax credits and be able to rehab two senior homes and build some family affordable uh town homes as well.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Alderman from the third.

I just want to uh take a moment to uh applaud my colleague from the seventh.

Um, you know, uh lately it seems as though a narrative has been that the city has been shut down for development, and uh that's not true.

You know, we've got projects happening, you know, all over the city.

Um, but these types of projects, particularly that have the low-income housing tax credit, are really important for our neighbors and provide stability for both housing and neighborhoods, and so uh I rise in support of the bill.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 7th, you're recognized closed.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board.

I would just want to thank SODC and thank residents and neighbors and the developer for coming to the table to have this discussion.

Um, I honestly learned I did with through this process that there was a such thing as kind of blank abatements being set that way, and I just really appreciate the developers who are having the conversation, and I'm really looking forward to again the rehab of those senior houses and the development of the affordable family housing and just being strategic.

I think, especially as we're trying to recover from a tornado, we have to make sure we're incentivizing the correct and correct places so that development can happen all across our city.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the seventh, seconded by the alderman from the 14th, that we perfect board bill one thirteen.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye, opposed motion carries board bill number one sixty-six introduced by Alderman Aldric, Alder Woman Clark Hubbard, and Alder Woman Keys, an ordinance approving a redevelopment plan dated September 23rd, 2025 for the Cass Avenue and I 44 area in the city of St.

Louis.

Alderman from the 14th, you're recognized on the perfection of board bill 166.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move to perfect bill 166.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alderman from the third, that we perfect board bill 166.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

This is a project I'm really excited about.

We had a great committee here in this week in HUDs.

Ms.

Janetta Hall, who has a property which is located on CAS and has been there for 16 years, is looking to develop this site that is right off uh the highway at uh Cass and kind of Tucker, but it's at the intersection of CASS and 44.

That when you hop on it turns into 44, go across Illinois.

But uh this is a really exciting project.

We're starting, or we want to start the blight process so that um she can continue to have other incentives and work with uh other groups to try to bring the package together.

We're looking at bringing a smaller version of like a convention center uh within this area.

We're talking about a kid zone, uh again, a smaller convention centers, uh some small, maybe town homes, but this has been the plans that have been in the works of five years.

And if you know Ms.

Hawkins, she uh is somebody who's very uh professional, she's somebody who is very dedicated, and this is you know, when you talk about doing um incentive projects, I think this makes uh sense to do a perfect incentive right uh in this area close to Old North that uh has kind of been overlooked for a long time.

So with that, I'll open up for any questions.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion.

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

I renew my motion.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the third that we perfect board bill 166.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye opposed motion carries.

Board bill number 169 introduced by Alder Woman Ease, an ordinance amending ordinance number 71830, effective June 1st, 2024 by modifying the terms of real estate state abatement.

Alder Woman from the 11th, you are recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 169.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board.

I move that we perfect board bill 169.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the 11th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we perfect board bill 169.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, madam.

So board bill one uh sixty-nine um is and we're trying to go ahead and get the Kempton Stay Bridge Hotel project that was approved back in I think in 2024.

Uh since that time, we've had a hole in the ground.

Um, and the um developers have had to go back and reimagine the project.

They're gonna make the Kempton Hotel bigger uh and putting the Stay Bridge hotel on hold.

Uh this is as a result of increased um material cost and and all of those things.

But what they're seeking is they went from a 75% uh abatement to a 90 uh uh 90 percent abatement, and so that is the request that they go ahead and receive uh uh an increase in the abatement and go ahead and get this hotel built.

Any further discussion?

Uh Alderman from the fourth.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Uh I've spoken on this issue ad nauseum, so I'm not gonna take much of your time, but I think this is over incentivizing yet another luxury apartment in the area.

I don't think that's what we need, and I think that we should be thinking of the effect on SLPS, and I would request a roll call.

Thank you.

Any further discussion.

Uh I'm gonna go alder woman from the 12th, and then I'll go back to you, Alder Woman from the 11th to respond.

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Um I'll yield if the Alder Woman from the 11th wants to respond to the Alderman from the 14th.

Alder Woman from the 11th.

Yes.

So this project does incentivize our St.

Louis public schools.

Additionally, uh this and this was in uh in accordance with the original board bill that so many, and I'm sorry I don't have the actual figure with me, uh, dollars that are going to St.

Louis Public Schools.

Additionally, uh there's a provision um to house people uh as they have been doing during the cold weather months as well as during the the tornado uh we experienced last year.

This group of hotels under the Kempton State Bridge umbrella uh have done what they said that they are going to do for our community.

Uh and they will continue to provide much needed housing during the cold season as well as the disaster that we are still going through.

And so uh all I can say is that you know the information that you have is not correct because that deal was in place.

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

If the other one from the 11th would yield, the older woman from the 11th yields questioning from the older woman from the 12th.

Yes, I will.

Alder woman from the 12th.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Alder Woman.

What now it's called the Kempton?

What is the name of the project?

Sure, Kempton Stay Bridge.

It's actually two hotels that were part of the original plan for them to build.

So they're going to put the Stay Bridge Hotel on hold, but slightly increase the size of the Kempton hotel.

And where is this location?

This is uh right at Jefferson Near Market.

Oh, where they tore down that used to be.

Yes, uh, wells far ago.

Um right.

So um, and so uh did I hear you say something about they let uh uh doing this cold weather, they let people stay there or will let people stay there.

Could you explain that again to me?

Yes, yes.

So that deal is in place.

Um so under their umbrella, they have a number of hotels here in the St.

Louis area.

And part of the agreement that was made under the original board bill was that during the cold weather season, uh they would house families, um, mainly with St.

Louis Public Schools children, uh, so that they would not be in the cold or as it's happened back in May with the tornado, uh, they were one of the first to step up to provide shelter in forms of hotel rooms for for people needing a place to go.

And where did they provide shelter since this is a hole in the ground?

Hotel rooms, I'm sorry.

No, but I'm just saying, other hotels around the city area, that's where they were providing them.

Because it's this this hotel is not built, is it?

No, this one isn't built, but they have other hotels under their umbrella.

That's that's here in the city.

That's what my question is.

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, and in fact, in my ward, um, there's the one right there, uh Forest Park right off of Vander Vender, and I can never remember the name of that one.

I know where you're talking about.

Okay, so this is my so I I understand uh the Ottoman from the fourth.

I really think that we I don't like that we use St.

Louis Public Schools money for uh development.

Uh and I don't like that we use our uh earnings tax for development.

Um both of those are very important, and we should treat them as such.

Um, but we do.

Um and we do it for everybody else.

But here's my other additional concern.

There are many of us who believe that the reason that the heritage house was allowed to slowly go into disrepair, was because that was in the way of a major development, and if they had left the people in the heritage house, that when you remove people, then you have to pay development costs and all of these things that if you just get them out early enough, then that goes away.

So I guess my concern is um is where is the next hotel going to be?

Is it gonna be where the heritage houses is, or is it gonna be adjacent to that uh that hotel that is uh planned right now?

No, so the Heritage House really doesn't touch this development at all.

Heritage House is on the 300 block of Olive, and so this is actually right at Jefferson.

Both of the hotels are in that area over there.

So, but but yes, I do agree with you that uh, you know, heritage house, that situation, which uh took us a very long time to navigate our way out of uh yeah, that so the building is still there.

Um I see it.

Yeah.

And my thing is I'm just the reason I'm bringing this up, uh it doesn't have to be right now because people plan for in the future.

And um, so um, you know, a lot of teachers, black teachers live there.

I had made their home there for a long time.

Uh people work for the St.

Louis public schools, and just to see them, and I know the work that you put in, okay, but um long term, once that soccer stadium was built, we start to do development and uh gentrification takes ways in a lot of places.

And if you know the laws, then you get rid of people early enough so you do not have to play this uh pay for them to be rude because our laws are pretty uh stringent, well, not stringent, but they're in place that will cover people who are there.

You have to pay a lot more money than if you just slowly empty the place out and then don't put them back in there.

So this may not be part of this development, but I think long term, ever since we put the soccer stadium, that that was a plan to get them out of there.

Um so that's my concern.

Um and my other concern was why is uh why it went from what 75% to 95%?

How where do we get that cost from?

So that and and I know you know this uh because you're a developer, as am I.

Material cost has gone through the roof.

Uh it is ridiculous, and it's like that dog is completely off the chain with with what material cost today in order to so they're trying to offset some of that that building and labor costs, uh, so that they can go ahead and get this hole in the ground into the hotel it's supposed to be.

And how long has it been sitting there now?

Um, since we did the board bill in 24.

Okay, but because they started, they tore it down in 24.

They store they tore it down and they've done some foundational work.

Right.

You're like roughing in the plumbing, you know, that plumbing always goes in first, you know.

So things like that, but in essence, you know, until they actually get the hotel, you know, going, it's a hole in the ground.

I understand, and I understand.

So I I want to tell you so uh I don't consider you have the um responsibility of representing North St.

Louis, Central Quarter, and South St.

Louis, which you shouldn't.

That is an illegal ward.

The wards are supposed to be uh compact and contiguous, okay.

And yours is not, mine is not, uh boys are not, okay.

Um so you have that uh added responsibility.

I'm weighing here about what to do about this because I really don't like I'm up with the Alderman from the fourth.

I don't really like giving that tax abatement, but I'm gonna give you the benefit of being my neighbor who I do believe that you try to do the right things most times.

So you're gonna get the benefit of that.

Um, but I would hope that from now, and I do agree that uh development that is sat for a very long time needs to uh give it an additional look through to see how you can get it going if it's been stalled.

And I have several of those projects myself, including a project where you uh with Yaffidel Mean over on Natural Bridge across from you, and which uh she's gonna build a senior building, and she lost her grocery store, and now she's found another one, and so they're gonna need some more money.

And I have care stl that I don't want to lose, so I do understand.

So you're gonna get the benefit of um yesterday and the day before I spent all day talking to people, trying to look up uh how we could find more money for them.

So you're gonna get the benefit of my work that I will be voting for this, but I'm just saying please don't vote bring too many more of these because this is too hard for me to vote for.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Woman.

Any and any further discussion?

Alder woman from the 11th, you are uh approved to close.

Thank you.

I would renew my motion.

Thank you.

It's been moved by the older woman from the 11th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th.

That we perfect board bills 169.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Schweitzer.

Alderman Oldenberg.

All right, Alderman Cohn.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sanye.

Alder Woman Cox and Tweed, Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye, Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyes.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrick.

President Green.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Aye.

14 I votes.

One no.

Are your vote you sustained the motion from the Alder Woman from the 11th to uh perfect board bill 169?

Board bill number 165 committee substitute introduced by Alderman Aldrich and President Green.

An ordinance to standardize the current authority of city departments pre-paying qualifying expenses on qualifying organizations who are under contract with the city of St.

Louis to provide the city of St.

Louis a product or service by requiring that minimum documentation is received and by installing a cap on the prepayments allowed to be given.

Alderman from the 14th, you're recognized on the perfection of board bill 165 committee substitute.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board.

I move to perfect board bill 165 committee substitute.

There is second.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 10th, that we perfect Board Bill 165 committee substitute.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Board Bill 165 is of legislation that has been worked on quite some time now.

I hope all my colleagues receive the packet on their desk.

There's been a lot of uh information and I would say a lot of misinformation on what Board Bill 165 does.

Committee subs.

I just want to talk about it.

Uh again, what Board of 165 would do, it does not create like a new power.

It just raises the standards that the state and the federal government already does by providing kind of an advanced payment up to 30% of uh up front.

With talking with a lot of uh contractors and non-for-profit individuals who do work for the city of St.

Louis, one of the struggles is you know, after getting kind of the contract that goes through ENA.

The struggle is, you know, we're not the best from uh the city government from actually paying vendors on time.

So we thought about how do we make sure that we kind of change that reputation by giving vendors who are credible vendors or contractors up front um kind of an advanced payment uh and in lieu of before doing the work.

And I would say what's really uh unique about this advanced payment process is not something not typically done.

ENA has passed multiple contracts uh to this day to give advanced payments uh if it's been the office of recovery.

Um they also do advanced payments for the supply division.

Um so this isn't necessarily a new um thing that is uh done within the city of St.

Louis.

I do want to address uh I know all my colleagues received an email from the Comptroller's office as well as uh um our city councilor Garvin on the legislation with some of the concerns.

I provided a timeline to all my colleagues uh to lay out the conversations that have been going back and forth, either with my office in my LA and the city councillor's office or with the Comptroller office, as literally just uh meeting with the Comptroller office last week on this legislation.

Um draft three of the bill, which is in front of us uh now or on the website, uh, actually came from language that we got from Nancy Walsh and Patrick from the City Councilor office.

Uh so which I found a little bit interesting that uh Garvin um came back with an opinion that some of these things were problematic, but I think we know at the Board of Alderman, it just depends on what elected official asked for an opinion, depend on how our city councilor is going to sway and make that opinion.

Um so I will say just a little disappointed because um, you know, this has been something where I will give respect to the comptroller office.

She did always say she did not uh kind of support this because of the extra burden of work it will put on their staff.

Not necessarily the uh that this would be something that is not doable because again, they already do it.

So I will continue to have ongoing conversations uh about this legislation with my colleagues.

I do not want to put anybody in a uh bad situation, especially after receiving an email from the Comptroller and the City Council last night around four o'clock.

Um and uh with that, Madam President and members of the committee, I will move to put uh board bill one sixty five committee substitute on the informal calendar.

Madam Clerk, please place bill bill one sixty five committee substitute on the informal calendar.

So noted board bill number one fifty two committee substitute as amended, introduced by Alder Aldrick and President Green, an ordinance which amends certain sections of chapter eight of the St.

Louis revised codes to streamline mobile food vendor operations.

Alderman from the 14th, you're recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 152 committee substitute as amended.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the committee or board of aldermen.

I move to perfect board bill 152 committee substitute as amended.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alder woman from the seventh that we perfect board bill 150 committee substitute as amended.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Board Billy Two Committee Substitute as amended.

I'm not gonna lie, after that last bill, this is one I'm really actually excited about.

I'm excited about the last one, but really excited about this one because this bill has been in the works uh for years now.

Um if you guys remember last session, uh a similar bill around food trucks uh that I worked on came out of committee, and then when it got to the floor due to a request of an alder person, I did put it on the informal as well as uh hearing from some of the stakeholders that was um part of that working group wanted a little bit more time.

So we paused it and we got back to work uh this session, and I want to give a huge shout out to all the individuals that was at the table of the working group.

Uh we had the restaurant association, Mr.

Bill, who's the president of the restaurant association that represents over 700 restaurants in the St.

Louis area, who supports the legislation, also the food truck president uh uh food truck president who support the legislation.

We have Mr.

Jim Dwyer from Central West End, Mr.

James Page, who's a member of Downtown DNA as well as downtown Ford, Mr.

Matt O'Leary, who's executive director of downtown forward, um, Miss Carissa Days from SLDC, a representative from GSL, uh, Ms.

Janika Hayden from the President office, Mr.

Matt Heskamp from my office, and Miss Sandy Covert from the Streets Department, where we took the legislation that we had last year that had food trucks um citywide and really honed in on locations.

The goal always for doing legislation around food trucks is there's so much red tape on uh uh of uh our food trucks being able to operate.

I think one of the things that came out of committee that also is a problem is even before the operations, the licensees is an issue.

They have to get like four different licenses, but we're not touching that this year.

We're just touching the operations so that we can cut the red tape so that more food trucks can operate within the city of St.

Louis before we go into sort of changing the licensee process.

So the changes that we made this year from going from a citywide is we created food truck market vending districts.

And I want to just highlight some of those uh food truck market uh districts or some of the food truck markets, it's not districts.

So we created one that will be on uh Cherokee commercial vending district, which starts at the intersection between Jefferson and Louisiana, only between the curb lines of Cherokee Street and the first of the alley.

So Cherkey Street is very unique, and I know the Alder Woman from the 7 can talk about that as you go down Cherokee Street uh next and outside of those businesses.

There is some uh street parking, but and then there's an alley that go into residential.

We really wanted to make sure in this legislation that we stay away from residential and also stay away from brick and mortars as much as possible because we know that our brick and mortars are struggling to stay open.

And while I believe competition is important, we did want to take into account to stay away from as brick as mortars as possible.

Uh city park vending markets is actually already in the code that exists, so we kept that in there.

We just created a definition.

We are creating a new commercial vending district that would be on the right of way of Market Street between the intersection of 8th and 8 South 8th Street, going all the way up to South 16th Street.

So for all my city hall folks that you know look to have some food options.

Hopefully, very soon, there'll be some food trucks outside of Market Street so that people can have a little bit of more variety of food options.

We worked with uh the grand uh center as well as got input from the Alder Woman from the 11th, where we're looking at adding McPherson Avenue at the intersection of Lindell and Vandevender and in the public right-of-way among Washington and at the intersection of North Leonard and North Teresa.

And also want to give a thank you to the Alder Woman from the 7th ward who created an area within the Seular market with after talking to uh her res 8th ward uh without talking to her with talking to her residents of where we could create one within that.

I made sure I try to talk to as many alders as possible to see uh if alders would like to have kind of a food market within their area.

I got some feedback from some that would like the idea, maybe not at this moment, want to see how it plays out, as well as others that you know said maybe not right now in our area, totally respect it.

One of the changes that we are doing from the food truck ordinance also is food trucks that are able to operate currently from 6 a.m.

to 11.

We changed that where they will be able to operate from 6 a.m.

to 1 p.m.

Again, giving more people uh options to be able to grab food in these areas that we really want to focus on that don't have a lot of options of food.

And uh that's pretty much a lot of the changes of the bill.

Again, uh, I appreciate uh everybody who's been at the table with this.

It's been a long uh process in the making.

This is just the start.

There is language in the bill that say we will come back in a year to be able to review uh this legislation.

There's also a change that uh we added in there that allows or that we will be putting decals on the side of each food truck so that there's a QR code to be able to scan to know what the food truck is, as well as adding a um a complaint system.

So just in case if a food truck is not operating properly, there will be a process where people can be able to reach out and complain and say, hey, this food truck is you know operating outside of the hours or operating outside of the vending districts.

With that, I will open up for any questions.

Any further discussion?

Alder woman from the 11th.

Thank you, madam president.

I don't have any questions, but I am in supportive of this.

Uh this particular bill has created a very active, very vigorous uh conversation about food trucks in the area.

Um we were able to work with Grand Center, Midtown, Downtown West, in order to come to an agreement about a closing time.

So when we talk about food uh trucks in the areas that I just mentioned, um basically an entertainment district, right?

And so oftentimes when people are leaving the Fox, you know, 9 30, 10 o'clock, 11 or whatever, or the Symphony, you know, they want to get a bike to eat, but they don't want to have to try to go further out to a down, you know, the uh sit-down restaurant, maybe somewhere in the county to try to get a late night meal.

Um, and so the areas that I mentioned have come to an agreement that they are uh all right with uh the food trucks um and the hours of operation.

So I'm just rising in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board.

If the alderman from the 14th, we yield.

The alderman from the 14th yields questioning from the older woman from the 12th.

I will.

Alder women, you may proceed.

Thank you.

You and I had a conversation, and I you know, I told you I'm not a food truck fan of because one of the few places in North St.

Louis that you could go late at night up on Natural Bridge and have brick and mortar and and have a uh uh kind of a choice of getting subway, McDonald's, Burger King, and I guess I shouldn't do a commercial, but fast food.

Um other parts you don't have that on Natural Bridge.

So I've been very protective of them.

Um in fact, we don't have uh any kind of vending in the Kingsway East, Kingsway West, Pen Rose, Mark Twain, my original uh first ward, we got lit up vending over the years.

Um, but we still sometimes have problems with people who get a vending license or truck uh license and think that they can do the uh that they're properly in the location when they're not.

Is there something on the license or something that will make them understand that this uh particular license uh for them to have a food truck does not extend to every area?

Yes, ma'am.

So again, Ms.

Sandy Cover, who's from the streets department who's been working with us on when we establish these vending uh districts, also within partnership, we've had the food truck association, it's gonna be very clear where they are able to vend.

Only exceptions that are in the bill or special event.

So uh when we shut down like Washab Street, and if they want to um you know have a food truck, there's still ability to have it, but they're only able to vend in those certain areas.

And that language that you talked about and the ordinance that you did for Kingsway East and Kingsway West is still in the legislation.

We did not change that at all.

I know.

Um, and I'm one of the ones that told you that as we're doing a plan for Martin Luther King now that we might in um some parts of Martin Luther King want to have a food truck uh court or vending area.

Okay, so I did tell you that.

But so um going to going back to what I was talking about.

So will there be specific language language saying you cannot, these are places that do not allow vending or something because they really do think when I tell them if I've drive up on somebody and they're in the area and I'm just like you can't do that.

And I don't want to call the police, I'm trying to tell them there's something on their license that would make them aware because they they're not doing it intentionally, but they really do think that they have a license, and so they're allowed to do this.

So it's nothing that would be particularly on their license because one of the issues that we will have to clean up in the code uh next year when I come back to work on it is that licensees and honestly the whole code because this code for food trucks has been amended like 20 something times.

Um, but when you get a license for a food truck, you have to get a uh a city business license.

And this has been very frustrating for Ms.

Mavis Thompson, which now our licensed collector, she's created a checkoff list.

Outside of getting a license from the license collector, you have to go to the health department if you're selling food that makes sense to get a safety for food.

You have to go to streets to be able to get a street license to be able to operate on the streets.

Then you have to go to the fire department to get a fire suppression license so that you can be able to operate.

So there's nothing on their license that uh, and we're not touching the licenses yet, just the operations.

There's nothing on their license that say where they can operate, but I will point you to page 13 of 21.

One of the changes that we also changed in the bill is it originally said they had to be 150 feet away from brick and mortars, just like you talked about those brick and mortars on natural bridge.

We want to keep as many brick and mortar stores as we can from natural bridge to the ones on Washaf.

Well, we made it very clear that these food trucks are only able to operate in those zones that are uh identified in the bill above that little exemption that says operate within a designated vending mark that is not located on a principal arterial street.

That language isn't there just to talk about like Cherokee Street because it's very unique, but we made it very clear that they are only able to operate in these zones.

They we kept um an exemption for the wharf district.

The wharf district is down there at the arch where they sell the lemonade and popcorn as well as Bush Stadium because that's private land, but it's uh very clear, and uh once hopefully this go into effect.

Uh Ms.

Sandy is uh in full support to making sure that they're aware of these are the only zones that they can operate in, as well as the food truck know that these are the only zones that they can operate in and made it very clear on the legislation as well as they're the only ones.

And if you look at page five of 21 on line 11, we also said it that uh these are the designated markets, shall be the only area.

So I know that was something that Alderman from the uh fifth talked about that may and shall the shallows in this language say these shall be the only places they're able to operate.

Okay, and and so I guess it doesn't have to be the license, but when Sandy issues or somebody issues, then there needs to be maybe a handout or a map saying these are the only places uh it doesn't have to be on the license, it needs to be something that explains to them because they're not gonna get this legislation out and read it, okay?

So um it could be color-coded or whatever, but it needs to be something to make them clearly understand these are the limited places that they can operate.

Yes, ma'am, and I know once we uh you know finally pass, we're already looking at and working with Sandy on those decals.

And like I say, the the great thing is we had the partnership of the restaurant association at the table where we do plan to do kind of a campaign to let folks know these are the new vending districts.

I'll talk with her as they're going to be going through the license uh food trucks to follow up and let them know this is uh you have to come in and get these decals and also let them know these are the only areas that they can't operate in.

Ms.

Sandy's been great to work with, so um, that's something of a printout as they come in and get these new decals that I'll work with her to see if we can make sure that it's very clear these are the only vending districts outside of what the legislation says.

And then also, um, so I've always had to send it to the police because they don't know.

So when we get this done, I would hope that you all would send it over to the uh police to disseminate because when I call them, they're like, oh no, they can do it, because they're just like the people saying they can.

And then I have to send them over my legislation.

So I'm I was hoping maybe if you got something that's scanned, that they could just stay and have something that would scan the truck and be able to say these are where they are allowed or something, so that it could be much easier because people are not going to read the legislation, and often the police don't understand the legislation.

So um that could be worked out in the streets department.

So I have no further questions except just statement to make sure they understand where they are allowed and where they are not.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Audible.

Alder woman from the 13th.

Uh yes, uh, Alderman uh from the 14th.

I don't have a question.

I just have a comment because by old war, the 27 was impacted by uh trucks coming in, and we were not vending.

But since I have acquired a larger ward, it's a certain areas that can be vending.

But to Autumn Thais question, they do give them maps because I had to shut a guy down, and he showed me the package, and it's a it's maps in there to tell you where you can have vendors, and so uh that they do have that.

It's just people don't pay attention to them, and she's correct, and the police are totally oblivious to it.

They have no idea.

When Hayde was the chief and give him the ordinance and say, you can this is a non-vending area, they can't sell here.

So that is correct.

And so I'm glad you all are putting in detail, but I just think it needs to be publicized and marketed so people understand it's certain areas and certain wars, it's no vending.

And in the old 27, it's still no vending over in this area.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alderwoman.

Alder Woman from the 8th.

All right.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um, I too just wanted to rise in support of this legislation and commend the Alderman from the 14th for his efforts on getting it to this point.

Um, as he mentioned in his remarks, uh, and similar to the Alder Woman from the 11th remarks, for those of us that have these high traffic tourist-based and interesting base areas, it is truly an asset to be able to have clarity for food truck vendors and vendors to know where they can vent.

And it's also an asset to anyone that's coming into our neighborhoods, shopping, spending money to be able to uh just participate and have alternative sources for getting food.

So uh I think this legislation is hugely beneficial uh to the entire city to be able to trial this period.

Um, and I also think that as he mentioned, we will have a one-year trial period.

So as we see how these things work, as we educate the community about where they can and cannot vent.

Uh, I think we will learn and be able to further improve this legislation as well.

So I also too just wanted to give my support for it.

Alder Woman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President Board.

Um, I would echo every the Alder Woman from the 8th uh just uplifted.

Uh I would really commend the Alderman of the 14th.

Uh he came to me very diligently several times.

We talked very in-depth about the insides and outsides of the bill.

He was willing to come talk to the Cherokee Improvement District.

Um, it's definitely a robust conversation, and it was very interesting just to see the citywide um perspectives.

And I think he's done a good job at finding a frame that allows the folks who are in leadership in our governing communities to kind of figure out what might make sense.

And so I just wanted to get on the mic and thank the alderman from the 14th.

Um, thanks to the folks within the seventh ward who came to the table to have this discussion for me.

And I just want to uplift that I know my constituents are really excited about the prospects of having a place to go to go and get themselves a taco or a burger or a steak.

Um, we are excited about being able to help on Cherokee Street.

We've had many businesses that started as food trucks and then were able to elevate to brick and mortars.

Um, and even at certain hours, there are times where majority of the kitchens close at 10 p.m.

And so now to have places that will be operating um that not serving food and then to be able to have food.

Um, I think we're very very much looking forward to it, and I commend the aldermen of the 14th for finding that delicate balance and requested with request to be added as co-sponsor.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

Noted.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion.

Seeing none, then alderman from the 14th, you are recognized to close.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the committee.

Uh again, I just want to thank a lot of my colleagues here at the board and the partnership of the individuals that was at the working group.

Anytime you can have the restaurant association and food truck association on the same page, agreeing on policy.

I think is a win-win.

This I think is a good step forward of cutting red tape for food trucks.

This is not the end.

Again, uh, we have to come back and look at that licenses because there is a lot of red tape on how individuals within food trucks be able to get their license.

Um, but I just again uh I think this is a start.

This legislation's been worked on for a while, and I think uh this shows that sometimes uh you don't always have to get it done the first year or the second year, but continue to try to plug away at it.

Um, thank everybody from your office, madam president, uh, my staff, uh Miss April, uh, the working group, Mr.

Jim, Mr.

James Page, Mr.

Matt O'Leary, Miss Carissa Davis, um, Miss Sandy, people from the uh city of St.

Louis that worked on it, as well as the alder people who uh gave input on where they would like to see this in their wards.

Hopefully, when we come back in a year, we can expand it to more areas throughout the city of St.

Louis.

And with that, I renew my motion.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we perfect board bill 150 committee substitute as amended.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed motion carries.

Board bill number 138 introduced by Alder Woman Sany, President Green, Alderman Cohn, Alder Woman Sweitzer, Alder Woman Keys, Alderman Browning, Alderman Aldric, and Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

And ordinance declaring moratorium until January 31st, 2031 on all approvals for non-municipal detention facilities proposed within the city of St.

Louis, including the approval of building permits, special use permits, plan review, project plans, and development plans where the subject matter of the project is a proposed non-municipal detention facility.

Alder Woman from the 7th, you are recognized on the perfection of board bill 138.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I would like to make a motion to perfect board bill 138.

Second.

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

Seconded by the Alderman from the 14th.

For fact board bill 138.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I think the summary is really a great, just a great summary for what this bill proposes.

It is a moratorium until January 31st, 2031 on the approval of non-municipal detention facilities across city boards and city departments.

We had a very robust conversation in the HUDS committee about this.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Alderman from the fifth.

Madam President, members of the board, uh permission to inquire of the alder woman.

Alder Woman from the 7th, would you yield to questioning from the alderman from the fifth?

Absolutely.

Alderman, you may proceed.

I I think I generally understand the purpose of this particular bill, but but for the record, why propose it?

What what are we concerned about or what are you concerned about here?

Um we are concerned about putting non-municipal detention facilities in place without having the time to evaluate how they will impact the public health, the public safety, and public well-being of our residents.

Um so we just want to proactively put something in place that would be a moratorium to have this conversation, you know, again, a very proactive conversation so that we can make sure that our development priorities and things we put in place align with our values.

Is as we stand here today, are you aware of any plan or any proposal to create such a facility?

No.

Um as you as we stand here today, are uh can we comment on our capacity within the city of St.

Louis to house such a facility?

Um yeah, we can definitely comment on that.

I would say, you know, um, you know, one of the things that was discussed in HUDs by many of the community groups is just a large expansion of detention facilities that we've seen across our country um, you know, really since the beginning of last year.

Um, and then I would say too that knowing that one of these facilities were proposed um in Kansas City, which is what you know inspired their conversations, it was going to be at a warehouse site there, and just knowing that unfortunately some of the policies and solutions that leaders are proposing right now point to detainment as a solution.

Um, this gives us just the opportunity to kind of proactively do it.

It is honestly a little difficult to predict the future of what can and can't be done and where they would and would go.

I would say that there's an active will right now where we've seen these detention facilities increase exponentially and be used in ways that we've not seen them use previously.

So this is a proactive measure just to kind of get ahead of any of those possibilities.

Well, I I hate to be a killjoy again.

I feel like that's kind of my role here today.

But but it sounds to me like we're concerned about the federal government uh wanting to open one of these facilities in the city of St.

Louis.

Is that right?

I'm concerned about everyone, but I do want to be clear that we don't have the ability to proceed the federal or state government.

What we do have the ability is to put things in place that private companies um and private developers, we we do have the ability to tell those folks no.

And so while I have my strong opinions about what our federal government or our state government will be doing, I don't want to misspeak on the authority that we have or on the authority of this bill, which is why we're focusing on land use, which is given to us by our state constitution and to us as a St.

Louis City Charter Constitution City, but we cannot override other levels of government.

We can say to a private developer or a private entity that we're you know, we're not interested in this sort of facility.

Well, I I understand when we talk about a private developer or a private entity, but we all know that absent the federal government being interested in such a thing, it that that's not going to happen.

Um I I guess my concern here is are we opening a can of worms?

Are we creating an issue talking about an issue when as we stand here today?

None of us can point to a proposal, uh discussion, even the threat of one of these things in the city of St.

Louis, or for that matter, our capacity to house one of those things today.

Again, this seems to me like we're opening a can that we don't have to do.

Why draw this attention?

I think the statement you just made is subjective to your own analysis and how you feel about it.

I think there are many residents, many different folks who do work for these marginalized communities that are gravely concerned that the city of St.

Louis is whether any other place across our state or across our country could be at risk of these facilities.

Um again, I keep mentioning the word proactive.

I keep mentioning clear land uses for purpose, but I think to say that you know we're not at risk and there's nothing to point to that.

I think that's very subjective.

I think there are things across the country, um, and I might actually point us to Utah and 25 other states across our country that have permitted uh detention facilities for the sake of involuntary service commitments, which is actually what you call it when you would detain individuals who are unhoused for being unhoused.

So again, I I do feel, and the reason why I sponsor this legislation is that I would rather us have this conversation proactively, I would rather us have this in place.

We can't supersede what anybody else is going to do uh but for the residents and folks and business owners that I represent that do have a sense of fear and anxiety about decisions being made, this is something that is within our authority to do that gives us the ability to say that we're not interested, that's aligned with the power that we actually have.

But I am deeply concerned about the possibility of having these facilities there.

And I hope that what you're saying is true is that we don't have a need for this.

That would be my dream and my hope.

I hope we we don't need this to be honest.

Um, but if anything comes up, this being in place, I think could be something that helps us proactively.

I I understand the concern, and I hear you.

And and I get that one of our jobs is to speak to and address those concerns.

It seems to me, and again, I hate to be the killjoy, but absence evidence, absent some suggestion, absence something concrete that we can point to, it seems like instead of dealing with the concerns and tamping the concerns down, are we in in in a way feeding those concerns by by addressing this and having today?

So do you feel like us having this knowing that there was a facility that was potentially going to put in place a Kansas City, you don't see that as a tangible example of a concern?

That's why I asked a question of you of is there a facility in the city of St.

Louis that could even serve as the possibility, a a potential place for one of these kind of things.

And and that's why I asked the question, and I didn't hear an answer to it.

I do.

I mean, uh again, um, the place where it was proposed in Kansas City was at a warehouse site.

We do have industrial land here, and also when you expand um when you put policies and practices in place that require you to exponentially expand the folks you have detained, even places you wouldn't previously consider, you have to begin to consider because you you have more folks you're detaining, and that that is exploding exponentially, and not even just for one community, but you know, for others as well.

I I understand.

Thank you.

Order woman from the older woman from the eighth.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President.

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

Madam Clerk, please note that the Alder Woman from the Eighth would like to be added as a sponsor to board bill one 52.

Is that correct?

38.

138.

Thank you.

So noted.

Uh Alder Woman from the 12th.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President, members of the board is the other woman from the 7th.

With the alder woman from the 7th, you'll alder woman from the 12th for questions.

Yes, ma'am.

Alder woman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Alder Woman, um, so one of the questions I had was the Alderman from the fifth asked was that had we had any um kind of situation where we thought someone was uh going to put a non-municipal detention facility in the area and sending your ass is we have not, right?

Correct.

There's nothing that you know of.

Correct.

Okay, have did we in the past um that you know of, if has anybody ever had a non-municipal detention facility in the city of St.

Louis that you know of?

Not that I know of.

Um yeah, no, not that I know of, and not a part of any any conversations that we have as a as a city.

And as you said now, if somebody wanted to have a facility, if the federal government wants to come in here and have a facility or the state, we couldn't stop that, correct?

That's correct.

Um I would note that I do think these types of measures and these types of policies do, you know, they kind of send a clear message so that when people are looking for places, that in itself may deter them.

But of course, we do not have the authority to see the state nor the federal government.

Okay, and when you can you um explain for people who don't know, what is a non-municipal detention facility used for?

Um, it's used for the detainment, confinement, or incarceration of um in certain, you know, population.

Um there is a history that we used to have that we are kind of walking away from, and their scope is actively being expanded as far as the purposes, but the purpose is that that is something besides that municipality, so someone other than City of St.

Louis putting in place a detention detention facility for the purpose of detaining or incarcerating a specific um you know population or group of individuals.

And so um is it uh that they do youth?

Is it that they do a certain uh ethnic group or uh are all of the above?

Um currently there is all of the above that is happening across our country.

Uh again, I I think how this used to operate and how it's operating now is quite differently.

But right now there are um youth being held in detention facilities, there are um unhoused individuals being held in detention facilities, and so there are no, you know, no, that not necessarily a set group, and it is something that uh any group could become uh subject to, especially because of specific practices that are happening right now.

So um, but I don't understand um what the impetus would be to put a uh non-municipal facility in um because if the government can just do it themselves, why would they want to pay somebody to privately do that?

I know that happens, I've known about it in the South.

They used to put black men in these things that they couldn't find them.

You have to try to find them.

But um, and I know some places along some of the borders where they have a large Hispanic population, there have been indication of things happening like that.

And but in Chicago, we had a facility that we found out that was run by the police.

Um, and it was a it's been made into a movie and everything else, but it was a municipal facility that they just kept hidden away.

What is the reason that you would want someone would want to have a non-municipal instead of just having the federal government or the state money and let them uh uh be the people in charge of it?

Well, you know, in our city, I think the reason someone might is they might suspect that official city entities might approve might not be approved attention facilities for the purposes intended.

Um I think that would probably be the motivation right now for someone wanting to go the non-municipal route.

My purpose isn't tailoring us in the non-municipal route is that I do think should the city of St.

Louis should we decide that that's something we pursue.

That should be its own conversation, and that should be you know our authority.

Um, but as far as non-municipal entities being interested, there are a lot of private concerns, private uh interested parties, and also a lot of opportunity for private profit um that are motivation behind that.

So what I hear, and I'm just gonna be truthless, that I hear this is uh a liberal progressive agenda, um, not really based on um in the city of St.

Louis any real fact.

I don't know about Kansas City, but in the city of St.

Louis, and it kind of reminds me when the people first came down saying close the workhouse.

And I was one of the first people saying that is ridiculous because I had dealt with uh the workhouse as an attorney with the public defenders.

Um we built this current city uh a jail that's downtown now.

I was the chair of public safety.

I knew why we built it.

I knew it was not for long-term holding.

Um I knew that we put we built it so we could put federal uh prisoners there.

And so the people who came didn't have a lot of information, and we ended up tearing down part of the workhouse in which the former mayor before Mayor Jones had spent like seven or eight million dollars on uh repairing the workhouse.

And now many of the people who thought they knew everything about what they would talk about come to me and they will say, Sharon, we were wrong.

Really?

You were wrong, but can you give me my seven million dollars back?

Um I don't like to attach my wagon to this thing of uh, oh well, this is the progressive agenda, you have to be with it.

I like facts.

They absolutely had no facts.

They would not listen to anything.

Closing the workhouse has not been a daggum thing because more way more people have been uh uh killed or have died in the current facility.

And I remember all the woman from the 13th, who was then the older woman of the 27th, challenging people to say, uh maybe she had become the 13th by that time, but challenging the ultimate from the 14th and said, Well, and he was pushing this agenda, and she said, Well, what are we gonna do about downtown?

Because they've had more deaths than out at the workhouse, okay?

So um I have to, I guess I'm kind of agreeing with the alderman from the fifth about I just don't see the agenda.

Um, I don't see the reason or the rationale.

I do understand um not agenda, that's not a correct word, because I do see the agenda, and I know that they did it in New York, and then now we're doing it in Kansas City, and now we're doing it in St.

Louis, but we're not all the same cities.

Everything doesn't work the same way.

I just can't even believe that that it was something they would try to put into the city.

Um, and they'd have to go through a lot of uh red tape.

And what I wish we they would do is concentrating on all those people who push, close the workhouse, put their money up, and then we could because we still got part of the workhouse, and we could figure out a way to use the workhouse because the auto one from the 13th is in her war, but I have butt right to it, and just the ignorance that came from the closed workhouse people I we talked to them about it was that oh, that workhouse is so far out, and they don't even know.

I said it's right across the street from Benton on Fajal Street.

They don't even know because they hadn't even been out there, they were just part of a thing, and then the whole closed workhouse was based on a lot of us's experience of one person who had had a bad uh uh uh thing that happened to them in the workhouse.

But you don't make laws, like you don't change laws how people get elected.

You don't make laws like how people are locked up or where they locked up.

You should not.

I don't say you don't, because in the city of St.

Louis, we have.

We made a law about one person's cry about what happened to her in the workhouse.

We made a law and changed so that we can't run as Democrats or Republican based on the fact that they wanted to show our generals to be able to run that they didn't want.

Uh you got uh they didn't want anybody to be able to run against her, and they didn't want anybody to split the vote.

So we don't um make realistic laws a lot of times, and by the time we look up and it does work, it costs the citizens a lot of money.

I don't hear anything uh about anybody from any source, including you saying, well, this is what they're trying to do in um St.

Louis.

I don't know what happened in Kansas City of why they decided they wanted to be in Kansas City, except for that.

I do know that Kansas City has a much larger Hispanic population because I used to live in Kansas City for four years.

So they have a larger Hispanic population, so I don't know what that is, but we don't have nearly Hispanic population.

So I don't I just don't I don't see the need for this uh legislation except for to uh tell your fellow progressives slash regressors that this is what we're doing, and I think we ought to be uh concentrate more on how we gonna rehab the workhouse and put it back to use so that we are not having all these people down there in a place that all the people who push that should all be ashamed of themselves and they should be coming out openly to say we didn't know what we're talking about, and we want to find out how we can fix the workhouse, not try to figure out how we can prevent something that doesn't even sit on the horizon.

And I will say sometimes you can speak things into truth.

Um, we never had in my community a problem with short-term rentals until we came down here and passed that bill, which many of us that represent North St.

Louis was supposed to.

The bill got stopped in court, but now we have short-term rentals and all the problems that that were downtown, parking, people who don't know how to use but dumpster, noise.

Now we have that.

We did not have that because people did long-term rentals.

So sometimes you should be careful about what you try to prevent, and you're saying you're being pro-active, then you look up and people come uh to do it.

And um, if you don't have the right kind of legislation, which we didn't for short term rental, the only thing will happen is that uh they will go to court and there may be a state issue, and then you will get it.

So um to me, it just should be much more information saying this is what has happened, this is the long-term effect of what has been going on, not that we just want to be proactive for a year, because I really do think it sounds just like close the workhouse.

Um, and I'm not gonna be supporting it.

Thank you.

Alder woman from the sixth president.

Um, I just want to, I know this board has uh done a lot to try and protect the immigrant Americans.

Sometimes what affects this community um when people are afraid to go outside, when people are afraid to get their groceries and people are afraid to go to work.

Sometimes their needs are more of a whisper than a shout.

And as we move to this next session, I would just urge us to continue to really listen deeply to the needs of the community.

They may not be as um obvious or loud as uh some of us are used to hearing, but that's where the solutions really come from.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, the older woman from the seventh, you are recognized to close.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board.

Um, you know, uh the workhouse was mentioned, which is interesting because again, that is a municipal facility, and so I know the workhouse actually came to a vote by the Board of Alderman, and I believe that all 28 members did vote for closing of the workhouse, and I think that's really important because that's its only relevance to this conversation, is that what we put in our city should be our say.

And I just want to ground us in the fact again that we are a constitutional charter city, we get to make decisions over our land use, and that's what this legislation is about.

Um, in terms of responding to being progressive or regressive.

Um, in terms of responding to being progressive or regressive, what I think is really interesting about this particular bill is I've actually heard from several people across Democratic and Republican lines, across party lines, who are very much in favor of this legislation because when things get to a point where they're operating unconstitutional, and some might or um argue even barbarically, um, that tends to create a type of unison amongst people.

And so what I really would encourage us to think about as we take this vote is as we talk about overhauling overhauling our zoning code.

I have not heard a single resident of the city of St.

Louis say what we need is another non-municipal detention facility, and that is all we are voting on today.

There is no mention of any other level of government in this legislation, there's no mention of any federal enforcement agency.

This is just simply a question of what we do and don't want to permit in our city, and I believe that we do not want to permit non-municipal detention facilities.

If you watch the hearing, it happened, and I know someone mentioned the size of our immigrant population.

Again, I don't want us to narrow the scope of who could be detained, but also I do come from a community that does have a lot of immigrants who I'm so happy to represent, who are great contributing members of our society who run businesses, who have families and deserve a place in within our city.

And I think this legislation and our support of it will reinforce our support for them, and that we want to keep this city a place for all and not some, and we want to keep this conversation going about what we can do to truly protect all of our residents.

Thank you.

And with that, I would like to renew my motion.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the seventh, seconded by the alder woman from the 13th.

That board bill 152 or sorry, 138.

Uh, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Schweitzer, Alderman Aldenberg, Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan.

Aye.

Alderman Devotee.

No.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sanye.

Aye.

Alder Woman Coxantweed.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyus.

No.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldric.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

12 eye votes.

Three no's.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alder Woman from the 7th to perfect board bill 138.

That is the extent of board bills for perfection.

Report of engrossment.

Board bill number 119 has amended on the floor.

155.

66 committee substitute and 167.

Third reading and final passage of board bills consent.

Board bill number 119 as amended on the floor.

Board bill number 155.

That is the extent of third.

Third reading, final passage of board bills consent.

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

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I move that we adopt the third reading finally passage of board bills on consent count.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the 10th, seconded by the alder woman from the 11th.

That we third read and finally pass board bills on the consent calendar.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Cohn.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sanye.

Alder Woman Cox and Tweet.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrick.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Oldenberg.

14 eye votes.

By your vote, you have sustained the motion from the Alder Woman from the 10th to third reading, finally pass the affordable bells.

Third reading and final passage of board bells.

Board bill number 66 committee substitute introduced by Alderman Cohn, President Green, Alder Woman Sanye, and Alderman Aldrick.

An ordinance amitting 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 3.160.030, including a cerebrality clause.

Thank you, Madam President.

I would move that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 66 committee substitute.

That we third read and finally pass board bill six committee substitute.

Alderman.

Is there any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, uh Madam Clerk, if you could please it's been moved by the Alderman from the third, seconded by the Alder Woman 7th.

Are we third reading finally pass Board Bill 66 committee substitute?

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Alder Woman Schweitzer.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman DeVote.

Alderwoman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sanye.

Alder Woman Coxy and Twee.

Alderman Browning.

No.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderwoman Keys.

Aye.

Alderwoman Tyus.

Aye.

Alderwoman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrick.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Oldenberg.

13 eye votes.

Two no's.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alder uh Alderman from the third to third read and finally pass Board Bill 66 committee substitute.

Board bill number 167 introduced by Alderman Aldrich.

Alder Woman Cox and Twee.

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

Louis for certain private events or trade shows.

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

Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the third reading of final passage of Board Bill 167.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I'll move Board Bill 167.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 11th, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 167.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I think there was uh also like the Alderman from the third said a lot of conversation around this bill um last week, so I won't belabor it too much and I renew my motion or I open up for any discussion.

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Madam President, members of the board.

Um, I don't really have any inquiry from the Alderman from the 14th.

I just want to say um I had I have done more um uh deep diving into this ordinance and especially about looking into and exploring smoking routes, which if you're gonna do this exception, they ought to be in smoking booths.

Uh if we're gonna do an exception after all the work we've done over the last 35 years to get to a non-smoking, then it should be limited, and that if you want to try to uh get those people to come into a convention center, they have smoking booths that work a much better than to say, well, uh we're gonna let them smoke in the whole convention center or the part where they're having the convention, and by the way, the employees that would normally be working there cannot be can opt not to get a paid.

Why don't we, if we're going to do this, use us smoking booth that should be done.

It should not be an open thing.

Um we can have them, we can use them when we need them, put them away.

Um, but they uh uh restrict that smoke to a much smaller space, and it also gives the employees the option who obviously, if they're working at the convention center more than likely need their paychecks to be able to collect a paycheck and not be exposed to smoke.

Um, because I would not want my paycheck or my health to be uh I have to do um a weighing to figure out which one is better.

Um, when I was the chair of street traffic and refuge, I actually took my committee to uh the tow lot and um we were investigating what was going on at the tow lot.

But what I found is that the tollot itself was so horrible that I told they need to file a complaint.

If we don't require there to be uh booths, smoking booths, then I think that the people who work at the convention center should uh file a complaint because there's no reason for us to give a blanket exception to the law.

And um, again, I will be voting against this.

I don't think this is a good idea.

We're changing um something that we fought really hard for.

Um, and and for all the people who sent us all the uh emails and stuff, we already get it.

The people who voted no, we get it.

It is very hard on people's help for smoking.

And if we can do something to limit it even more, that's what we should do.

I have nothing else to say.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Alderman from the ninth.

So thank you.

Um so my understanding is that uh this bill is intended to bring a new type of convention to the city, uh, one that'll attract more economic economic activity for the city, get more people at the downtown, uh, seeing our wonderful city.

I love when people come and visit here and follow.

Hello?

There we go.

Um I I didn't say anything last week because we were perfecting this bill and I understood that to be the intent, and I do agree with the goal of of getting more people to come here and experience our city.

Uh but the debate last week did leave me with some questions.

And so um would the alderman from the 14th yield for questions.

The Alderman from the 14th yields questioning from the Alderman from the 9th.

Yes.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Alderman.

So as I said, I I see the intent of this bill and I agree with it.

And even though I'm I'm not supporting it, um, I wanted to dig into it a little further because I I do have some concerns that got brought up.

Um page two, line 10 of this bill says a convention facility as defined by this ordinance.

How is convention facility defined in this ordinance?

So if you actually go to the original ordinance that we're mending by Alderwam and Crusin, there's several uh locations that are not being allowed to smoke in, and that ordinance does not say the convention center, says convention facilities.

So since we're amending the Smoke Clean Air Act, we're taking out convention facilities, which would be the convention center.

Okay, so I did go to that ordinance uh and I did look at it, and it doesn't actually define convention facility.

Uh so my this matters, you know, because the original convention facility in our city was actually Stiefel Theater.

Uh and without a definition, I'm concerned that this exemption could really apply to other facilities.

We also just passed a board bill earlier today.

Uh we perfected it to create a new convention facility, a tenth and cast.

Exciting project, but it I'm concerned is there's a possibility that this could apply to other convention facilities.

Uh furthermore, I think America Center is actually four different buildings.

And I am wondering which of those buildings or where this board bill would allow smoking within the uh America Center.

So it would allow it, uh, would it be an exemptive?

It could be anywhere but working with Brad Dean, just like where they hold their shows, they wouldn't go to the uh the uh the the stadium part of it and have people there having showrooms.

They have designated showrooms um that Brad Dean has already identified to be able to use those showrooms to be able to have it.

So in the legislation again, since the previous ordinance says convention facilities, it didn't say in the previous legislation also that when the American Center was around and this was passed that it can't be in this section of the convention center or that section, we're just appealing it so that it's very clear that it's appealed.

But working with Brad Dean and the individuals that are going to do this, while the convention center in American Dome is very big, they know where they're gonna have this and it's gonna be in select uh rooms.

And one of the things I want to bring up also because there's a narrative out there that oh well people that don't um that would be working wouldn't be able to work.

If you actually read the legislation that says prohibit working uh for people to opt out in the smoking designated area, there's gonna be areas that is not designated smoking.

So that would still allow workers who want to work for this convention to work, but just not in a designated area of smoking.

So even though it's not here and they're not they're already losing out because it's not there.

If this were to come, this would not stop employees from actually being able to work this convention.

Okay, putting putting that aside though, um, I think multiple times last week it was said that this is a one-time exception.

What language in the bill is pointing this being a one-time exception?

My computer died, so if you can entertain me as I pull the bill up on my phone.

Sure, I'll entertain.

Um again, quoting the the bill here, it says a convention facility is defined by this ordinance, but the ordinance doesn't define it.

Uh located within the city of St.

Louis may host a time-limited private and ticketed specialized convention involving on-site smoking activities only upon satisfaction of all requirements set forth in the subsection.

Uh so it says time limited.

Uh it's it doesn't say one time.

And my understanding is we're actually asking for the exception so that a convention can come and can come year after year after year.

Is that correct?

There could be an option, Alderman.

And part of the restrictions that are being put in place, the requirements of this is to also require the installation of uh it says installation and operation of temporary or permanent ventilation and air filtration systems designed to capture and exhaust tobacco smoke.

Who would be paying for the installation of those types of it would be the convention center paying for that?

Not the city.

The convention center through the money that they bring in.

It would be through the money that they bring in, and I believe you is at the hood.

The specialist talked about that they would bring in those uh equipment to do the additional uh cleaning, which they already have rooms that are sectioned off, but they would be doing that on their own.

So I was curious about this because uh it was interesting that the Alder Woman from the 12th was mentioning uh different type of smoking mitigation device because when I looked into this, um I I found a study that uh was actually done at Washington University.

Uh it was done on secondhand smoke.

It was published in Missouri Medicine, which is the journal for the Missouri State Medical Association.

I'm gonna not read the whole paragraph, but it it ends with saying our results show that ventilation systems are not effective in removing secondhand smoke from the air.

Therefore, no policy should be adopted that exempts establishments based on the presence of ventilation systems.

Uh the concern I have is that this is a public building.

The convention center is not included under our smoking bans because just for some reason, it's because it's a building that is accessible to the public and thus has a public health interest.

So I I do have concern for the employees.

Uh and while I do hear you that said they can choose whether or not to work this event, that also means not potentially not getting a paycheck.

Maybe they could go work another convention, but it's not a choice that I want to force on anyone.

Smoking is a personal choice, but secondhand smoke is not.

There has been a long history of smoking bills uh at the Board of Alderman, and I'm gonna just go through that for a little bit.

So thank you, Alderman.

I I'm done with my questions with you.

Uh, but I'd just like to get into this history.

Uh in 1880 in 1989, Freeman Bosley Sr.

started to try and ban smoking, and he did it right here uh in the Aldermanite chambers where people were openly smoking back then.

Uh and uh he he was quoted saying, I'm diametrically opposed to smoking, it kills you.

He also said if we aren't willing to bite the bullet in City Hall, we can't very well try to instruct the public.

And that is a concern of mine too.

If we can provide an exception for ourselves, who are we to try to enforce public health in the rest of the city?

In 1991, the Board of Alderman finally banned smoking in city-owned buildings, but they designated certain non-smoking areas and allowed other areas to smoke.

They wouldn't ban smoking in all city build-owned buildings until twenty three.

In two thousand nine, they banned smoking in most public places, effective in 2011, with some bars being able to continue for five years before those exceptions sunset.

So there's been this long linear progress moving in one direction, and that has been in the direction of banning smoking in the interest of public health throughout our city.

First year in the chambers, then in city hall with exceptions, then in public buildings and areas, then in private establishments with limited exceptions, and then even those expired after five years.

The design was that fewer exceptions would be allowed in the future, not more.

So I understand the desire to bring more people to our city to experience everything great about St.

Louis and contribute to our economy.

I want St.

Louis to be known for many wonderful things, but not allowing vices in our public buildings.

I want St.

Louis to be known for curing cancer, not allowing things that cause it.

We cannot be hypocritical and make exceptions for ourselves while telling private industries what they cannot do.

We cannot say we're four workers and then roll back regulations that protect their health.

And we shouldn't go backwards, undoing the work of previous authors like Freeman Bosley Sr.

and many more who did the hard work of moving our city forward.

So I'm not supporting this bill today.

I can't believe we're having this debate in 2026 when we know the dangers of secondhand smoke.

The health risks of smoking are not up for debate, so why is this?

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the Thank you, Madam President.

Um I would just like to rise again uh since the debate on this bill has been raised um and address some of the concerns that the Alderman from the Ninth brought up.

Um obviously with the convention being shared from between the 14th ward and the eighth ward, uh we've had extensive discussions and we had an extensive discussion on this bill just last week.

Um a couple of things I do want to clarify that uh the Alderman from the Ninth brought up with concerns about where conventions could take place and what this bill opens up for discussion.

I think our city has a very clear policy on the authority and body that designates soliciting conventions and outside trade shows, and we know that those conventions are narrowly focused with Explore St.

Louis's practices to the convention center itself.

I understand there may be some ambiguity in the definition, um, but I think as the alderman from the 14th mention, it is very clear where conventions are designated and where Explore St.

Louis has the right to solicit in place conventions, and so I think it will be permanently clear that that is the convention center, unless Explore St.

Louis is authorized to solicit trade shows for other locations around our city.

Um and I also just want to mention too, um, again, I completely understand the concerns about optics as it relates to public health and public health uh is part of I believe public officials' duty to make sure that we inform folks about proper decisions.

At the same time, I think there is a thin line, as it was brought up last week, between making sure we give good instruction to public health and also making sure that we allow discretion and clarity between the types of events we're trying to have.

I think there are many people that might consider alcohol or other things a vice, yet we know that St.

Louis is well known from a business community for having a number of alcohol-based businesses that take place across our city and different events.

So I do think it's important to delay in discretion where our authority lies and also where we allow people to have choice.

And I think in what we've structured here with this bill, is making sure that we don't necessarily rule out opportunities for business to come to our city and take place in the types of events, but rather make sure that we're protecting the interests of the residents and people that want to come that event by offering alternatives.

As the alderman mentioned, if workers in the convention center do want not want to work this particular event, they do not have to do so.

They can opt out.

And I do think, and I hear the alderman from the ninth comments about whether ventilation of that are effective.

I won't pretend to be a engineering or public health expert and belabor that point.

But I do think the fact that the convention center is willing to make that investment is a protection of interest in the public health of the people if they choose to go to that convention or not.

I also want to say um that again, it is very clear with our intention of this event not to open any additional can of worms.

We're not saying that the convention center will be a new location where the city of St.

Louis is allowing people to smoke permanently.

We are talking about potentially soliciting a three-day event, um, which does not occur on an annual basis, by the way.

We've talked to the folks that potentially would be hosting this event, they only host it every three to five years.

So we're talking about a very short time and a very short window, and again, making sure that we are putting in place those protections so that people that have concerns about this type of activity um will be able to have choice.

And I think that's the importance here.

I don't want to make this any bigger than what it is, and I do think it's important for us to make sure that we educate people about public health interests, but I don't think those considerations apply to what we're trying to do here with this bill.

Alderman from the third.

Thank you, Madam President.

I uh was not uh anticipating speaking this afternoon on the matter as I've already talked about this pretty extensively in both the committee and on the floor.

Um, you know, my colleague from the ninth uh enumerated uh a couple of my concerns or reiterated some of my concerns that I've shared previously.

Um but he did bring up a really important uh point, which is that there is no definition of a convention center in this bill.

Um it refers to previous definition.

If you look at the six-page bill of the original, uh, which is now you know law, there is no definition of a convention center in that either.

Um, you know, that's not ambiguous.

That is a lack of a definition.

So by virtue of what is in the existing board bill, you know, what is in there currently in this three-page document is a convention facility as defined by this ordinance, which there is no definition located within the city of St.

Louis may host a time-limited private and ticketed specialized convention and convention involving on-site smoking activities upon satisfaction of all requirements set forth in the subsection.

Solely for the duration of the permitted event and trade show, and shall now constitute a permanent exemption for the requirements of this ordinance.

There's no definition of what that convention facility is.

And so, exactly to his earlier point, there is other facilities either adjacent to or nearby that could host conventions and work with the CVC on conventions, hotels that have ballrooms, casinos that have ballrooms.

These are entities that regularly work with the CVC on hosting events and conventions.

There is no definition in here that specifically spells out and he's right, you know, right across the street on 14th and Clark.

That's still a publicly owned building.

Uh you know, whether or not you want to get into the semantics of all of that is fine.

But right now there isn't any to debate because there's not a definition in the original language of the bill defining what a convention facility is, and there's no definition in this existing bill that defines that either.

You when we bring forth this legislation, it's important to make sure that we have definitions that define the parameters of what we're trying to do, either within a section dedicated to definitions or an awareness clause, and this has neither woman from the 12th.

Madam President, members of the board.

Um what the Alderman from the 9th has pointed out is what's called poorly written legislation.

And any non-smoker who's out there, let's get together, take this to court.

It's poorly written legislation.

And we can we can sue about this legislation.

Um when you have you're sponsoring a bill like this, this is the time that you put it on the informal and try to correct it, maybe bring it back.

Um I want to point out that the autumn from the eighth talked about what I think this, I think that when you're speaking to legislation, as the Alderman from the third talked spoke to, you need to be able to go to that legislation and say it says this right here, not what you think.

If you think that is poorly written legislation, we have how many times the board of alderman uh doesn't think that's why we have him say Board of Alderman kicked out of the um the uh city board.

I mean, I'm sorry, the city's uh uh arrangement if we could call for uh a uh a um a uh election or not, uh or if we could be part of the whole discussion, because we don't understand how to fight good legislation.

Alum from the ninth is right, the ultimate from the third is right.

That is core legislation, and I heard the Otter Woman talk about what I think I think.

I always cringe when people say I think, not point to what it says in the legislation, because that means there's a problem with the legislation.

Also, as I heard her talk about, well, this is only gonna be this short time, this short time, and so we are changing our whole entire smoking legislation, which I've been a part of from when 1989 when I was a uh attorney with the public defenders, when I was calling over when Freeman Bosley was passing and fighting for this legislation, saying what could I do to when I got here in 1999 and got to sit by the famous Freeman Boxley who became my mentor, and we were cohorts about the anti-smoking to watch this legislation as the Otter from the 9th is now so that we finally get rid of smoking.

Only now we're going to open it up to something that only comes every once in a while because we're so uh desperate that we want any kind of uh of uh event to be at the uh convention center, we not want a bit.

Again, every event is not a good thing to have, and as is with in politics, all money is not good money.

I have never taken cigarette money, I have never taken liquor money if I have had fundraisers because I did not want that.

It's something that I want to be responsible.

I would be part of the mothers against drunk driving, but I'm not a mother.

I would be the person that is an anti-smoker and don't let people smoke in my house, in my car.

And I I thought it was awful when we passed the legislation.

We allowed for an exception for uh offices.

That was awful.

Um we should have clean the facts that that we when we came back from the pandemic, we spent a lot of money on uh cleaning up the air in our chambers because we were frightened about uh or concerned at least about uh the pandemic and how we could uh um uh be exposed to the pandemic.

So we at some points were meeting over SLDC in the building.

I'm sorry, LRA uh conference room.

We went and met in room 208, and it took us a long time to get back to the chambers because of our concerns.

Um the cigar um convention is not enough for us to go back in time because once you start to pick at things, the next person will come along and say, well, they did it for the cigar convention, which only happens what once every two years or whatever.

Then they did it, even though they don't have it, and they didn't try to put uh booths or anything that probably may work a little, but I I agree with uh the other the Alderman that it may not work as well as it should, but it would at least be another step at saying we're trying to find the cigarettes cigar is really a bad um it's a bad uh precedent, and um it's a health issue.

Even talk I heard the autumn from Nate talk about liquor.

Liquor is a health issue drink too much, but in moderation, it doesn't be, and then when you drink liquor, it doesn't affect me.

But when you smoke, it can affect secondhand smoke, can affect me.

The only way liquor affects me is that if you get in the car and drive drunk or you hurt somebody else, but secondhand smoke can affect me, and if it's filtered incorrectly, it can affect me.

So they're not the same thing.

And if um, so we should not be comparing liquor and cigarettes, although um we could really cut back on we we have a timeline when you can now uh buy liquor, and we didn't always have that.

We have a law that holds we have a dram law that will hold the people who serve liquor to certain people responsible.

Are we gonna hold the convention center responsible?

Somebody gets sick.

This is a bad ball.

I am anti-smoking for a reason, even to the fact that we have marijuana.

We should not, you know, my concern with the allowing marijuana, not the gummies or the brownies, but the smoking.

That's the same thing with cigarettes, same thing with cigars.

We health issue that has been a uh death of a lot of people.

And for us to then say, uh oh, uh, we well, that's okay, we can have this exception.

Um from the seventh talked about that uh in uh the sixth and the seventh about people who have certain concerns.

I have a concern for people who don't smoke, don't want to change right now.

They have a right, they have a right to work in the convention center and not be concerned with smoking.

For us to come and change that is shameful.

We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

We should not even be entertained, and it's not worth anything, especially when the alderman from the third points out that we could have these conventions at places that already have their own exception.

It still would be in the city.

It does not have to be the convention center.

And I would like to request that if we're gonna give this money that we take back the 30 million dollars of the Rams money we gave to the convention center, and then we gave them another 15 million dollars of the ARPA firms uh uh interest that ought to be made to be repaid back because if we're gonna support smoking, they ought not to get a dime from from us.

We ought to we we this is not good health.

Uh this is not a healthy uh way to progress in our city.

We were doing so well for so many years, literally 1989, 2006.

We have been taking steps the right way, and now we want to carve chunks into it and say with these exceptions, it will not stop with this or continue, and um we don't need a cigar convention that's not gonna bring that much money anyway, and even if it is our health uh important, and it costs us more who get cancer or who get all kinds of diseases from smoking, it costs us our health uh cost and even maybe even the rise in health insurance when we do these kind of things.

The other thing that happens is insurance companies give to non-smokers now to places where you work that may be smoking.

So we have all the total costs.

Are we really making um something more important than making money?

And it is it's our help.

We cannot take money with us when we go, but we hopefully will live a long healthy life if we practice good health practices, and allowing cigar smoke is not one of the things.

And when you're smoking cigars, not only do you get cancer, you get the mouth and tongue and everything else.

Um, so um, it's just something we don't need to do, and we don't need to defend as well.

We can make a little money here and there.

And and what if we don't get the conventions?

Will we then use it for something else?

And again, back to the original point that the Alderman from the ninth made.

We do not this legislation, it is not to define the Alderman from the third followed up.

It is poor legislation, and um the good thing is if you pass this, hopefully we can get together as a group of people who are opposed to smoking and challenge it because it's poor legislation.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

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

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Uh I hear all my colleagues, uh, you know, comments.

I do want to uh talk about the bill a little bit, but do want to echo something that the alder woman said, the same energy that we keep around not smoking.

I've seen at least from this board encouraged to go to events where there's drinking, or we uplift Anheiser Bush, who is one of our biggest uh drinking outlets that provides beer.

We know that beer and alcohol so kill people, right?

You know, what if whichever vice you want to choose?

But I want to be very clear that this in the language, this is only again, I think is important for the facts.

I respect everyone when it comes to kind of the the making sure that we're not turning back the clock.

Um, and I think we made a lot of progression when it comes to health, but the facts of it is even if you go back to the previous bill that was passed by Alder Woman, uh, former Alder Woman Cruise, and you look at a lot of definitions like elevator is not defined.

Do we need to, you know, kind of define what an elevator is.

There's a lot of things in that previous legislation that is not defined, but I think we're pretty clear of knowing what a convention facility is without saying the American dome that was not defined back then.

Um also on page two of three, we talk very clearly.

This is only for permitted per private events and trade shows.

So this is not an ongoing thing that would be happening at the convention center.

You know, this has been something that has worked out with the convention center to be very clear.

This is a three-day event that is looking to come in 2030.

So some of these questions that uh folks may have.

Please let's get with Brad Dana, just put all those safety measures in.

And I think what's uh is also important because I've heard the narrative continue to be put out there, and after stating it on the mic, uh, I heard the alderman from the ninth again say that workers won't be able to work this event, which just isn't true.

If you read the bill, the last um language in the bill that is voted, it says workers can work and opt out to be in the permitted areas that is smoking.

So there is the ability for workers still to work the event where there is not ongoing smoking.

Um, and again, I appreciate all the dialogue.

Um, I think this is going to be something good for the convention center.

I think this is something that uh bring over thousands and thousands of people to other cities.

Um, this is something in correlation that we're talking with the convention center.

We thought could be great as we're trying to bring more traction and bring more people to the city.

Um, and with that, I renew my motion on board bill one sixty seven-seven roll call.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fourteenth, seconded by the alder woman from the 11th, that we third reading finally pass board bill one sixty-seven.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Cone.

No Alderman Narayan Alderman Devonee, Alder Woman Velasquez.

No, Alder Woman Sonny.

Alder Woman Cox and Tweed Alderman Browning.

No, Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alder Woman Keys.

No Man Boyd.

No Alderman Aldrick.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Devotee.

Eight I votes, six no's, one abstain.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the alderman from the 14th to third reading finally passed board bill 16.

That is the extent of third reading and final passes of board bills.

Report of the finally passed and signed by the president.

Board bill number 119 as amended on the floor.

Board Bill 155.

36 in a report of all other business being suspended.

The president shall an open session affix her signature here to stand that these may become law.

First reading resolutions in reference to committees.

We have none.

Report from the HUDs committee.

Mayor appointments to the board of adjustments.

Annie Grice, James Dallas, and Camelo Desimon.

Alder Woman from the 10th, you are recognized on Mayor Spencer's appointments to the Board of Adjustment.

Thank you, Madam President.

I move that we approve the mayor's appointments to the board of adjustment.

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

That we approve Mayor Spencer's appointments to the Board of Adjustment.

Is there any discussion?

Alder Woman from the 12th.

As I have to submit times and will continue.

Again, we have a law on the books that says that when you make an American make more than a certain amount of appointees, that they have to be spread out around the community.

We have two people from South St.

Louis and one person from the Central Quarter, and none from the uh North St.

Louis.

This is continued now for the last 20 some odd years.

We have not had people on the Board of Adjustment that live in South in North St.

Louis.

It is totally ridiculous.

We had one person was a uh alternate that lived between Martin Luther King and uh Delmar, none that have been over 24 or 26 years that have lived uh north of page.

It is a ridiculous should not be.

Uh I've wrote to several of the mayors about it.

I have not written to this mayor, but I will be following up with this again.

One of them is my personal friend, and I know it's a good person, but representation matters, and the fact that you can have uh part of a community for over 24, 26 years that cannot have anybody appointed to the board of adjustments is just plain wrong.

And so I am voting no for that reason.

Surely there's somebody that lives north of uh page that lives in the 11th ward, uh the uh 12th ward, the 13th ward, though it merit being a member of the board of adjustment.

How would you like people to make these decisions?

And this follows what I say about the nuisances.

That's why our nuisances are allowed, because it's been the Board of Adjustment who have allowed this kind of thing to happen in North St.

Louis because it's real easy to make that decision when you don't live any place near the reckless and disregard of certain parts of the community, and so for that reason I will oppose it and ask for a roll call.

Any further discussion, alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Uh I just wanted to thank the individuals who came in front of the HUDs committee um this past week to kind of hear from them and figure out why they want to serve on the board.

Um, I do think sometimes we forget the 14th award is north of page, and I'm glad to have somebody who lives um north of Page, who actually serve on this board, Miss Uh Denine, who is also recently approved uh through the HUDS Committee a few uh weeks ago.

So there is a member that is uh north of Paige that serves on the board of adjustment that lives in the 14th ward.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 11th.

Okay, there I am.

Okay, thank you.

So uh I'm rising in support of uh uh uh the Alder Woman Tyus' comments, and there have been many times over the few years that I have been here at the Board of Alderman, but even more when I served as a committee woman uh in what was then the 21st ward for almost 15 years.

This has been a constant and chronic complaint.

I don't know why this is so hard for there to be people who live in what I call true North St.

Louis to be on the board of adjustment, and my frustration has come from watching decisions be made about the place where I live and my constituents live that give no consideration to the people who actually live there, and so I will be opposed to this.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Uh Alder Woman from the 12th is your hand back up again, or is it up from the last time?

It is back up again.

I'm sorry.

Okay.

Uh then Alder Woman from the 12th, you're recognized.

Okay, I'm sorry, we're having a delay.

Um, can you hear me all right?

Because all of a sudden it's delaying and going in and out.

Yes, it's it's lagging a little bit here.

It's lagging a little bit here, but we we can hear you.

Okay, um, I want to say that um this is gonna be real easy.

We're gonna get a map and show not only about the board of adjustments, but most all other major boards except for little boards that only pertain to something in your neighborhood.

We don't exist.

This is wrong.

All of you all who think this is all right, this is wrong.

Okay, so um uh the alderman from the 14th says you forget that uh the 14th board is from is in North St.

Louis.

Most of it, a lot of it is not, some parts of it are.

Um, the Alderman from the 11th, I just said her ward is really an illegal ward.

It runs across three neighborhoods, uh, three different parts of the city.

That's an legal ward that is not compact and contiguous.

But the majority of North St.

Louis is that part and the real that we always talked about North St.

Louis was is in the 11th, 12th, and 13th, and yet we cannot find one person that is uh a suitable for these past mayors.

And the last mayor is really egregious about this.

I wrote her and I asked her uh why are you doing this?

Why would you just continue to put Francis Slave's uh uh people and leave them there?

Because he started this whole mess.

We didn't have this under Vince Shamel, we did not have it under uh Franklin Bosley, we did not have it under Clarence Harmon.

It was Francis Slade that did this.

He has continues this, will not have my support.

If I can't have a major between the three of us cannot have a major position on the board of adjustment, I'm just done with, okay, because it makes no sense.

And I've made this uh argument over and over, and as I said, Lyda Crusade at least listened and said, Oh my god, uh, and start trying to do some other things.

But when it comes to the board of adjustment, somehow you Negroes over in this area do not maybe representation, and it is wrong.

So we'll just get a map every time we'll bring the map up, and it's very easy to show that there's a whole part of the city that is being left out of major boards and commission, and it should stop with this mayor.

She can reconsider, and as I said on several occasions, Denise is a friend of mine.

Um, I won't say the person that's here, but um, there's a person on there now.

But the friend of mine is not the point.

The point of the law and the point of running in uh wards is to be represented in certain areas, and we are being left out, and it is wrong.

So the maps will come out from now on, and again, I will be opposed to this.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, it's been moved by the older woman from the 10th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th.

That we approve Mayor Spencer's appointments to the board of adjustment.

There's been a request for roll call.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Ryan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sanye.

Alder Woman Cox and Twee.

Alderman Brownie.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

No.

Alder Woman Thayas.

Alder Woman Boyd.

No.

Alderman Aldrick.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

12 eye votes.

Three no's.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alder Woman from the 10th to approve Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Board of Adjustment.

Resolution number 197, committee substitute.

Introduced by Alder Woman Sanye.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Cox Antwee.

Supporting urgent quick bill safety improvements along Graves Avenue.

Madam Clerk, if you could please make sure I'm also a co-sponsor on 197.

So noted.

Thank you.

Alder Woman from the 7th.

You are recognized on the second reading, resolution 197.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

This resolution has been talked about quite a while.

I know many members of this body saw me announce a graveway corridor town hall that was held by myself and various authors who um touched Gravelai.

Um this resolution is proposing quick build, uh quick build traffic coming measures, um, which are very kind of easy to put in place, very inexpensive, and are also good for trial period.

See how things work or and are in place across our city.

Um and with that, I would like to make a motion to adapt.

Second.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the seventh, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we adopt resolution 197.

Alder Woman may proceed.

Thank you.

Um, I just kind of gave a lot of what I had to say.

The only other thing I would just like to say is I really am appreciative of the very collaborative conversations we've been able to have.

Several alders, MODI, uh CP2, which is a group of residents that I would absolutely charge them and thank them for their advocacy coming to us and saying, hey, we know that this big improvement is planned for 2029.

People are dying now, so we would like to know if there's anything that can be done now.

And then I would just thank my colleagues, Modat, Mr.

Nelson from the Peace Department for us sitting down and coming up with these concepts, and I look forward to us being able to put them in place and see how they work.

Alder Woman from the 6th.

Can you please add me as a co-sponsor?

Madam Clerk.

Please make note of that.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion.

Seeing none, it's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 7th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th.

That we adopt resolution 197 committee substitute.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Resolution number 266, introduced by Alder Woman Sweitzer, President Green, Alderman Browning, Alder Woman Clark Hubbard, and Alder Woman Cox Cox Antwitt and Alderwoman Boyd.

Opposing Missouri Senate Bill 1586 and supporting the continued local administration of solid waste management districts.

Alder Woman from the first, you are recognized on the second reading of resolution 266.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move to second read and adopt resolution 266.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the first, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 8th, that we adopt resolution 66.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Earlier this week in the public infrastructure and utilities committee, we had a great conversation about this.

What this resolution does, very similar to a recent resolution we passed by this body, is opposed Senate Bill 1586.

And like the House bill that we already uh voiced our opposition of this Senate bill uh is going to try to well it's going to uh dissolve the local solid waste districts, which if you are familiar with Earth Day 365, the Green Dining Alliance, so many other um organizations in our community that are handling so much waste product in St.

Louis, all of these nonprofits basically rely on this funding, which is from local landfill tipping fees going to the 20 solid waste districts across the state and allowing for uh so much waste to be handled locally, um, which makes a lot of sense.

Uh so this would uh the Senate bill would dissolve the local waste districts and put much more power in the hands of the state uh around the uh landfill tipping fee costs, which I will say you know the state does need money to handle landfills across the state and to handle waste, um, but dissolving the solid waste districts is not the way to do it.

So I appreciate your time and the unanimous support um from the public infrastructure and utilities committee, uh, and I hope to earn your support today.

Uh, this bill has left committee uh in the Senate and is on the floor for perfection, so there is some urgency to get this out today and get this opposition to uh the Senate.

So thank you for your time.

Alder Woman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Um, I did get a chance to hear that robust conversation.

I completely agree with the Alder Woman first in the of this resolution.

And would like to request request to be added as co-sponsor.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

So noted.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 6th.

Thank you.

Please add me as a co-sponsor as well.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

So note it.

Any further discussion.

Seeing none, it's been moved by the Alder Woman from the first, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 8th, that we adopt resolution 266.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

That is the extent of second reading.

Resolutions committee reports and adoption.

Alder Woman from the 7th, you are recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolutions 72 and 273.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I would like to make a motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolutions 272 and 273.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 7th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 8th.

That we suspend the rules to introduce resolution 272 and 273.

This is a non-debatable motion.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweat, sir.

Aye.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Alderman Cone.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sany.

Aye.

Alder Woman Cox and Twee.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Thaies.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrick.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

15 aye votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alder Woman from the 7th.

Madam Clerk, if you could please place resolutions 272 and 273 at the end of the courtesy resolutions calendar.

So note it.

Alder Woman from the 10th.

You are recognized on the motion to adopt the courtesy resolution calendar.

Madam President.

Ohder woman from the first.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I would move to make resolution number two sixty-nine in bank.

It's been objection.

Okay, there's been an objection to the motion to make it in bank.

Um sorry, what was the 269?

It's honoring Eagle Scout in my community.

Okay.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I I withdraw my objection.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Woman from the 12th.

So uh with that, there was a motion from the Alder Woman from the first and seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we make resolution 269 in bank.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

And Alder Woman from the first.

Thank you.

Uh similarly to resolution 269 for the same purpose.

I would like to uh make a motion to make resolution number 270 in bank.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the first, second and by the alder uh woman from the seventh that we make resolution 270 in bank.

Is there any discussion?

This is another Eagle Scout for those who are following along.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Alder Woman from the 10th.

May I please be added as a co-sponsor to resolution 273?

Uh Madam Clerk, if you could please make note of that.

So note it.

Alder Woman from the 8th.

May I also be added as a co-sponsor to resolution 273.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

So note it.

Alder Woman from the 7th.

I will also request to be added as a co-sponsor to resolution 273.

Please make note of that.

So note it.

Alder Woman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I'm over that we adopt the courtesy resolution calendar.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 7th that we adopt the courtesy resolution calendar.

Is there any discussion?

Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I just wanted to uh thank the ones who signed on the 273 um honoring Mr.

Otis Williams and his leadership and service to St.

Louis SLDC again.

Um as he came back.

Uh today is his last day uh with those with the city of St.

Louis.

I know he's having a going away event from two to four, I think at the mini pitch.

Just want to give him a huge thank you uh for coming back in and kind of filling in the void and helping out uh with the SLDC as he done in the past.

And also, I want to acknowledge his body has passed a previous resolution, but the individual was not here.

We also passed a resolution acknowledging our very own Elliot Davis for all the great work that he's done in the city of St.

Louis.

So two amazing great individuals.

I just want to uplift on those resolutions.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, uh Madam President.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 7th.

Uh thank you, madam president, members of the board.

Um, I would like to uh motion to embank resolution 272.

There's uh it's been moved by the older woman from the 7th, seconded by the older woman from the 11th that we embank resolution 272.

Honoring Lane Foreman, uh Alder Woman from the 12th.

Was there I'm sorry, and I'm Madam President.

Did we already vote on this?

Are we going back and trying to embank after we voted?

No, we we have not.

There's been a motion to adopt, but we have not voted on it yet.

Okay, thank you.

Second.

All right.

So it's been moved by the older woman from the 7th, seconded by the older woman from the 11th, that we embank resolution 272.

Is there any discussion on the motion to embank?

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

All right.

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, it has been moved by the older woman from the 10th, seconded by the older woman from the 7th, that we adopt the curtain resolution consent calendar.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed, motion carries.

We have none.

Announcements.

Tuesday, March 24th.

Sorry, Wednesday, March 25th, 2026.

Budget and public employees, 6 p.m.

in the Kennedy room.

Any further announcements?

Any further announcements?

Alder Woman from the Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Since this is our last meeting, um, before the end of the month, I want to announce our 10th board one-on-one that we have every last Monday of the month.

Uh as we move it around the entire ward, all eight neighborhoods to be accessible.

This month will be more Monday, March 30th, uh, at the regular time at 6 30 p.m.

It'll be a Union Avenue Christian Church that's located at 7 75 or 73, 733 Union Boulevard.

Uh, this meeting will have our collector of revenue, Greg Daly.

Um, of course, myself, the neighborhood improvement specialist representation from the second um St.

Louis Metropolitan Police District, who I had the pleasure of sharing time with yesterday, thanks to Alderman Devotee's station for their business luncheon and got to meet uh my new second district captain Abishan.

Thank you for your service, and also um our neighborhood improvement specialists.

Uh, in addition to that, we will have Laura again um from the St.

Louis Recovery and Vacancy Offices here in the city of St.

Louis, as well as the building um divisions, building inspector supervisor will be there to talk about the upcoming demolition here, not just uh from the tornado, but even some of the demolition that we're catching up on prior to 10 months ago, May 16th, when the tornado hit.

So I'm excited to have this meeting this month.

The bigger reason also is because the intentionality and why we're choosing this space.

Um, for the first time in the history of Union Avenue Christian Church, there is an African American female pastor at Union Avenue Christian Church, Reverend Laveta J.

Roth.

Excited to welcome her, continues to serve and see how we can help her in the neighborhood and that church that sits as a pillar there of hope and light on the corner of Union and Del Mars.

So again, don't forget our 10th Ward 101, Monday, March 30th, 6:30 p.m.

at Union Avenue Christian Church, 733 Union Boulevard under the direction of Reverend Lavetta Roth.

I hope to see you there.

Any further announcements?

Alderman from the 14th.

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

Um I wanted to announce, since we are thinking of ways to support our convention center on Saturday the 28th.

We are kicking off the Battlehawks back in St.

Louis.

And I am inviting everybody out to the kickoff.

The convention center is shared between myself and the older woman of the eighth ward.

We have the best XFL team.

We sell out and have the most people that come out to the game.

So in spirit of continuing to make sure that our American Center is vibrant, please come on out to the official game of uh the Battlehawks, which will be next Saturday, March the 28th.

Alder Woman from the Eighth.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just wanted to announce and wish the best of luck to all the teams playing in the NCAA tournament, which is taking place in St.

Louis.

St.

Louis is proud to host host the first round games this weekend here at the Enterprise Center.

So there will be lots of exciting activity downtown taking place this weekend along with those games, and I wish all the teams the best of luck.

Any further announcements?

Any further announcements?

So I would like to say go billicans on that note.

Um man from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Our members were present this morning.

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

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

I move that we adjourn until Monday, April 20th, 2026, in the Board of Alderman Chambers for signing die.

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

We adjourn until Monday, April 20th, 2026, in the Board of Alderman Chambers for signing die.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

We are adjourned.

Yes.

Thank you.

Not too bad.

It was long, wasn't it?