The board will now come to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Schweitzer.

Alderman Oldenburg.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Sanye.

Alder Woman Cox and Tweed.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clore Hubbard.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Present.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Alderman Aldrick.

President Green.

Present.

Alder Woman Cox and Twee.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Alderman Aldrick.

13 present.

Accorum being present, we will be led in an opening reflection by City of St.

Louis Poet Laureate Patia Anderson.

Good morning.

In honor of Juneteenth.

We salute you.

For those whose lifeblood became the lifeblood of this place.

For those whose bodies became nutrients for the soil that grew the towering landscapes.

For those who endeavored and toiled to ensure that we freed ourselves.

Who moved with muskets and side arms, rifles and carbines and formations that form the foundation of this republic, we give honor.

We salute you.

To those who remain captive after the free, for those whose beings became legend, whose spirits move through history via tongue and the oral keeping, whose names remain blank in the books written by those who claim the spoils, still venerated by we who have descended, whose names remain if not upon our tongues, but in our bones and our cellular structures and our dreams and our goings forth.

For those whom, regardless of the story that lives on, the ones who by the time they saddled up on those horses, they rode in on the ones who by that time had already been gone, for the ones who star charted and pace counted, quartermastered and signaled, lobbied and congressed, smuggled, mended, tracked, and cooked for those who did not rest, making it possible for us to free ourselves in our vibrancy.

They called us colored, their enemies becoming their infantry, a heaven-cent regiment that turned the tide of war, tipped the scales in favor of a nation that favored us dead, knowing that without us, they all too soon would be.

Knowing without us, there would be no victory for Susie King Taylor with her healing of injuries for Harriet Tubman and her stealthy deliveries for Moses Dixon and the Knights of Liberty for every unnamed who dug trenches and quells for everybody unclaimed who sacrificed made it possible for liberation to excel for every single breath captured in the rings of our century old pine groves and elms for every single ancestor who helped us free ourselves from Galveston to Gravoy, Williamsburg to Walnut Park, Baton Rouge to Baden, Manassas to Mill Creek, we give honor, we salute you for those whose lives and blood became the lifeblood of this place for those whose bodies became nutrients for the soil that grew these towering landscapes from the then to the right here and the right now.

We give thanks.

We honor and we salute you.

Thank you.

Is there any introduction of honored guests?

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

There I am.

Good morning, everyone.

And it truly is a beautiful and colorful day.

And so if you'll notice the little green ribbon that I am wearing.

So this week, you know, if you have an opportunity to dress your body in some green and somehow, um, in remembrance of all of those who have lost their lives and so posthumously, all of the names that we read yesterday are my honored guests.

Additionally, I'm gonna take everybody who's up in the gallery are my honored guests today.

Please stand.

Thank you.

I wanted to get mine in first.

Okay.

So additionally, uh Marlene Davis, uh former Alder Woman and my legislative aide celebrated a birthday last week.

So a happy birthday to Marlene Davis.

Alderman from the fourth.

Now?

Yeah, here we go.

All right.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Uh, given the fact that we're on the precipice of uh perfecting this uh RAM settlement bill.

Uh I told some folks that uh my special guest today would be my former colleague, Joe Vulmer.

Thank you.

Alderman from the fifth.

No.

Still no.

Madam President, there we go.

Members of the board.

First, I don't know how I follow that up.

I guess I need to shout out to Alderman Volmer as well.

Uh today is my honored guest.

I would like to recognize Jacob Castillo.

Uh Jacob is joining the fifth ward team this summer.

He is a student at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and he is working as an internship or working as an intern in the office.

So he's going to be helping us do some research and some aid.

If we could all welcome Jacob to the board today.

Alderman from the ninth.

Thank you.

Okay, that one works.

Thank you.

Um this morning I'd like to have uh the St.

Louis Water Division and Spencer Gould and Robert Hutchinson uh who are here in the gallery as my honored guests.

Uh we are hopefully going to get um uh help today and as the work around the clock to address the giant sinkhole uh just north of downtown uh and really just all of the infrastructure in our city.

We really appreciate the dedication that they bring and look forward to supporting them today.

Thank you, Madam President and members of the board.

I'd like to have my husband's family as my honored guest today.

Uh last week I was not at this meeting in person because uh my husband's grandfather passed.

Um uh Jim Reuter as an incredible man.

Uh he uh raised a beautiful family and is a veteran uh service member as well.

So I just wanted to have uh a moment of silence if possible for him and honor of uh my husband's family.

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

Thank you.

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, June 12, 2026.

Good morning.

I move that we approve the minutes from Friday, June 12th, 2026.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 3rd that we approve minutes from Friday, June 12, 2026.

Is there any discussion?

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

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Report of city officials.

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

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

Alder Woman from the 10th.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I move that we place board bill 10 on the perfection calendar.

Madam Clerk, if we could please place board bill 10 at the beginning of the uh of the board bills for perfection.

So noted.

Alder woman from the 11th.

Members of the board.

Please place uh board bill 44 on the informal calendar.

Is that later?

It's it's on second reading right now.

Wait till we get there.

Thank you, thank you.

Uh Alderman from the fifth.

Madam President, members of the board.

I move that we move board bill twenty-eight as amended on the floor onto the regular perfection calendar.

Madam Clerk, if you could please place board bill twenty-eight as amended uh on the floor on the uh beginning of the board bills for perfection calendar.

So noted.

Alderman from the third, you are recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing board bills 51, 52, and 50 53 and 54 for first reading.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam President.

I move to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing board bills 51, 52, 53, and 53.

It's been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderman second, that we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing board bills 51, 52, 53, and 54.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President.

Uh these bills are related to airport indentures, the uh public transit sales tax, and a community improvement district, and would ask for folks favorable consideration as we vote to the rules for the introduction of the it's been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderman from the second.

That we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing board bills 51, 52, and 54.

This is a non-debatable motion.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Schweitzer.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Ryan.

Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Alder Woman Son Yay.

Alder Woman Cox and Twee.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Aye.

Alder Woman Tyus.

Oh.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldric.

President Green.

Aye.

15 aye votes.

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

If you could please place board bills 51, 52, 53, and 54 on the first reading of board bills.

So noted.

First reading of board bills.

Board bill number 45.

Introduced by Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Pursuant to ordinance number 7033.

As amended by ordinance number 71394.

An ordinance directing the director of streets to install speed hunts to calm the flow of traffic on the 5,05100 and 5200 blocks of ridge.

Board bill number 46, introduced by Alderman Aldrick.

An ordinance amending ordinance number 71302, which ordinance relates to an original lease agreement dated January 1st, 2021, between the City of St.

Louis, Missouri and United Fruit and Produce Company, and authorizing the execution of a first amendment to lease agreement between the city and leasey for certain land at or near 5 Clinton Street under certain terms and conditions as set forth in the first amendment attached here to as exhibit A and containing the serebility clause.

Board Bill No.

47, introduced by Alder Woman Sanye, an ordinance providing a redevelopment plan dated August 26, 2025 for the Tiffany Scattered Sites Second Area in the City of St.

Louis.

Board Bill.

Introduced by Alderwoman Schweitzer, an ordinance entitled Data Center Environmental Impact Monitoring.

The purpose of this ordinance is to establish a mandatory environmental monitoring and reporting program for data center buildings containing a cerebrality clause.

Board bill number 49.

Introduced by Alder Woman Schweitzer, Alderwoman Sanyer, Alderman and Alder Woman Clark Hubbard, and ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission amending the zoning code to add section 26.77, creating comprehensive zoning regulations for data centers, approved by the planning commission on June 10, 2026, and containing a cerebrity clause.

Board Bill No.

50, introduced by Alderman Aldrick and President Green, an ordinance repealing ordinance 71212 as codified in Chapter 8.108A of the revised code of the City of St.

Louis and any other ordinance or portions of ordinances codified Chapter 81, I'm sorry, 8.108A that are inconsistent with this ordinance in establishing updated regulations for the licenses and operations of mobile food vendors, including designated commercial vending markets, predetermined vending locations, permit display requirements, and administrative oversight by the streets department.

Board bill number 51 introduced by Alderman Shane, an ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, authorizing directing the assurance establishment of turns and sales of airport revenue bond not to exceed millions of all I'm sorry or portion of the city's subordinate indebtedness heard to provide interim financing and refinancing for the acquisition expansion, construction, renovation, and equipment equipping of airport facilities and to finance the cost of the purchase extensions improvement or enlargement of the airport, providing for the funding of and any required debt services, reserve funds, and capitalized interest funds, and for the payment of costs of insurance appointing and trustee approving and authorizing the preparation, execution, and delivery of necessary or appropriate documents and actions repealing and consistent prior ordinance and containing cerebility and emergency clause.

Board bill number 52 introduced by Alderman Cohn.

An ordinance pertaining to the transit sales tax imposed pursuant to Section 94.660 as adopted by the voters of St.

Louis City on August 2nd, 1994, pursuant to ordinance 63168, creating the city public transit sales tax trust fund, directing the treasurer of the city of St.

Louis to deposit funds received pursuant to said sales tax and to the city public transit sales tax trust fund account one appropriating 13,529,900 from the said sales tax for the period of July 1, 2026 through June 30th, 2027 to the by state development agency for certain purposes and containing a cerebrality and emergency clause.

Board bill number 53 introduced by Alderman Cohn.

An ordinance pertaining to the transit sales tax imposed pursuant to section 94.660 as adopted by the voters of the city of St.

Louis City on November the 4th, 1997, pursuant to ordinance 64111, creating the city public transit sales tax trust fund, directing the Treasury of the City of St.

Louis to deposit funds received pursuant to said sales tax and to the city public transit sales tax trust fund account two appropriating 13 million five hundred twenty-nine thousand nine hundred from the said sales tax for the period July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027 to the Bi State Development Agency for certain purposes and containing a cerebrality and emergency clause.

Board bill number 54, introduced by Alderman Odenberg, an ordinance approving the petition of owners of real property seeking the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the Bravo Community Improvement District, finding a public purpose for the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the Bravo Community Improvement District and containing the cerebrality clause and emergency clause.

That is the extent of first reading of board bills.

Madam Clerk, if you could please assign board bills 51, 52, and 53 to the Transportation and Commerce Committee and 54 to the HUDS Committee.

So noted.

Reference to Committee of Board Bills.

Reference to the public infrastructure, Board Bill.

Two Transportation and Commerce, Board Bill 46, 51, 52, and 53.

To the HUDS Committee, Board Bill 47, 48, 49, 50, and 54.

That is the extent of reference to committee of board bills.

Second reading, report of standing committees.

To the following board, the following board bills were reported out of HUDS with a due pass recommendation.

Board bill number 43 as amended in committee.

Introduced by Alder Woman Sweiser and Alder Woman Keys.

An ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment.

Amending ordinance number seven one three nine three, ordinance number seven one four nine four, ordinance number seven one five five four, ordinance number seven one five five five, ordinance number seven one five six one, ordinance number seven one five nine one, ordinance number seven one five nine two, ordinance number seven one six five zero, ordinance number seven one eight four zero, ordinance number seven one eight six four and ordinance number seven two one two five by reappropriating certain amounts specified herein and aggregate amount of two million five hundred twenty thousand four hundred thirty-six and five hundred twenty thousand four hundred thirty-six dollars for water infrastructure replacement and repair and with an emergency clause.

Board bill number forty-four introduced by Alder Woman Keys, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor and controller of the city of St.

Louis to execute upon receipt of and consideration of the sum of two hundred dollars and other good and valuable consideration, a quick claim deed to remiss release and forever quick claim until Willie Jarmin certain city owned property located in City Block 4411A, which property is known and numbered as 4052 Camellia Avenue in the City of St.

Louis, Missouri, and containing an emergency clause.

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

Board bill number 33 as amended in committee, introduced by Alderman Browning, pursuant to ordinance number 7033 as amended by ordinance number seven one three nine four and ordinance directing the director of streets to install speed hunts to calm the flow of traffic on the 4300 block of West Pine Boulevard Boulevard.

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

Report of special committees.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item 15, perfection consent calendar.

Board bill number eight, introduced by Alder Woman Sweiser, Alderwoman Sanyer, and Alderman Aldrick, an ordinance related to appointment of and salaries of certain employees in the collector of revenues office pursuant to section 82.610, revised statute of Missouri by repealing ordinance number 71966, allocating certain other employees to a grade with rate and including an emergency clause.

The provisions of the section contained in this ordinance shall be effective with the start of the pay first pay period following approval by the mayor.

That is the extent or board bills perfection consent calendar.

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

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

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

Second.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the third that we adopt the uh 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 10, introduced by Alder Woman Clark Hubbard and Alderman Aldrick, an ordinance relating to the appointment of and salaries of certain employees in the sheriff's office pursuant to section 57.530 revised statutes of Missouri by repealing ordinance number seven one nine six eight, allocating certain other employees to a grade with rate and including emergency clause.

The provisions of the section contained in this ordinance shall be effective with the start of the first pay period following approval by the mayor.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I move that we perfect board bill 10.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the 11th that we perfect Board Bill.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I move that we adopt one, which is has been in the draft and is on everyone's desks, reflecting some changes in the bill that came out of E to Board Bill.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman from the first that we adopt amendment number one to board bill number 10.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move uh that we now perfect board bill 10 is amended.

We need a uh vote on the amendment first.

Do you have any discussion on the amendment?

No.

I renew my motion.

Okay.

Then it has been moved by the alder woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alder Woman first that we adopt amendment number one to Board Bill.

All those in favor by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Alder Woman, you are now recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 10 as amended on the floor.

I renew my motion.

Uh you need to make the motion now.

I remake the motion that we perfect board bill 10 as amended on the floor.

Second.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the third that we perfect Board Bill as amended on the floor.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

Board bill number 28 as amended on the floor, introduced by Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Sweisser, Alderwoman Cox and Twee, Alderman Brownie, and Alderwoman Velasquez, an ordinance requiring the installation of water meters on certain service connections in the city of St.

Louis, providing mechanisms for enforcement, including providing authority to deny or withhold service for non-compliance and delegating authority to the water division to administer, implement, and set technical standards for meter installation.

The requirement applies prospectivity to new service connections and mandates the installation of meters only on certain existing service connections.

The ordinance also includes a cerebrality clause.

Yes, madam president, members of the board, I move that we perfect board bill twenty-eight as amended on the floor.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the fifth, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 10th that we perfect Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor.

Thank you, Madam President.

We had a fair amount of discussion about this particular board bill last week.

I want to emphasize four points, and then I'm happy to take any questions.

This applies only to new water connections as well as major rehabilitation projects.

Number three, Board Bill 28 is about fairness.

It's about fairness in that when a meter is installed.

And last, uh, with respect to the limited scope of this particular build or bill that this addresses an ideal situation to install water meters to attempt to work toward the process of modernizing how we bill for water.

Uh in that we are doing this at a time when other work permitted work is being done.

And then finally, I guess as a caveat to that to the extent that there is uh any dispute, I want to make very very clear that the water meters that will be installed under this board bill are done at the cost of the water division.

In other words, there is no direct cost to anyone installing the water meter.

And at this point, Madam President, I'm happy to field any questions.

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Members of the board.

Um, if the Alderman from the fifth, we yield.

The Alderman from the fifth yield to questioning from the Alder Woman from the 12th.

Yes.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Um thank you.

I uh want to thank you.

We did try to work together to put an amendment together.

I have sent that amendment to you.

Um we thought I thought I could uh get other people to sign on to a different amendment.

Um, but as you will recall in um uh our discussions, what came up from one of my from several of my constituents was a letter that they got from the water department regarding lead pipes.

Yes, ma'am, we did discuss that yesterday afternoon.

Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am, that is correct.

So what came of that?

Right.

And what came of that was that um that we found out that there was a cost to uh putting those lead pipes in, and then there was an additional cost, uh not the not the uh water meters themselves, but there was an additional cost to set the water meters and um put them in place, and so that costs for the uh doing the lead pipes and then the cost to set the water meters was gonna be any place from 10,000 and 2,000, which would be 12,000 to unknown.

Is that what we got back from both the public utilities director and the water commissioner, right?

I apologize for being dense, you're breaking up a bit on me, so let me regurgitate what I think you just said, which is that when a lead pipe needs to be replaced, the base charge for that is ten thousand dollars with respect to lead pipe replacement.

There is as much as a two thousand dollar charge with respect to installation of a meter.

Is that what you just asked of me with respect to information you and I learned yesterday?

So, and I'm sorry, you broke up.

So, did you say the two thousand dollars was the cost approximately of installing and setting the meter, not the meter itself, which everybody asks what does it cost for the meter?

The meter's not the cost, but there is another charge that um I didn't learn from the water commissioner, but I learned from the public utilities director of about $2,000 to set the meter, which is all so saying that it doesn't cost any money for the meter is correct, but the the uh the fact is there's still another additional maybe two thousand dollar cost to set the meter.

Is that what we learned yesterday?

We learned that that is the case with respect to the installation of a meter when lead pipes are being replaced.

Correct.

Correct.

Right.

So I went around after that.

I told you I was trying to figure out another way to do um the um the uh amendment that I have before the board.

I couldn't.

Um the people that I talked to, um, it really kind of uh wanted you to know when I talked to them about changing it, they said that when you start talking about lead pipes, and a lot of them will have to do it, and especially my area where they're over uh uh woman.

I think you are frozen.

I don't know if you can hear us we seem to have lost Alder Woman Tyus.

I will go to other discussion and if Alder Woman Tyus, can you hear us now?

That I can hear you always, and I'll um so I don't know what's going on.

Nothing in my house is frozen because everybody other things are being used, so I don't know what's going on.

It says your Wi-Fi is very low.

I'm not getting that reading from here, so I don't know what's going on.

Can you hear me?

We can hear you now.

You're a little choppy, but I think we can hear you.

Let me see what if I can turn this up.

Here's my mic.

Maybe if I turn my mic up, okay.

So anyway, so what I found out after if you can hear me, what I discovered after speaking to several constituents who had brought that uh uh lead pipe matter to my attention is that they thought that was a deal breaker.

Um, and so originally when I sent a uh amendment to uh problem from the fifth, it was to um not a widespread removal of um people in the tornado affected area, but there were several instances which we wanted to remove people who were in the tornado affected area, and that would be um any resident who was a property uh uh uh who was a property owner who reside in their residence on May 16th, 2025, and also somebody was living there as a family house um to remove them from having to go and be under the water meeting uh uh adoption.

And I do have an amendment that at the appropriate time I would like to um to uh bring before the board, but I just want to say uh I am a supporter of leaders mostly, but I am not a supporter in the case when it becomes that we may get people not to, or we may encourage people not to install because of the they're scared that they'll have to pay more money.

Lead it lead in the water pipes and lead in the paint.

Um is something that we've been dealing with for a long time.

We used to actually have a uh uh a uh a fund that we would use to get people to move the lead in their water and in their um in the paint.

We don't have that fund anymore.

So at a time when um people are being impacted by tornadoes, and at a time when people got letters telling them they need to um replace their uh lead pipes.

Um I could not in good conscience then talk about another 12,000 dollars.

Um not really 12, because 10,000 you're gonna have to do if you replace your lead pipes, but um to incur another two or three thousand dollar charge was something that they did not think that was appropriate, and I want to support them in saying I think that we should hold off on the tornado impacted area and do that at another call time.

The Alderman and I did talk about trying to find a fund that would uh uh some some people who would help fund us again, maybe some benefactors in the city who have money, but at this time we don't have that, and I don't want um the people who are in the tornado impacted area and already dealing with so many problems for that to have to be a problem.

I mean that to have to be another additional cost, and for that reason, I cannot support the bill without an amendment that would remove part of tornado impacted uh area out of the bill.

Hold on, I think.

Hello?

I I'm I'm sorry, Alder Woman.

Was there a question?

I apologize.

I have been listening.

Okay, okay.

So I'm just saying you did know that that was my problem and that I was trying to find a way to work about that, but I didn't find a way to work around it.

And you know that I was trying to find a way to do that.

And so that's why I wanted you to know that's why I went ahead and submitted the original amendment I had, because I don't think the additional 2,000 um to set the meter, uh, something that can I can discount when people are dealing with their budgets, and I don't want to encourage people to not have their lead pipes removed.

Or just not do anything because they will uh infer an addition.

I did get the reply from Mr.

Gold saying, well, they could finance it over this and this.

I tend not to discount when people tell me their stress on their finances, especially in a tornado area.

So that is why I went ahead and submitted the uh amendment because I will not support it if we don't do an amendment because I think it's uh uh the Mr.

Gold should have told me that earlier when I asked about um if there was a cost.

He only answered the problem that the cost of what the meter would cause.

But if there's an underlying cost with the meter, that should have been an answer that he gave me, not only when I found it out, said, Oh, yeah, that cost two.

So I don't feel like that um he was up front with me.

And so I have to now go with what the community is saying that they don't want to be involved and included in that.

So I wanted you to understand why I decided to go ahead with the amendment as I originally submitted.

I understand that older woman, and and I do appreciate the explanation.

This is something that you and I spent quite a bit of time yesterday discussing, and in our dialogue is is truly appreciated, and I do understand your concern.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so I just wanted to know I wasn't not doing what I said, I just couldn't get it done.

I I understand, yes, we've talked about it.

Okay.

Um, Madam President, at the appropriate time, I'd like to move to put an amendment before the full board.

It should be in the drive on people's desk.

Is there uh is it amendment number one?

It is there a second second, it's been moved by the alder woman from the 12th, uh seconded by the alder woman from the 11th that we adopt amendment one.

We adopt amendment one.

Alder Woman, you may proceed on the amendment.

Uh Madam President, members of the board amendment one is a uh exemption to the tornado.

I'm sorry, isn't it uh uh is an uh exemption to the um bill regarding um water meters um that would take out in very limited uh circumstances people in the tornado impacted area.

I know um the offer from the 14th had asked about a bigger exemption, and in last week I talked to Dogman from the fifth, I asked him about would he be entertained um if we uh took out certain people.

So this limited amount of uh uh people who would be withdrawn from the owners uh or or if there are multiple owners who lived in the house of the property when at the time of the tornado, they would be exempted from it, or if it was resident um or relative who lived in the house at the time of the tornado and now was buying the house or inheriting the house, that would uh just be a very limited amount of people that would be exempted from um from the requirement to get a water meter because although $2,000 additional may not be a lot for for me or some other people, but for other other people it's a large amount, and I just feel more comfortable if we as much as possible if we could give great people who are going through uh repairing the houses for tornadoes because I'm one of them, and luckily I've had insurance, but as soon as we get something fixed, we find out there's something else that didn't uh that wasn't done, and so we're having to do that.

So I'm very fortunate to have insurance, but a lot of people don't, and they don't have that kind of money.

And uh a small members of the full board would um support this amendment.

Yes, alder woman from the 11th.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board.

Um permission to inquire of the alderman of the fifth ward.

Alderman from the fifth, would you yield to questioning from the alder woman from the 11th?

I will.

Thank you.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

So, Alderman Devotee, a week ago, you and I had a text conversation about this very thing.

Uh, and I told you verbatim uh as a property developer uh over 30 years, and I've done a number of residential properties where I have had to bring a water line in from the street.

That water line from the street is laid because that was the standard when those houses were built all over the city.

When you open when you have to have that done, you must, according to the plumbing code for the city of St.

Louis, you must change that.

You cannot leave that lead line and tie on to it.

Additionally, um the size of the water line itself at one point I think was about a half inch, now it's about a an inch uh in diameter.

So that has to be oh, I'm sorry.

Well, I was trying to look at thank you.

Thank you, sir.

So um so in dealing with plumbing inspectors and dealing with the plumbing code.

This is not something that is easily done and it's not cheap.

And other departments have to be involved, you know, the permit to open up the street because that's where it originates from.

So they have to open up the street, run the line into that property.

That on a small scale, uh, you know, if you happen to get a good plumber that maybe doesn't necessarily, you know, be at the job right, is 10 grand.

I just had uh my brother just had one done a few months ago, and he lives across the street from Lafayette Park.

Okay.

I had a neighbor recently who also had one of these done again over 10 grand.

You're talking about people in most cases, even working class people.

We're not gonna talk about the people who we know got money.

This is an expensive endeavor.

You don't have the option, according to the plumbing code.

I gotcha to say, oh, just tie into that.

You cannot.

It has to be fully replaced.

The other issue that I would like to raise is that because I'm doing a new uh project, does not necessarily mean that I want to have a water meter.

I don't think that that is fair at all.

There are some people doing development of residential properties who don't want a meter.

They want to just have the regular flat rate.

And I believe that they should have that option in the interest of being fair to them.

Thank you.

And again, I appreciate that dialogue.

I also understand your concern.

Which is when we talk about the replacement of that water line, that lead line, uh that work that must be done.

This bill doesn't require any resident who otherwise undertake work.

Now, to your point, if the work is undertaken, if it's done, a water meter must be installed.

From my perspective, the most opportune time to move to a water meter is when that work is being done.

Whether it's being done by choice or it's being done because one must have to in the tornado zone.

With respect to the issue with respect to the water rate, I am certain that there are some people, depending upon situation, that want the flat rate.

Circumstances do differ.

But what I would point out is that installation and requirement of meters is the modernized standard today across the country.

Requiring installation of meters gets our city from a a bygone area into 2026.

And and sure, some people are getting a deal now.

If you're using a bunch of water and you're getting charged that flat rate, but there's a bunch of people that are going to benefit from installation of these and that's essentially what you and I talked about this past week.

And and I agree with that.

And yes, some people are going to benefit from it that you know that's their um, you know, their choice.

Uh I'm not arguing that point, but what I am arguing is that when we have old systems in practically every house built before, you know, 19, I'll say 1950 with lead pipes.

It's not an option, oh, we can just go and slap a meter on it.

No, you got to take out that lay it.

You it's not a choice.

You know, and then where does the money for that come from?

And my other point is that we're struggling with our water infrastructure.

Where how is it that we have money to put in meters for people, but we don't, but we're raising their bills at the same time.

So I I kind of have a problem with that as well.

I'd rather leave it like it is for now and not raise the water rate as opposed to charging my people more for water and now dig up, you know, from the street into your property so that you can get a water meter put in.

So that's the end of my my questions.

I yield.

Thank you, Alder Woman.

Alder Woman from the First.

Our mics are asleep today.

Thank you.

They also move.

Uh Cier.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Uh, I am in support of this board bill.

Uh, this is and with that without the amendment, uh, very simply because this is requiring meter installation only when major work is being done on the line.

This is something that is going to modernize the system.

We hear over and over and over again from members of the public in committee that the city should be moving to meters.

The city should have done this a long time ago.

The city should have had this requirement for a long, long time.

This is something that that people want to see us do.

Um, and it doesn't make sense to me to exclude a large portion of the city from this requirement when it is something that will, you know, ideally hopefully end up saving people money in the long term uh because they have more control over how much water they're using and how much their their rate is.

We hear from a lot of folks, especially older folks, they're folks who um are living in houses that were maybe built for more people, but it's just one or two people in houses with multiple bathrooms and a lot of area that they really want to see these meters being installed because they feel they're being charged uh more for more than they're using.

Uh and that is the you know, the how the flat weight billing system works.

So it seems like a a really important and opportune time when major work is happening to put the meters in and to uh be modernizing the system.

Um, you know, uh obviously, you know, no one wants to have to do a major project like this fine.

It's incredibly expensive.

But the meter is not what makes it expensive.

The meter is not what increases the cost.

The meter is what modernizes the system and ideally decreases the cost that people are facing over time, as well as making sure that people know if they have a leak in their line.

Right now, if you're a flat rate, you could have a leak that's going to cause more damage to your home and not know about it.

Uh and that is again another cost that could be avoided by having these meters installed.

So I think it's a really smart um bill, and I I know any any change to how the city does things is always uh going to take some growing pains, but it's something that the city should be moving towards.

Um and because it would be far too expensive and far too onerous on people to require meter installation for everyone when there's not a large project when you're thinking about new construction, when you're thinking about these new projects, it's the perfect time to do.

So uh I really hope that we keep the bill as it is today and move it, move it forward uh as it is.

Thank you.

Alder Woman from the thirteenth.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

The Alderman from the fifth take a question.

The Alderman from the fifth field questioning from the Alder Woman from the 13th.

I will.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Alderman uh spire want they changed out all their meters, but they knew they had to go an extra step and do the piping.

So and we would not charge probably on the back end we'll be charged, but in the front, we weren't charged.

So why couldn't we do that like that?

Alder Woman, I I I think anything could be done as it often is in the city, especially when we're talking about old infrastructure.

The question then becomes cost.

What would be the cost for our water division to proactively or prospectively undertake that kind of work?

And and as we discussed this past week with respect to the water rate bill.

At this point in time, we simply aren't in the position, our water division isn't, to prospectively take that work.

I mean, ideally, you're absolutely right.

That would be the way to do it, but we're not in that position.

So that's why board bill twenty-eight is that much more uh uh uh important because what it does is it's setting in motion the first step, a baby step with respect to limited type of work.

So I hear you.

Uh but but again, this is an important beginning step forward on modernizing our water system.

It's another step forward in modernization.

Alder Woman, I can't hear you.

No.

Are you muted?

Oh, okay.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Okay.

So I do support what the Alderman from the 12th presented because again, we need to look at those people have to spend more because they lost more.

And they don't have those dollars.

So I do agree with that, but I just think we should have looked at how we could do this with the uh like the spy.

And so sometimes you have to bite the bullet to say, okay, we might need to do it this way to make sure that people aren't being impacted as much as they are.

And I'm pretty sure SPAR looked at it financially on how this was going to impact, but they looked at how it was gonna benefit them in the long run.

Alder Woman, I agree completely with with what you just said.

And and that's why this bill is of limited scope.

So when you talk in terms of aldermen, I believe we need to limit what we're doing.

We to do what we can to limit the cost to our water consumers.

I agree wholeheartedly.

And and that's why this isn't an across the board retroactive fitting.

This is talking in terms of two very limited instances.

Instances in which labor time materials permitting otherwise must be incurred.

And that's why this is such a narrow, narrow bill.

Yes, ma'am.

We are on the same page as far as that goes.

Thank you.

Any further discussion on the amendment?

Any further discussion on the amendment.

Seeing none, then uh it has been moved by the alder woman from the 12th, seconded by the alder woman from the 11th.

Uh alder woman from the 12th.

Yes, I wanted to close on my amendment.

I have something to reply to what you said.

Okay, alder woman, you are recognized.

Thank you.

Um, first of all, I want to remind people that I am not asking for everyone to be exempted.

I'm asking for people who are living in the middle of the tornado impacted area.

And then on top of that, they got letters um telling them they need to um remove lead pipes because it's a health issue.

So we cannot continue to say we care about the people in the tornado impacted areas, except for where it was not convenient for us.

Um I think that uh I just got a uh email from someone about a bill the auto woman from the first did, and they told me about how much tax abatement that she's passing this bill before uh some some laws went into effect, and that I was gonna give them a lot of tax abatement that they shouldn't they didn't deserve.

The people who live in the tornado impacted area did nothing to deserve a tornado.

You left your house on May uh 16th, and when you came back, many of us didn't have a house, or we had a house that was severely impacted, or wherever we we resided.

Um people lived in streets and tents, everything.

For one year, I have worked on nothing else but helping people find homes, tarps, boards, uh, legal representation, all kind of things that they did not know that they were gonna know how to they were gonna need to be able to do.

When the Alderman from the Fifth talks about a limited circumstance, I did not say for everybody in the tornado impacted area.

It is a very limited amount of people.

I didn't say for landlords and things like that.

I said for people who were living in their homes or their relatives who were living in a home.

That is a group of people that I addressed.

I did not try to say everyone.

And I asked him before if he would last week be open to something like that.

And that was before I was made aware, because I didn't get a letter about having to remove my lead pipes, because I did that years ago.

We did line one year, and then the next year we didn't know that our water had to be replaced, so we did our water line.

So we did that years ago.

We had to pay double the cost because we should it would have been cheaper if we did it all at the same time, but we didn't know, so we paid double the cost.

But at a time that I'm watching people struggle for day-to-day existence and trying to find ways and still feeling like enough is not being done by the city, we do not need to keep another cost.

If they already have to um alderman is not wrong on the fifth.

If you already have to do it, if the city says you've got to remove your lead pipes, and you have to do it, then that is a cost.

But then you add a couple more thousand dollars to that.

Um, because um it was disingenuous to say, oh, you don't have to pay for uh the meters, but you didn't say, but you do have to pay for the installation of the meters, and that's gonna be more cost.

Once you give me an answer like that, then you're not trying to be truthful to me with with me, because I do support water meters.

I just don't support them in this instance in a limited amount of people who are in their homes and a tornado hit them, and they may already have many, many other uh objects that they uh have to uh many many other uh budget items that they have to attend to, and then all of a sudden they gotta replace lead pipes.

Now, a lot of people may not do that because they will make a financial decision.

That is why we set up money before to remove lead paint and to remove lead pipes, and it's a health issue.

And the other woman from the 13th knows this.

This is a health issue when our children are impacted with layers.

When our children are impacted with layers, this shows up years and years and years and years.

So anything we should be able to do to say, oh, I'm supporting this, except for in the small, I didn't ask for everybody in North St.

Louis and impacted should not be uh charged uh uh the fee of installing a water meter.

I said if you lived in your home at the time of the tornado, and you have to replace things that you your pipes, you would have the opt the meters or not.

Um yes, if you're already doing something, it does already.

It's the cost, the big cost is bringing the back hole out and digging it up.

I've thought through all of that, but then just add two thousand dollars more for the water commissioner to send me and say, Well, you can do it this way, and it's just a little money.

I think that he should have to put that money up for each and every person.

If he would guarantee that he would pay that extra two thousand dollars for all the people who would need it, then I wouldn't have a problem.

But I'm not gonna pay it.

He's not gonna pay it, and we uh cannot talk out of both sides of our mouth and say, oh, we support the people in the tornado area, and then say, oh, but we need to get water meetings, so we don't care that it's an additional uh cost, and that you're being mandated, and then that is a health issue.

And so anything that would prevent people from addressing that health issue in an expeditious manner, um, and putting a water meter on it and cost them two thousand more dollars to install the water meter.

If that's gonna prevent them from doing uh what I support, then I'm not support it.

I will not be supporting this bill without this amendment.

It is a very small focused amendment, um, and it should be supported because it is a uh viable way to help people out in the tornado impacted area who do not necessarily have the funds to uh address this issue holistically, it should not be made to um be hesitant about if they should go ahead and remove the pipes, um, or if they have to go ahead and remove the pipes and spend an extra besides the ten thousand or more dollars, then spend an extra two thousand more to set the meters when this is something that is not an emergency.

So that does not make any sense to make it an emergency that this has to be.

Um I also find it interesting that as I said before, I brought up water issues back when we first got the ARPA funds.

Nobody was interested, nobody cared about.

Now it's become things to talk about.

But when we had a lot of ARPA funds, a vast amount of ARPA funds, and we could put something to it.

We didn't.

Now we're backdooring it, as we often do, and we we are telling the people who are in the middle of not only uh one of the biggest disasters probably of their life, but also now have a health issue about how to replace their pipes if they're trying to rehab their house.

That that's too bad you need to find a way and go ahead, but we're not finding any financing for them.

And so um I would remove renew my motion that we amend uh we amend board bill 28 with amendment number one.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the 12th, seconded by the Alderman 11 that we adopt amendment number one to board bill number 28 as amended on the floor.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Swife, sir.

Alderman Oldenberg, Alderman Cohn.

No, Alderman Orion, Alderman Devoti.

No, Alder Woman Velasquez, Alder Woman Sanye, Alder Woman Coxy and Twee, Alderman Browning.

No, Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

No, Alder Woman Keys, Alder Woman Tyus.

Aye, Alder Woman Boyd, I alderman Aldrick, President Green, no Alder Woman Keys.

Three I three I'm sorry, four four I votes, eleven no's by your vote.

You failed to sustain the motion from the alder woman from the 12th.

Any further discussion on Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor, aldermen from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board with the order from the fifth year for questions.

Yes.

We may proceed.

Sorry.

Alderman from the 5th, will you yield to question from the Alderman from the 4th?

Yes, I jumped the gun.

I apologize.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President.

You must be excited for this inquiry, Alderman.

I've been expecting this.

Oh wow.

Hopefully it's a little more calmer than last week.

So last week, my main concern with this piece of legislation, and I had a lot of um residents that was watching this and also had questions.

But my main concern was that these water meters that would only need to be installed if I know your bill correctly, only would need to be installed if it's a major rehab or a new bill, that the cost of the water meter would then be on the consumer.

And last week there was a little bit of conflicting information that it would cost, that it wouldn't cost if you were um making a certain income, it would be free.

But I think since then we got an email from the water department about if the consumer would pay for the water meter.

So can you explain the um if there would be a cost to individuals if they have to get a water meter installed?

I'd I'd be happy to, Alderman.

Uh and and as uh you know, you and I did have a back and forth, and I think frankly, and I apologize.

We were arguing about semantics, and I take responsibility for that.

But having said that, uh, after we uh convened last Friday, I did reach out to the water division because I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.

Um and I did ask your question, the question that you posed on the floor to the uh the deputy director, Spencer Gould.

And as you know, because I forwarded the email around, Mr.

Gould confirmed that and I'm going to read this verbatim to make sure we're all on the same page.

The water division fully covers the cost of residential meters and meter.

And of course, that answer was to the question of who bears the cost of the meter installed should board bill twenty-eight pass.

So uh that that question was posed because of our back and forth, and I trust that uh the the associate commissioner's response satisfied your inquiry.

It did, and you know, my my concern was I think what Alderwoman tyus and there was another amendment from Alderwoman from the Seventh War Alder Woman Sonier, my concern was there is a large uh swap of an area that's been impacted by the tornado um that will probably need some uh major rehab, if not new bill, which your bill does not force them to do the the work of the pipe installing and all that, that would already have to come on the consumer to install those pipes.

So that would have regardless if your bill passed or not.

If individuals that need pipe work done, they already have to pay for that.

The nuance that uh I think with your bill that where I had questions was now mandating um the water meters to now be on properties, and I know as we talked, I think what you said your goal was long-term people who have meters would pay less compared to like flat rates because right now the city goes out and uh charges you like per bedroom or bathrooms or something like that, but the meter would be able to actually detect it and to know that the meter is not going to cost the consumer, um, especially individuals that have been impacted by the tornado, I will say moving forward with it.

Uh, I do feel comfortable voting for the bill.

Um, if it ended up coming down uh after we vote for it, that consumers are actually uh you know having to pay for these water meters.

I hope we'll revisit uh that piece of legislation and uh amend it to make sure that people in the tornado impacted area will have uh an exemption.

I support an exemption.

I don't think a forever exemption, I think the alder woman from the the 7th had a a time limit on the exemption.

I do support that because I do think long-term meters is the right way to go, but we shouldn't be forcing um individuals to do it, and that was my concern, which are bill.

I appreciate uh you reaching out to the water department.

I think all the alders got that email from the water department that these meters will be uh at the cost of the water department, not at the cost of the consumer.

So if that is true, uh I want to rise in support of the legislation.

So thank you.

Thank you, Alderman.

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Madam Presidents, if the member uh if the uh Alderman for the 14th would yield the alderman from the 14th yellow questioning from the alder woman from the 12th.

Absolutely.

Alder woman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Uh Alderman, so yeah, last week you asked about the cost of the meters, and that's what I also asked.

And I sent that to um Mr.

Bull, but I also got a uh response from one of my constituents who said, Hey, I got this letter that's forcing me to have to replace my lead water pipes, and um, and having a conversation with both the Alderman from the fifth um and others, and he and I both agreed we hadn't thought of that.

So I sent this uh uh I sent a uh inquiry to both Mr.

Gulden and to Mr.

Uh Mr.

Patel.

And Mr.

Gould only gave me part of an answer, and Mr.

Patel gave me the rest.

And this is the nuance.

If you just ask, do you have to pay for the water meter?

The answer can be no.

But that's like saying if you get dentures, do you have to pay for the dentures?

No.

But do you have to pay the tent the dentist to install them?

Yes.

And that is what is happening with this water meter.

So what Mr.

Goose says, oh, you don't have to pay.

But what Mr.

Pet Patel said, and I can send it to you right now.

Yes, the placement of a lead service line will be at the owner's expense.

Estimated cost of about $10,000.

The estimated additional expense to add a water meter center and pit is less, it's about $2,000.

So that's disingenuous to me when you tell me I don't have to pay for the water meter, but I gotta pay to have it set.

That's an added expense, whether it's the water meter or not.

The water meter is cheaper than the $2,000 that you have to pay to have it set.

It's calling pit um water meter center and a pit.

So do you uh don't you agree that if that's an added expense, that that's an expense that should have been uh to told to all of us?

Yes, and if you could send that email, I'd love to see it.

I think Oh, I'm gonna send it right now.

In fact, I'm gonna send it to you, and then I'm gonna screenshot it to you.

Okay, but you can ask Mr.

Uh the fifth ward alderman because that is I sent it to him.

Okay, I just didn't send it to everybody.

Because it just appalled me that you try to trick me.

Don't try to trick me and don't try to smooth me.

Tell me everything because I really want water meters, and I've talked about it before.

But I'm saying I know you said that la I know that you said that last week that you weren't opposed to water meters.

I guess the question that I would lean kind of uh in favor with you on is if someone needs uh work done and pipes done and where they wouldn't need to install a water meter, they would probably pay for that.

But if um are you saying that now with this legislation that they would have to pay for the installation of the water?

Yes.

So that's why they're tricking you when they say you don't have to pay the water meter.

And it's not it's not tricky, it's just not the full truth.

Okay.

So the full truth is no, you don't have to pay for the water meter, but you have to pay for uh, and I went and checked with some other people.

They all said that's right, that you have to pay for the extra two thousand dollars is for the additional uh expense to add a water meter setter and a pit.

And that's an extra two thousand dollars.

So even though you're not paying for the water meter, and I and I said I can liken it to you have to get dentures, and they give you a ditches free, but you gotta pay the uh ditches three three thousand dollars.

So that's an added expense right there, and that was what made me back off of it because I was supportive.

And I thought that we could work through that.

And what I got the two different answers, if Mr.

Patel knows the answer, then Mr.

Gould knows the answers also.

So I'm gonna screenshot this and then I'm gonna send the full um uh email to you so you can see it yourself if you don't mind.

Okay.

So I want you to read that.

Yeah, no, I read it, and I mean in that case, and I know I have you know, being transparent, I talk with uh the alder for us on the water meter part, maybe you know, I don't own a home, so I don't I don't know all the ins and outs if the individual will have to pay for the insulation that is a uh cost that I that's what I was trying to avoid ultimately um with the whole water meter, knowing that the meter was free that relieves some of my concerns.

Uh if there is, I guess they will have to pay for the installation part of it.

Um that would be a kind of a force of a payment on people in the area.

Um and I want the alderman from the fifth think I'm going back and forth, but uh again, I don't know all pipes and plumbings, but uh my whole my whole argument last week is how do we minimize any um additional costs?

And I'll be honest, I know yours was a full exemption.

I do think you know, maybe it's a limited exemption.

Um, but how do we limit some additional costs on individuals in the impacted area that um will need major rehab in the tornado?

So if there is a cost to the installation part, which comes to be about 2,000 additional dollars, that would be you know a concern of mine's because while I also believe that water meters will benefit in the long call.

Um, you know, uh what water as I said last week with water rates going up 18%, and uh even that bill is actually like technically tied to CPI, so tied to inflation, it probably will be more over time, and then bringing this new water meter um legislation and requiring even more expenses.

That is that is just my main concern.

How do we limit as much uh expenses on people that's already being challenged and have uh burdens just trying to figure out how they can rebuild?

Okay, so so I wanted to say I've already sent you the email, and you'll see it's from Mr.

Patel, and then he and you do know him to be the director of uh public utilities, correct?

Or say that again.

I'm sorry.

This is already I said I sent you the email that's was from Mr.

Patel, and you know him to be the director of public utilities, correct?

Correct.

Okay, so you will see in red that he outlines the cost of because I asked the question about lead pipes, because uh it had not occurred to me because I did not get that letter.

But once I got the letter, I sent him a full uh some other questions um that people had uh submitted to me, but was shocked when he came back and said, No, you don't have to pay for the water meter, but you have to pay for the installation.

That should when you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answer sometimes.

So some of that is on me, because I asked just like you did, if you have to pay for the water meters.

Never kind of thinking that they wouldn't that Mr.

Uh Google wouldn't tell me, oh, you don't have to pay for the water meter, but you have to pay for the installation of the water meter.

That's still the same concern.

How much added expense would be added to a person who's already dealing with uh in the tornado area and dealing with the cost of the tornado.

So that's why, and you know, last week I said I asked the Alderman from the fifth, will he open be open to a limited, limited exclusion?

Not a big full exclusion, but this is a limited exclusion only to people who it was it didn't get passed, but it was for people who lived in their houses, or if a relative lived in the house and they were gonna buy the house and we're buying the house.

It was not a widespread, and maybe it should have been, because now if I don't have the money, I'm gonna have to make the decision of well, I'm not gonna replace my pipe right now.

And who's gonna come out here and find out if I have pipes?

And our health issue ought to be more important to an agenda that we're getting this going now.

Because we could have done this a long time ago.

And just to reiterate, years ago, and heist Bush offered to pay for us to have meters and the city turned it down.

There's been a lot of problems that happened in the water department, and that people didn't do what they were supposed to.

It was all kind of reports that people didn't do, they didn't apply for the money.

And now at a time when people are stressed, now we are going to say, okay, well, you just have to do this anyway.

The many people are talking about outside of their mouths.

They either care about the people in the area or they don't.

And $2,000 may not be enough of a cost to some people, but it can make the difference in others.

So I I asked you to read it, and I'm sending you the screenshot now, so you can also just look at it on your phone without reading the entire email.

Design, I'm re I'm reading now, and I will say because it was on record as I said last week, you know, I don't you know understand the the urgency of doing this now.

Um I think uh, you know, meters long term will benefit uh residents, and I think you even mentioned that too.

But you know, I I do raise like you know the question of now uh of what what is the need to, you know, we've at least been having the conversation of water increase going all the way back to um when we did the one under all the women Schweitzer uh like three years ago, and there's been a long time of community engagement around the water uh rate increase.

Those have been conversations actually going on previous before uh this board, but you know, I don't I don't understand the rush of doing the the meter um element of it in my opinion, but from the 14th, excuse me.

I just echo you.

I don't think I don't I don't understand the rush of doing meter uh legislation um at the moment.

I will say um seeing the email is that what is in my email to you?

Is it set does it say exactly what I told you?

Yes, it does.

It says if you need uh any uh yes, replacing a lead service line is considered a new construction and will require a meter being installed that's a replacing the lead service line is a major infrastructure project and installing a water meter at the same time will cost only a fraction of the overall project.

Um a lot of additionally, the water department is continuing to work with state and federal regulations to secure grants and financing uh options that could further reduce and eliminate the cost if board bill um is passed, which if you know if they're working on some of those grants and federal regulations, maybe we could secure the bag as a young kid say before actually um you know passing the legislation.

But yes, I mean, yeah, I I'd I'm reading my question to you.

When you were asking about the meters, um did you expect that they would also tell you if there was an associated cost to install in the meters?

Was that part of your expectation, not just the meters?

No, I did not think about the installation part.

Like I say, I'm not a homeowner, so I don't know.

I was talking to Aldoum McKeys a little bit about it, but my main concern was uh the meter.

Didn't know that there would be a cost for uh the the installation part, which you know, I just believe that if there is pipe work that already needs to be done, that is you know a cost, but it sounds like what you said, this would be an additional cost on the pipe work because they would have to install a meter, therefore.

Yeah.

Correct.

That's what I'm saying.

And that was not where I was expected to be last week.

That was not what I was saying last week.

It was only with this information that I I had to pull back and say, well, that's not fair.

If you I am a homeowner, um, and most of my buildings already have meters because we have six families, and if you're uh six family, you have to have a meter, and I don't have a problem with landlords and people like that doing meters, you that's a cost of doing business.

But when you're in the middle of uh being stressed um in a tornado impacted area, and people are always you know saying, Oh, we're taking care of this, but all of a sudden now we have an agenda that uh to wait for some people.

That's the problem that I have.

And from now on, I'll be much more careful when asking people uh questions because then the question should have been is there a meter cost or is there a surrounding cost to the meter?

So I will accept that as my responsibility, but I will always say that Mr.

Gould should have told me the rest of it because Mr.

Patel filled the need, and I really want to thank him for telling me the full truth.

When people tell you the partial truth, that does not help anything.

Thank you very much, Alderman.

I have no further questions for you.

No, thank you.

Any further discussion?

Elder woman from the 13th, your hand was up.

Do you are you wanting to speak?

Yeah, I just wanted to uh follow up with all the same, but it's just real interesting to me.

As a board, we say that we're really fighting to help the people with this tornado, and then everybody vote against helping the people that's impacted by the tornado.

So it just not making sense to me.

Maybe I'm missing something.

And and that's just my comment.

Any further discussion?

Alderman from the 14th.

Uh Alderman from the 14th.

No, you madam president, members of the board.

Uh I guess with the alderman from the ninth year for questions.

The alderman from the ninth yield questioning from the alderman from the 14th.

Yes.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, thank you.

Uh Alderman, I know you uh have been working on infrastructure since you got down here, and um as we was talking about the installation part, I seen you shaking your head no.

So I don't know if maybe there's something that I'm missing um that is new part of the conversation.

I think, like I say, my main concern was always the water meter part, but the old woman from the 12th bring up the installation would be a cost.

I see you shake your head.

Could you maybe explain?

Yeah, as I'm reading the bill, um I'm looking at page two, Y 18.

We're in the definitions here.

Major rehabilitation project.

Any rehabilitation project in which one the plumbing division requires the replacement of a water service line, or two, when a partial water service line replacement is performed utilizing the service line repair fund otherwise established by this ordinance.

So my understanding of this bill is that it's only required in the case of new construction or a major rehabilitation project, and in the case of major rehabilitation, you're already doing the work uh when this becomes a requirement, so that's already the cost you're paying.

So if you're doing a say it's a ten thousand dollar service line replacement, it's still a ten thousand dollar service replacement, you're getting the water meter for free.

So if the work already got to be done on a ten thousand dollar line replacement, uh there wouldn't be from what what you're saying, there wouldn't be an additional cost of an installation fee for the water meter.

There's there's no different pipes, you're just saying they're all the same pipe, and then the water meter will just plug up to that, and that will be free.

That's correct.

There's a service line that goes from the street into the house, and if you're already there in the ground, you dug the well, you're working on the service line because that's already a requirement as part of some other work that's being happened that's happening.

You're already paying for that cost.

It is no extra work to just cut in and put in a meter.

Uh, I think we're not talking thousands of dollars.

We're just talking about the already the cost of the plumber already being out there and in the ground.

So that's really the cost here.

The water meter is again free.

The water division provides that and they own it and they service it.

But what is the cost that would be paid if you were doing this without a major rehabilitation?

I just wanted to open up and get a meter today, I'd have to play pay a plumber to come out and get that done.

That would be an extra cost for me.

But if I'm already doing a major rehabilitation project as defined by this bill, that's already a cost you're incurring.

So you're just putting a meter in at the same time.

So I understand this to be no extra cost to the homeowner.

Okay.

So if there's no meter being put in, that work is already being done, it costs ten thousand dollars.

They're not putting a meter in because they need plumbing work, so they have to pay for that, right?

That's 10,000.

And what you're saying is even with this bill, even though it says re uh rehabilitation or major rehab and new builds.

You're saying with this bill, there is no additional cost for any additional lines that would be required now with the water meter.

There's no additional line that is needed or no additional cost of installation of hooking that line up to a water meter, it's already just gonna be the same cost.

Yeah, there's already a service line attached to every single home.

If that one service line is being replaced and uh part of that work, then a meter would be required to go in as you're doing that work, and that's in the definition of this bill under major rehabilitation project.

Thank you.

Will the alderman from the fifth of you have a questions?

I will.

I'm sorry.

Alderman from the 50.

I will you're very much wanting to answer the alderman from the 14th questions today.

There is just something about his inquiry.

I can't hold my Alderman, you may proceed.

I'm a little nervous about that, but it's a lot of smoke today.

So um clearly, Alderman, our back and forth has been the water meter.

And that was have always been my concern I brought to you, correct?

Yes.

Hearing from the all woman from the 12th of this installation, and uh I'm again I'm not a homeowner, so this is probably more educational.

Uh, but making sure I do the right thing with this vote.

Is it uh would there be additional costs for the installation part or any new lines that have to be installed that would go to the water meter from the pipes that are being worked on?

I'm glad you asked me that question.

Thank you.

Um we had this discussion yesterday, the older woman and I did, and she did forward the email to me.

And I hate to play lawyer, but I played lawyer, and I actually did it last week, so I look forward to you playing lawyer this week.

So I pulled up the city code, and specifically I looked at chapter 23.

Chapter 23 deals with the water division.

And I read chapter 23, and there's an interesting provision.

It is 23.04.217.

This is city ordinance.

Okay.

So this is our code.

And I think we can put this to bed.

Because I would direct everybody in this body to the last sentence of that particular chapter, which says, quote, the water commissioner will furnish all valve box and meter box frames and covers at no cost exclusives of those for automatic sprinkler or combined fire meter use.

End quote.

That's our that's our code.

And so rather than it, and I think the alderman from the ninth is dead right on this.

And that would be my answer to you.

Not an email, uh not the director, but our code with respect to who bears the cost.

And our code says the water division.

And I know our code is a little outdated.

That's why it's been a lot of work done, but you with all that being said, and uh I'm not a lawyer, so I'm coming to you as a client in simple terms, the installation from the pipes that will connect to a water meter would be no additional costs.

That is defined by the ordinance.

It only talks about situations in which certain work must be done.

It is extremely limited.

So if a lead pipe must be replaced, that pipe collapses, and the cost to our resident is $10,000.

That cost is going to be incurred by our resident, our division's customer, notwithstanding any water meter installation.

And otherwise, I just pointed you to the ordinance.

I I I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but I I don't know how else to answer the question.

Well, I think you know, if there was more, like I I think I explained to you, I don't understand the rush of doing this.

If there was more time for all of us to digest it, clearly last week there was, and I appreciate your apology earlier, there wasn't clear uh understanding of the water meter part.

So clearly there's still lingering questions out there, and uh without being a lawyer.

So I'm hearing you clearly enough the last time I asked you if I have to get work to your bill, major rehab done, I gotta get work from I have a lead pipe and it needs to be replaced that is running from the ground to my house, that's $10,000 without a water meter.

If I have to get work done because I have a lead pipe and it is destroyed, and it's gonna run from the ground to my house, but now there will be a water meter added to it, you're saying that work was still be $10,000, no special pipes, no connection hookup fee, it will still be $10,000, even with the water meter because the work already has to be done.

I I I can't I can't say that.

And you know I can't say that because we discussed this last time of whether there is a nominal charge to do that specific work.

And I think that's no, and that's the problem.

Now you are saying you can look like you're getting frustrated again, but if you can't say it and be clear on the cost, how do you expect a a vote on something and we don't know and and what the Alderman from the night said, he said regardless if it's a water meter or not, it'll still be 10,000.

I just asked you if it ran from the ground, a lead pipe going to the house, it's 10,000.

If there is a water meter now that has to get connected to it, is it still 10,000?

And you're saying you can't, you're not sure if there will be an additional cost.

I called three plumbing companies and said, can you parse this out to me?

And and the sound of exasperation on the other side of the line was like, huh, you want me to do what?

We charge a rate to get this done.

Um I can't break it down.

So if an expert can't break it down, whatever that nominal portion would be, to have a plumber on hand another 15 minutes or 30 minutes.

No, sir, I can't.

And I'm never going to be.

I do want to address this issue about the rush, about the rush.

And I get it.

I've only been in a member of this body for the last year and a half.

But I've been a member of the public utilities committee during that entire period.

And during that entire period, I have heard our residents, our consumers complain nonstop about flat rate pricing.

I got to imagine if that's been going on for the last year and a half, it's gone on for many, many years before this.

And I'd like to point one last thing, one last thing out.

And that is when we had the hearing on this bill before committee, the consumers council was present.

And I know you know who the consumers council is, but for any of those folks who are watching it, it's a nonprofit organization whose job is to look out for Missouri consumers, including utility consumers, like the residents uh the consumers of our water division.

And and the consumer council testified in favor of the bill as written.

And the comment was thank you for finally doing this.

Finally doing this.

So I do take issue with the suggestion to anybody that this is a rush job.

If anything, this is something that should have been done years, if not decades ago.

And there is no better time like the present to fix a long standing problem and make sure that our water division consumers are being billed properly for the water that they're built.

Step one.

Thank you, Alderman.

I yield my time, Madam President.

Need further discussion.

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Email that the Alderman from the 5th talks about was from the director of public utilities.

When I then got further clarification from the water commissioner, he also admits that there is a fee to setting the water meters.

And it's the specific terms that they use.

But I am also married to a person who does clean energy and works for a company.

And so I took it to people in his company, their engineers, and they laughed at us because they said, Why are you charging anybody for meters?

What we do is we go out in the state of Missouri and we show people how they don't have to charge their constituents for installing this stuff, and they do performance contracting.

But I didn't want to drag that into it until after it was over, because I do want them to come and talk to you so you can see there's a different way to do it.

They laughed and said, nobody does it that way.

You guys are 50 years behind the time.

Because I told you already that uh when Ann Eyes Bush tried to pay for a uh meeting took place, we didn't accept that.

But the uh email that the Armor from the Fifth tries to uh and say, oh well, that was just a email, but he called us because they're public utilities said this is and put it in the right of order, point of order um that do this, also uh said that.

I talked to it, people who are plumbers, they knew what I didn't know what the 13th, could you please state your point of order?

Madam President, I can't hear from all the background conversations.

Could uh folks in the gallery, if you're having side conversations, please take them outside or away from microphones.

Thank you, Alder Woman from the 12th, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Again, I want to read this.

This is what I wrote to the water, the public safety, I'm I'm sorry, the uh public utilities director.

Several constituents noted the recent letter sent out by the city of St.

Louis regarding replacing lead water pipes in homes.

They questioned whether if they replaced lead water types and then mostly older homes, which we have, whether they would be mandated by Board Bill 28 to install a water meter.

They'll reply from the public, the director of public utilities.

Yes, replacement of a land service line would be at the owner's expense.

Estimated to cost more than $10,000, which I'm like, wow, because when we placed ours, it was $3,000, but that was decades ago.

But and then we have to play another $3,000 because we had to do the sewer and dealer water line.

The estimated additional expense to add a water meter center and pit.

Now I didn't know what a water meter setter and pit, but all of you all can then Google it.

And there is such a thing as a water meter center and a pit.

And that is about $2,000.

That is an additional cost.

And if that is when people may be mandated to uh they weren't mandated, they got a letter saying you need to look at and find out if you have lead pipes.

The thing that I am concerned about, if you're telling people to look at and see if you got lead pipes, if they're already looking at ten thousand dollars if they do it, adding another two thousand dollars to it is a lot of money.

That is twelve thousand dollars or more.

People who will have to make decisions about repairing their house, um, children, feeding medicine and everything else, that is not a small amount of money.

It is amazing to me that when we come to these kind of things now, it's like, oh poo-poo, oh, that was just from the director of public utilities.

If he is not telling the truth, then we're in trouble.

I don't believe he had any reason to say anything different than that.

And then when I further question Mr.

Goole, he admitted that there is a charge there, and that is the water meter set up and the pit.

So that is an additional charge.

And by telling people that you get a free water meter, but not telling people that you get to pay for having the water meter set is disingenuous.

And the alterman from the uh ninth is wrong, as is the alderman from the fifth, they're wrong.

That is a cost to that.

There, the alderman from the code, it never talked about what you would have to pay.

And this is where the problem is.

They don't talk about labor cost, they're talking about the actual cost of the machinery or the item.

The devil is in the labor cost, and there is a labor cost to set that meter in place is a labor cost.

Then after it's set in place, you do not really own the meter, it is owned by the city.

Yes, other meters.

Um, the all the one from the 13th talk about that uh fire, I think they replace the meters, so does Amon.

Other people, they do it.

When it comes to the city, we want to push it off on people and say, Well, we didn't do it for a long time.

As I said, if it was me, I would be supportive of this because I am supportive of meters.

But it's not me that I represent, I represent people who have different socioeconomic backgrounds.

And for those people, and especially for those people I represent who I've been trying to help for the last year in the tornado impacted area, which now we're saying we don't care if you're in the tornado impacted area, just pay it anyway.

That is a dishonest um discussion that we're having.

And um to try to act like that we're not gonna pay it.

Will we put something in there saying?

Because we can easily put a uh a little uh addition into an amendment saying that if it comes to be that there is a cost to install water meters, let me say the correct terms to install uh a water setter and a pen, whatever wait now.

I don't have it in front of me again.

I want to make sure I say the right term.

Um if it is a cost for additional expense to add a water meter setter and a pit, then we the city will pay for that.

That would be wonderful.

We're not gonna say that because we we do not want to pay for anything, even though we have been getting away with this for a long time.

We are the public utility, we should be paying for it and putting it on the back end.

To ask people to put it up front is the problem.

We all know that people pass things on to consumers.

But when you're asking people to put that charge up front and not stretch that out over time, that becomes a problem.

I I could support it if we could give some conditions, but now we're saying uh unilateral, we don't have to do it.

Nope, we don't care if you live in the tornado impacted area.

And this is why I tell people all the time at this board.

We say one thing, the all the woman from the 13th said it.

But she doesn't understand what's the problem now.

Because I asked the alderman last week if he would be open to a small exception, and this is a small exception, but he's not really open to anything.

He wants to pass it just the way it is, and that's a shame.

And the Alderman from the 14th, I want you to understand the it's a labor cost.

The thing that the Ottoman was reading you from the fifth was about the mechanics, the uh water meter itself, but the items that you would purchase, but we don't have to purchase the water meter.

But if the water meter, water meter costs less than two thousand dollars, so they're giving you the most the least expensive item, but they're not saying we will also pay for it in the bill.

And we can also just add that if if that's the case and we we don't care about paying for it, why don't we just add in the bill that the city of St.

Louis will pay for setting the water meter and the water and the we're not gonna do that because that's gonna be passed on to the consumer, and that's gonna make people who should be thinking about getting rid of their lead pipes as fast as possible, saying, Well, I've been dealing with these water pipes, these lead pipes for a long time, so I won't spend that extra money right now because I don't have it, and that's a health issue, and that's too bad that we don't understand lead is a health issue.

And um, the auto woman from the third has been um a caretaker for a long time, and she's seen all I'm sorry, not the third, the thirteenth.

She's seen all kind of people and children who are affected by lead, and it uh retards uh stops their growth sometimes, it stops their uh intellectual growth.

The children have all kinds of problems, and anything the city of St.

Louis uh should be doing from the is making sure our children are not exposed to lead, be it in the water pipes or in uh on the walls with the lead uh paint.

And all we got to do is look to Flint, Michigan to know what happens when you make a mistake with the water.

We're making a mistake right now to tell people they have to pay for this when they're already financially stressed, and they're still doing the dilemma of being in the middle of the tornado impacted area.

Thank you.

And I will ask for a roll call.

Any further discussion?

Any further discussion?

Seeing none, Alderman from the fifth, you are recognized to close.

Madam President, members of the the board.

Uh, I move that we perfect board bill twenty-eight as amended on the floor.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fifth, seconded by the alderman from the fourth that we perfect board bill twenty-eight as amended on the floor.

There's been a request for roll call.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Cone.

Alderman Ryan.

Alderman Devone.

Aye.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Hi.

Alder Woman Sonier.

Alder Woman Cox Antwee.

Alderman Browning.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyus.

No.

Alder Woman Boyd.

No.

Alderman Aldrick.

President Green.

Ider Woman Sanyer.

Alder Alderwoman Keys.

Alderman Aldrich.

Alder Woman Sun Yay.

Nine I votes, five no's.

Yeah.

Alderman from the Alderman Cone.

All right.

Ten I votes, five no's.

By your vote, you sustain the motion of the Alderman from the fifth to perfect board bill twenty-eight as amended on the floor.

Board bill number twenty-two as amended in committee.

Introduced by President Green.

Mayor Kara Spencer, Alderman Aldrick, Alderwoman Cox and Twee.

An ordinance recommended by the Board of SMN and apportionment appropriating a sum of 255 million dollars of RAM settlement funds for deposit and two various new special funds to rebuild North St.

Louis through the May 16th tornado and decades of disinvestment support infrastructure and neighborhood citywide and revitalize downtown to increase revenue for the entire city with amounts as described herein and containing a cerebrality clause and an emergency clause.

Madam President, you're recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 22 as amended in committee.

Mr.

Vice President and members of the board, I move to perfect board bill 22 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the president, seconded by the Order Woman from the 7th that we perfect Board Bill 22 as amended in committee.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President.

Board Bill 22 as amended in committee allocates 255 million dollars in RAM settlement funds to provide direct funding and secure additional capital for tornado recovery, north side redevelopment, capital and water infrastructure improvements, and downtown neighborhood plan implementation.

From the beginning, I've had three goals from this bill.

One to get much needed funding, uh as much funding as possible to the tornado recovery efforts, two to ensure our water department has the funding it needs to protect our greatest public asset, and to put together a bill that can pass at both the Board of Aldermen and the Board of ENA before the legislative recess begins on July 10th.

With both the Office of Recovery and the Water Division on the verge of running out of funds, it's imperative that we act now so those offices can continue to operate.

Allocating these funds is a pivotal step toward addressing the unprecedented needs that are facing our city.

Rebuilding neighborhoods in the tornado impacted area is estimated to cost between 1.6 and billion dollars.

Our most valuable public asset, our water division is looking at roughly 700 million dollars in capital improvement in addition to keeping up with the rising costs associated with producing safe drinking water that is known nationally as some of the best drinking water in the country.

Pier cities like Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Detroit have invested between five and eight billion dollars to spur development of their downtowns.

To stay competitive and see that kind of growth in our city, we need to make targeted investments that can attract that level of private capital and investment partners.

Assembling the funds needed to fully address these issues requires a capital structure that includes the Rams settlement, state and federal funds, matching funds from philanthropic and corporate partners and other sources.

Many of these funding partners have been waiting to see what the city is committed to and capable of doing so they can better understand how to fill in those gaps.

The successful passage of this bill would mean those conversations would move forward and additional funding could be prepared for recovery, rebuilding, and reinvestment.

Before I walk through the eligible uses and how the city plans to direct each fund, I want to address the reallocation of the reserve funds.

However, as members of the public and members of this body have pointed out during our hours of discussion already, we are currently in a crisis that requires every source of funding available.

Ultimately, the reserve funds outlined in this bill were redistributed to further support tornado recovery, water infrastructure, and vacancy reduction.

Broadly, Board Bill 22, as amended in committee funds the three funding priorities I described earlier.

With each and within each fund are subaccounts, each with their own specific purpose and use.

This is the rental and deposit assistance to impacted residents or other moving costs.

We have had 700 people apply for rental assistance in our city, and we know it is a huge need that needs to be funded.

Accelerated resident connections to housing stabilization and resident support services like case management can also be funded out of the resident support bucket, and direct goods and services to impacted residents.

Um also allows for $4 million for service delivery and administration.

This is to keep the Office of Recovery going over the next two years, providing administrative support, oversight, financial compliance, and data support systems.

In our housing bucket, we also support homeownership assistance, which can be down payment assistance for new homeowners.

We know some folks in the tornado impacted areas unfortunately cannot return back to their homes because they are in such disrepair that demolition is the only option.

We want to be able to retain those folks in the city.

And so by having down payment assistance, we can help to make sure that folks that have been displaced from their homes permanently have means to be able to relocate in the city.

We have money for infrastructure, including neighborhood beautification initiatives, public infrastructure improvements such as street sidewalks and lighting, and public park improvements.

And also small business support, funding for small businesses like grants and/or other incentives that can help those small businesses get back on their feet.

And that fund also caps has a 5% fund balance cap annually for administrative fees.

Those needs came out of diverse community engagement over a number of years.

And half of the North side neighborhoods have neighborhood plans at the moment, and the remainder will be completed by the end of this year.

As we look at our infrastructure bucket, we are dedicating 40 million dollars to our water infrastructure for maintenance and improvement.

This will help us to get matching funds for federal and state grants.

It will allow us to pay debt service payments for loans and bonds, and it will help us in supporting professional studies and plans needed to upgrade our water department for the long term.

Through greater infrastructure investments, we are also allocating $30 million.

This will go to street maintenance and safety improvements, sidewalk maintenance and accessibility, gap financing for the 50-50 sidewalk program, purchase of neighborhood traffic study equipment such as flex posts and other temporary bollards or temporary traffic calming measures, asset management program where we can do an inventory and assessment of our various public infrastructure, including equipment, streets, sidewalk surfaces, and curb ramps.

It allows us to fund pedestrian-scale lighting along major corridors, and we have matching funds for private support on that as well.

It also allows for the removal of hazardous trees and stumps in the city right away and redevelopment of recreation centers throughout our city.

Again, that fund also creates a 5% annual fund back balance max for administration costs.

Lastly, in the infrastructure bucket, we will also be funding vacancy reduction.

We have 10 million dollars dedicated to that, which will help us to hire additional city staff whose job would be to recover cities' vacancy-related expenses from property owners who fail to maintain their properties, including a dedicated collections attorney and paralegal.

By us paying for those upfront costs for those staffing positions, once they get going and start implementing the ordinances that have been passed by this body, we will then be able to use those fines and fees to fund those positions in perpetuity.

Further with vacancy reduction, we'll also be creating a pre-approved plans library, including architectural plans for standard new housing construction and common rehabilitation projects.

We'll set up a vacancy public data infrastructure and analysis ability for the city.

We'll be hiring legal support for neighborhood groups to enforce property and nuisance laws against property owners who fail to maintain their properties.

This is something that Kansas City has done with much success for many years, and we're looking to replicate here.

And lastly, we will be funding acquisition, stabilization, remediation, and other redevelopment activities involving vacant or nuisance properties by nonprofit CDCs.

And in our last major bucket, the downtown neighborhood plan implementation.

We will be funding strategic major capital projects at a level of 30 million dollars.

This includes acquisition and site prep for long-term vacant buildings such as the railway exchange building.

This also allows us to invest in downtown streetscape projects like pedestrian lighting, spot sidewalk repair, ADA compliance and enhancement, traffic safety improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

It also allows us to support improvements to downtown open public spaces, greenways, tree canopies, and other public amenities.

Additionally, we will fund $15 million toward riverfront improvements as part of the downtown neighborhood implementation plan bucket.

This will improve pedestrian and vehicle access to the riverfront through signage, wayfinding, and gate access, build new urban activation support, such as vendor kiosk, shade structures, and comfort stations, incentivize ground level development through maintenance on the riverfront, building a new dock for boat access, restaurants, bars, and a water court.

We're looking to activate our riverfront the way other riverfronts are activated in other pier cities.

And last, we'll be putting 10 million dollars toward retail and event attraction.

Downtown sidewalks, parklets, and open streets.

We'll be funding new businesses and supporting the retention or expansion of existing city businesses, uh, like retail and restaurant relocation and expansion grants.

We'll be white boxing, uh doing tenant improvements, facade improvements, uh, to support commercial property occupancy, and helping to recruit more events to downtown through a partnership with the regional sports commission.

And before I open it up for discussion, uh, Mr.

Vice President, I do have uh one amendment to board bill twenty-two as amended in committee that was emailed out to everyone last night, and I would like to make a motion that we adopt amendment two uh to board bill twenty-two as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the uh president, seconded by the Alder Woman 7th that we're to Board Bill 22 as amended in committee.

So the intent of this amendment is to ensure that the city is measuring whether these investments are achieving their attended goals and providing the board of aldermen and the public with consistent information to evaluate outcomes over time.

One of the things that we've heard throughout our public engagement process is that uh residents would like to this city to do better in assessing how our programs actually work.

So we uh so in the future we know to expand programs that that work, or we know to tweak programs that do not work.

So this amendment will require metrics to be developed within six months of the ordinance passage for tornado recovery.

Um it has to be done at the first quarterly meeting, so a little bit uh sooner than that.

We'll require annual reports to the relevant board committees using those metrics to dism to demonstrate progress and outcomes until all funds have been expended.

And relevant committees are likely to include the HUDS Committee, Transportation and Commerce, Public Safety, and/or public infrastructure and utilities.

And it requires uh all categories have quarterly and annual reports that are made publicly uh available on the city's website again so we can track how these funds are actually uh being deployed.

Um, so with that, I would uh take any questions on uh amendment number two.

Are there any discussions on amendment number two to board bill twenty-two as amended in committee?

Alder Woman from the 13th.

I don't have anything.

I I'm trying to introduce amendments, so I'll write.

Thank you, Alderwoman.

Any further discussion on amendment number two to board bill twenty-two as amended in committee.

Seeing none, Madam President, you may proceed.

I renew my motion.

It's been moved by the president, seconded by the alder woman from the seventh, that we adopt amendment number two to board bill twenty-two as amended committee.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alter Woman Sweit, sir.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alder Acting President Cone.

Aye.

Alderman Larayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Hi.

By your vote, you have sustained the motion of the president and have adopted board bill to board bill 22 as amended.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Members of the board.

I know that the alder woman from the 13th has another amendment that I support.

So I'm happy to yield over to her for that amendment.

Alder woman from the 13th, you're recognized.

Yes, Mr.

Acting President.

I'd like to introduce amendment one to Board Bill 22.

And to the Rams Bill.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 13th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th.

That we adopt amendment number one to Board Bill 22 as amended.

Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Yes.

It was some confusion and it was in there in the beginning.

And then I think in the shuffle, the neighborhoods got moved out.

And so we called it, and so we're making sure they're included in this meal because it's critical for them to be serviced also.

I renew my motion.

Any discussion on amendment number one to board bill twenty-two as amended.

Any further discussion.

Seeing none, it's been moved by the alder woman from the 13th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th, that we adopt amendment number one to board bill 22 as amended.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Amendment number one to board bill twenty-two as amended has been adopted.

Any further discussion on Board Bill 22 as amended.

Alderman from the Fourth.

Thank you.

Uh Vice President, members of the board.

I have several amendments here.

Uh they fall into kind of three camps, so I'll start with the uh least controversial.

Uh first, uh amendment number seven and eight are uh basically just uh to clean up a scribner's error.

Um they're supported by the mayor's office.

Um at this point I would move to adopt amendment number seven.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fourth, seconded by the alderman from the fourteenth that we adopt amendment seven.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Uh this is just uh cleanup language.

Um anyone wants to look.

Uh like I said, it's a scribner's error, and with that I renew my motion.

Any discussion on amendment number seven to board bill twenty-two.

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

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries amendment number seven is adopted to board bill twenty-two as amended.

Alderman, you're recognized.

Thank you.

Uh I move that we adopt amendment number eight.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fourth, seconded by the alderman from the fourteenth, that we adopt amendment number eight to board bill number twenty-two as amended.

Alderman, you may uh this exact same uh discussion as previously.

Uh happy to answer any questions.

Any further discussion on amendment number eight.

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

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries.

Amendment number eight to board bill twenty-two as amended has been adopted.

Any further discussion on board bill twenty-two as amended.

Alderman from the fourth, you're recognized.

Thank you, Vice President members of the board.

Uh amendments three through six uh all kind of fall into one camp.

So for the uh sake of expediency, good amendment three fail.

I will not be bringing four, five, or six.

Um, so all these amendments are basically to strip out the grants for small businesses.

Uh, we've seen previously that these small business grants have been abused, they're ripe for corruption.

Uh, we're just not good at this.

Uh it's not something that we should be doing.

Um, I'm happy to uh answer any questions.

Uh I'm sorry.

Okay.

Uh any discussion on amendment number four.

Point of order.

Three.

Amendment number three.

There was no motion made to adopt amendment.

Pardon me.

I move that we adopt amendment number three.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fourth, seconded by the alderman from the second, that we adopt amendment number three to board bill twenty-two as amended.

Any further discussion?

Alderman from the fourteenth.

Thank you, Mr.

President and members of the board.

Um so uh I guess I'm I'm talking on three, but like the Alderman uh said three relates to uh four and five, which is in the drive.

That would uh basically uh take away the funding for small businesses and uh North St.

Louis, and I know the Alderman from the fourth does not reside uh in the north side, and yes, there may be issues with the ARPA funds uh with the uh small business grant, but this is completely different.

This is we know ARPA funds also have a lot more requirements.

Um there's a lot more regulations around them compared to us being able to use Rams funds, you know.

They're outside of homes being impacted in North St.

Louis, there's been a lot of businesses that have also been impacted.

Uh a lot of businesses that uh do not have the funding and capital, like maybe they would in the fourth ward and dogtown to be able to rebuild in the same way uh as other colleagues.

So um uh I I wish the aldermen from the fourth would have maybe attended at least one hearing around the Rams uh funding uh to actually hear or maybe showed up to any of the budget hearings um to actually hear residents um and and their concerns of wanting to see funds actually put to Northside as an alder who uh actually live in South St.

Louis.

I do think this is it's a shame and this is a slap in the face to so many people that he do not represent um that most of the times he probably do not drive over to go see those businesses would love to know how many times he's actually been in the tornado impacted area to actually see some of the businesses that have been impacted.

So uh I would ask my colleagues not only to vote this down because it's a horrible amendment, I would ask them to vote this down because I think it's super insensitive to even be thinking about uh pulling funding back from small businesses, mainly black and brown, um, that are uh struggling one before the tornado to keep their doors open, but could really utilize these funds uh to be able to help them to uh rebuild.

So um I'll be voting no on this, and I would ask for a roll call vote on amendment number three.

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Thank you.

If the Alderman from the Fourth yield, Alderman from the Fourth, will you yield to questioning from the Alderwoman of the 12th?

Sure.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Thank you, um, Alderman.

Um your statement was we don't do um small business grants very well.

Um I would differ from you a little bit in saying that we don't do uh legislation very well from this board of aldermen.

Um that little money, and it's little compared to what was we got.

We got approximately 500 million dollars.

Alder Woman from the 13th, could you please mute?

I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Alder Woman from the 12th, you may proceed.

Thank you.

We got approximately 500 million dollars in June of 2021.

Appropriated that money for the ARPA funds, uh, because you're comparing this with the ARPA funds.

We appropriated it and had like a 10 or 12 hour Zoom meeting on July 9th, 2021.

Um, and the former mayor signed the board bill into law in August of 2021.

When we had some um fellow members of the board that ran into legal difficulties, we came back in 2023 and changed the board bill.

And herein lies a lot of the problem.

I you go back and look at me saying we're taking all the checks and balances out.

Nobody wanted the members of the board of Alderman to have any say.

There's a reason why there's been a long history about writing a letter of support or at least checking in with why you think something is good or bad in the community that you serve.

And took all of that out, and we changed the board bill.

Not me, because I didn't vote for it.

I was adamantly opposed to it and say it.

Many of the things that were gonna happen have happened because we changed the board bill.

We took checks and balances out.

The legislative body is always supposed to have checks and balances, but there has been a concentrated attempt for the last few years to take the legislative body, the elected legislative body out of much of what is done in certain parts of the city, especially North St.

Louis.

It's it's it's as if, well, if we can't run it, we're gonna make sure that you don't have anything to do with it.

So when the Alderman from the 14th says that he finds it offensive about uh you, I find it offensive that who's carrying this board bill in the first place, because neither one of them, uh, the mayor nor the president of board live in North St.

Louis.

Oh, don't own property in North St.

Louis and didn't, you know, we don't see anybody from the 11th or 12th sponsoring this bill.

Okay, the 14th says he doesn't own property.

Um, so I don't find it any more insulting for you than anybody else.

I will say that I disagree a little bit and say we have to take the responsibility.

We don't do legislation, so it doesn't get done right.

Had we done it the way it was first set up, and there were people who said, oh, Luci did that.

He did not.

The cop controller put those checks and balances in there because she had the very concern that what happened was going to happen.

But I do find it interesting that people know all about that $37 million.

But when I asked them what about the other approximately $460 million, they don't know anything about that because that was not made fun of.

That was not ridicule, that was not put out there.

Um, and it was a lot of mistakes that was done because we didn't do our duty.

So if we point fingers over at SLDC and we can rightfully, we also have to point fingers at us when we do not uh take up our duty of checks and balances.

And we did not.

We turned all of that over based on some nonsense, okay.

So then when it happened, everybody said, Oh, look at those people.

And basically you're looking at black people who cannot govern.

And that really pains me because I had to uh benefit of working with the former mayor, the former prison of the board, and the former comproller, and trying to come up with some agreements about how we can spend this money, and it was asked by all three of them to do that.

And um begged and pleaded and almost lost my life because I was sick and did not take care of myself and had to end up having surgery, trying to get us to be able to get something that would get done.

But the 37 million dollars was not the problem.

The problem was us.

You need to look in that mirror, Alban from the Ford, and if you voted to change that deal, you were part of that problem.

Because if you uh if you go back and look at that uh tape, you'll see me saying all the things that happened before because I knew what it's gone into the bill.

So I don't find it that we can't do it.

I find it that we don't do it right if we don't put checks and balances.

So if there are no checks and balances for this, it will not be done right.

Okay.

If there are checks and balances, then there will be some more, uh, it'll be better run.

But those people who uh want to say the Alderman shouldn't be involved, that is poppycock.

Goldman absolutely should have been involved because in that prior board bill, the ARPA funds, when they started saying where they gave money to, three of those places within the now called the 12th, used to be the first, was originally the 20th.

And those businesses had not been operating for eight to 15 years or more.

And I could have told them that if there was anything that I was involved in.

When I asked the sponsor of the board bill what she thought, how would we know what's going on?

She said, Well, if you're friendly with the administration or you're friendly with the people over SLDC, well, they could tell you the Board of Otters should have to be friendly with anybody.

They should have a right to get information, and it should be provided to us above requests so that we can make informed decisions, but we can't.

Right now I'm getting um requests from people who are part of the small administration uh small grants from the ARPA fund.

And it's so interesting because they start the letter.

Well, of course, you know I got this amount.

No, I don't.

I don't know what amount they got.

And then there are people who have worked very hard, put their own money up.

I have four black uh uh contractors who have put their own money up, and I tell you, they treat them like they're begging something like that.

I don't even understand it, okay.

It's uh every day I'm calling saying what is going on with that.

So I am not a fan of how it has been um the uh ARPA uh grants have been administered, but I do think that's our fault because we did not have checks and balances, and people were so busy uh covering up for their friends and their uh cohorts and their political friends that they did not do the things that you should do for everybody.

Everybody should, every ward should have got a notice every week, I'm not every week, but every month or every couple months, what was going on, how the money was appropriated, what wards did they have money that was supposed to be going out, how what was the decision making?

To this day, I call over to SLDC probably once every few days, trying to get something in writing about how does that program work?

How is it that people applied for money?

I have people who applied for money three years ago, have their own money, and they're just now getting funds.

That is ridiculous.

So you're not run about wrong about we don't do it right, but you're wrong about who's responsible for it.

We are responsible for it.

We didn't do our jobs.

We are checks and balanced on the um ourselves and also on the legislative on the uh executive body, and we didn't do that.

So I can see where you would say this is terrible.

But it's terrible also for the people who applied for it.

I when you put a half million dollars for your own money and you're trying to get something done, and you're um to pay insurance.

I have people that have to pay insurance on their projects for three years in a row.

How does that make sense?

I can't deny that you're correct, it's not being done right.

I just deny that it's it's uh just SLDC's fault, it's also ours.

But it is their fault because they can't give you anything in writing how the program goes.

Um whenever I talk to them, I always say to them, let me just explain to you.

When I rent out a property, I have a sheet.

These are the things I need from you.

If you give me these things, then this spot in time I will be able to get back to you and say if you uh have made the grade or not.

If you don't, I tell you why if you say this is the next step, and this is what you're supposed to submit to me so that I can make the decision.

If you get the part, then I say, and now this is what the steps are.

They don't have that at this LBC.

I don't understand it.

And if they have it have it, they keep it under reps.

So that is wrong.

Everybody should be able to know how they are being treated and why they're being treated um a certain way.

But I spent a great deal of my time.

I have four or five projects.

Um that I spent a great deal of my time just calling over this.

What is going on?

Why aren't they getting the money?

What is the problem?

If they're not gonna get the money, tell them up front.

That's not what is happening.

But again, that is our problem because we should have had hearings, we should have uh been knocking heads and saying, you must do this and a clear outline about what had to be done.

We didn't do that legally.

So I can't uh um hands down say, well, he's right, and I'm gonna support that because we don't do this well.

I'm saying we would include the board of all.

And so until we're gonna do something that makes people accountable, we're not gonna do much well.

So I'm I don't know what I'm gonna do with your amendment because I agree something needs to be done, but just taking it out necessarily may not be the uh the solution to it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Madam President.

I think the alder woman from the seventh was actually first.

You were standing before the alder one from both, so I was just going off, but I'm happy to uh recognize the older one from the seventh.

Thank you, acting president, members of the board.

Uh I don't know if I've ever been this disappointed in the Alderman of the Fourth uh as I feel right now.

I am deeply disappointed to see uh this amendment brought forth.

Uh I am not gonna yield to inquiry or ask CEO to an inquiry because I want to be able to uh maintain a sort of decorum.

Uh, but I do want to say on record that I think it is absolutely shameful um to bring something forward to suggest that people who had an EF3 tornado should not be able to get resources uh to suggest that we should tie things to uh real property claims and put liens on people's property.

Uh I wish that the Ottoman afford that maybe he needs to drive through those two communities because they're still in that state today.

Putting a lien on a property that was blown away in a tornado, that is really shameful and it really doesn't make any sense.

Um again, I don't know if we're aware, but we're talking about we want to make these be loans.

There are people that are having to take loans out to meet their basic needs right now.

There are people having to take loans out in order to afford their utilities to get their groceries.

If you had a vehicle that was on the street and it got blown away, that was in a tornado.

There are people who are trying to figure out as far as their home situation, their loan, they're upside down in their loans because of intentional neglect by the government.

And now a member that is a part of the local body of government is proposing that we um not only tie things to real property and loan, real property and put liens on properties, but that we put loans in place.

Um, I just think it is deeply shameful, and I want to make sure that I'm perfectly clear on the record uh for anyone watching that I am strongly, strongly opposed to this.

Have we had programs in the city that haven't gone right?

Absolutely.

We've had all kinds of things in the city that have gone right that we continue to do, but that's not the fault of the people who are in the tornado impacted area.

So to say that we should not support businesses, which the whole economic theory, businesses bring jobs, they bring goods, they stimulate the money throughout those economies.

So supporting those businesses is supporting cultural and anchor institutions within those communities is actually a good thing.

And I think even aside, like including a tornado, but tornado aside, knowing the intensity of investment that has happened in those communities, I would have been disappointed in this regardless.

But to especially bring something like this forward in the context of a tornado at a time where FEMA is actively being dismantled, where a state moves faster to fund stadiums than EF3 tornado residents, and where really these dollars are one of the few dollars on the ground to bring something like this is extremely shameful, and I am deeply disappointed, and I just want to make sure I put on the record that I say that and that I strongly oppose this and every other one of these amendments that he has left.

I don't know what happened to just a sense of compassion.

I don't know what happened to being able to put ourselves in other shoes.

Um, but perhaps some of us need to make some visits to see the way that people are still living right now to see some of the resources that people need right now.

Perhaps some of us need to do something to warm up our hearts a little bit and be a little bit humane and be compassionate, because this is the opposite of that.

And I am deeply disappointed that in the year of 2026, a little bit less than a year after the tornado, that anything like this would even come forward on this board.

Thank you.

Madam President.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President and uh members of the board.

I also advise in opposition to this amendment.

We all recognize that the ARPA program for small businesses did not go off with a hitch.

The question is not whether we stop trying and ignore the need that exists.

Um the question is is whether we think it is necessary to continue to invest.

Just because a program did not work 100% the way that we wanted to doesn't mean that that need went away.

And that need only got greater after the May 16th tornado.

I want to talk about the need a little bit.

Um SLDC went out and surveyed businesses that were in the construction area.

And out of 788 unique businesses surveyed, 405 reported building damage, 60 reported being a total loss.

Approximately 46% of those businesses reported damage levels classified as either severe or significant.

That is almost 300 businesses that have been inoperable, not bringing in tax revenue, not paying for not paying for employees, not supplying jobs, because they have not been able to operate since the tornado.

And so one of the things we've heard throughout the public engagement is please do not leave small businesses out again.

The $30 million in Rams interest money that we did just about a year ago did not include funding for small businesses.

And we have heard about that over the last year, and how folks want to reopen, they want to rebuild, they want to be able to bring their businesses back to North City, but they cannot do it because they can't afford to take out an SBA loan and they can't afford it out of their own pocket without having any kind of income in.

Small businesses are the lifeblood of our uh neighborhoods, and we need to be helping them get back up and open.

And what they've told us over and over again is that they have a need for working capital to address some of the long-term implications from this from the tornado and get themselves back to a place where they can open.

We know that there's a significant support gap in the recovery effort between uh support for small businesses or destroy or ones that were destroyed during the tornado.

And as I said before, the SBA loans being the only source of revenue to support these businesses has meant that that was very uh narrowly tailored.

And only certain folks, certain businesses that had cash flow or ability to pay down a loan were able to get those.

So we know that the need exists.

So the question is have we learned from the Northside Grant Program?

Have we learned from some of the past uh challenges with that program and what are we doing differently to go forward?

The city now has stronger tools in the toolkit to ensure that we have the safeguards in place to implement programs like this.

We now go through a strict vetting and review process.

This is a comprehensive business and compliance review process to prevent awards that go that would go to vacant properties or businesses with active tax issues or unverified entities.

We also have conflict of interest screenings now to uh which are internal reviews to identify potential nepotism or similar concerns that could uh create eligibility uh uh issues.

And then we now have recipient performance standards, so funding agreements that require grant recipients to clearly track their usage, keep receipts, restrict spending to uh specific eligible costs.

So that is all to say that we learned from that program and the oversight that we have developed is much stronger than it was before.

I'll also add that the first amendment that we adopted today also creates a greater level of transparency and oversight over all of these funds for the public and the and the board of aldermen.

Uh and so I expect that one of the metrics that we will be evaluating going forward is how we have supported our small businesses in reopening or growing post uh tornado um and tracking that outcome over time in a public and transparent manner.

Um so in closing, I'm opposed to this amendment.

I think that our small businesses have been telling us that they uh do not want to be left out any longer.

Um, and so I encourage our colleagues to vote no on this amendment and the subsequent amendments, which would also take out small business eligibility.

Any further discussion on amendment number three?

Alder Woman from the 12th, is your hands raised from the last time, or do you want to speak again on amendment number three?

I would like to speak again from because I forgot to ask the alderman from the fourth my question.

I made such a long speech that I forgot the question.

Alderman from the fourth, will you recognize the questioning of the alder woman?

The 12th.

Absolutely.

Alder Woman, you may proceed.

Okay.

Alderman, so um, when you suggest, uh, as I said before, you're not wrong, the program is run poorly.

I heard the Alder Woman from the seventh say that uh, you know, about putting liens and things.

They're putting liens on the people who are in the uh North program.

Um we've talked about it.

We call it the color tax.

That if you're part of that, you got a tax.

And they put liens of 10 years.

I think it's ridiculous, okay.

They don't do that for majority owned companies.

And I think it's wrong, and I've uh pinned a letter to say that.

But saying all of that, did you have any suggestions about another way we might do it?

Or do you just say we don't do it, so we you just want to take it out?

Because we don't do it with them.

So uh I think that the the alder woman, I think got a got a little bit ahead of herself when she was talking about liens.

That's that's for uh a different amendment.

That's not uh in relation to this kind of uh school of amendments.

Um I think frankly, we're just not good at this.

Like it we we we haven't done it successfully.

These dollars have less guardrails on them than the ARPA dollars did, and if we were bad at bad at this with the ARPA dollars, I think we're gonna be even worse.

I think that we're going to uh just be flushing tons of dollars down the toilet here, and we we we're just not good at it.

There was so much fraud the last time, and I don't think we should open up the door for this again.

So I don't think that I I kind of disagree with you because I'm still dealing with it.

Um we're not again, we're not good at it because we didn't put in checks and balances, and that I'm sure you can agree is the board of aldermen's fault.

Okay.

And we're so busy.

I I beg your pardon.

I said agreed.

I agree.

So um, but I was saying she was talking about the liens, but I'm saying right now, I'm dealing with the people who are in my ward and um who are businesses in my ward who have been awarded the grants, and they got liens of 10 years on their property for any kind of grant.

So I think that's kind of outrageous.

I do know you don't want people to get money and leave, but um, and the same thing they've been going through a whole thing about they gotta make sure they have enough minority uh workers, contractors, which I totally agree with.

Whenever they call me, I say, here, let me help you find some.

But when I talk to the majority people in my ward who have uh uh who've been a recipient of these grants because it wasn't all black people who got these grants in North Corridor, it was uh people of the majority community.

They didn't seem to have those problems.

So again, I think it is our fault, and I think that SLDC needs to uh to do something different.

I've actually taken the uh opportunity to call the former director of uh uh SLDC and talk to him.

And I'm not talking about Otis, I'm talking about Neil Richardson, who I really did think that was trying to do a good job, but we've had conversations about what happened, what was your intent with this?

Because I'm just trying to track down what went so wrong with this, besides the fact we didn't put in checks and balances.

And what I find more than anything is that there was not a good um program set up of how to get these dollars out, and you didn't treat everybody the same way.

Some people were able to use their political uh connections to go right around and get their money, but other people that applied at the same time, and uh as I said before, they've paid insurance costs uh three times.

The people who are uh their co-lenders who will besides the grants, they will get in the money that they borrowed.

They they have gotten really spooky because they feel like wow, how why is this taking so long?

So I understand the concerns that you have, but I have to agree with the others who spoke is that, and I said this before.

I don't know that you don't do it.

You just make sure those mistakes don't happen again, and you make sure those checks and balances.

We will see that's something they want to do, okay.

Um because I am always a strong supporter that you should seek the alderman in the ward's support.

Nobody knows the ward as much as you do.

And so you should at least know uh what's going on in the ward so that when people contact me, I have a particular uh person who is uh awarded 1.5 million dollars to redo a four-family flat.

And they just sent me a letter saying we don't have enough money, we need more.

I am appalled.

I have done four families and six families, and we've never that kind of money.

So um, of course I did not know because the aldermen were not required to know.

But now, as I find more about this, I will tell you I'm disappointed in that.

But I'm not disappointed enough to say I don't want other people to have the opportunity.

I'm disappointed enough to say that we need to do it better and right.

And so that's why I will not uh be uh supporting um not having uh a program for small businesses, but I will be supporting that we need to write a stricter guideline of how it's done and require them to put it in writing and submit it to the members of the board of all how this process goes.

And would you be more comfortable if you thought it was a tighter, restrictor way of uh awarding these funds?

You knew what was going on and help at all with uh your thoughts about continuing the program.

I I think if there were clearer parameters and we had a track record of any modicum of success at this type of thing that I'd be for this, but uh I think our history shows us that unfortunately that's not the case, and we're acting like it's uh a completely different concept.

This is the same people running the same type of program that they were previously very bad at.

Well, I will tell you, I would like to introduce you some of the people who have gotten a um the uh funds that are very successful, and I can tell you I would like to take you to their buildings, their buildings are complete.

Um a very famous one is Miss Robbie, who's working on now.

Uh I'm I'm real proud because of her, we are attracting other people.

So I would like to to show you how success looks.

Everything is not a failure.

If you ever want to, I would like to take you around and see some of them because they are doing some good things.

But I'll say the people who are do are uh still in the program, um, they're they're having more problems from SLVC CDA than um then them giving them problems.

It wasn't the people, it was our people who were running the program.

And um, like I said, every day or so I'm talking to them.

What do we what is it that we need to do?

What can be done better?

Uh, what do you need from them?

I'm calling the banks, I'm doing everything.

I'm spending a lot of time for that.

But there are some success stories, and I would like you to see them because they're they're not all failures.

And um, so I think akin to what you're talking about is is that you have several students that are not doing real well, but you have some students that are doing really great.

You don't get rid of school and say, Well, I have some failures.

You try to bring the school up to par so that you have much more uh people who are successful.

And the small businesses do need uh funds, and that was the original idea behind the 37 million dollars.

It wasn't for me, it actually came from the alderman from the 21st and the president, uh former president, and they had come up with it, and it really wasn't something I was wanted.

I wanted to do something else, but um once I heard about it, it really was something that was needed because when you talk about the North Court of Red, and then it got changed, it wasn't the North Court anymore, and then it got changed, it wasn't just businesses, and that was a mistake because we still had other money.

But the North Quarter itself ranges from up into the 13th ward of uh Chain of Rocks Bridge to someplace if you're going down Natural Bridge or someplace down to Parnell or something like that.

So there are a lot of small businesses that if that firm would have been run right, they would have got facide improvements that because that was about what we really thought about getting facade improvements, helping them run their business, and it was not a great amount of money.

Uh 37 million sounds like a lot, but when you spread it over that amount of land and different businesses, it was not, and it's just unfortunate that we didn't um set up the programs right.

And um, I would think that hopefully we will set the program up right, and that also that we will request that they report back to us and in writing what they're doing often if this gets passed.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board with all their four from the fifth year for questions.

Or fourth.

Yes.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Alderman.

Uh I think uh maybe the all woman uh from Twelfth was gone again so long that she forgot she did ask a question that I think you didn't answer.

Is so what is your solution then if you don't believe that we should be uh providing small business because you say we're just so bad at it, uh that I'm sure that's gonna be a clip and a meme of you in the future.

Oh, I'm sure.

Uh what what's your solution then if we if you don't want to give money to small businesses in North St.

Louis, what do you think the solution is?

I think that we need to look really hard at uh who is overseeing that that past program and uh and who's gonna be overseeing this program should it uh go into effect.

Who's overseeing the uh the current or with this with the small businesses in the War Bill 22?

Do you know who's overseeing that program?

So I my guess is that it's gonna turn out to be SLDC.

Your guess.

So you didn't read the legislation?

No, I'm saying that uh they they seem to get their fingers into a lot of things, whether or not they're officially uh in charge of something.

Okay.

Well, I'm gonna come back to you.

All uh will the president please yield for questioning.

Well, the president yield the questioning of the alderman from the 14th.

Yes.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President.

Uh Madam President, who instead of guessing, since you know it's clear in the legislation, I think if people probably read it, they'll know who's over all these different uh uh funds that will be distributed.

Who would be over the the small business part for um this part of the tornado?

So all of the tornado recovery funds will go through the Office of Recovery and then the Office of Recovery uh will be coordinating with various city departments, whether it's SLDC, CA, uh Affordable Housing uh Commission for uh the small business grant programs, more than likely it would be um SLDC would do that again.

Um but as I stated previously, as um SLDC has put in place some safeguards since then um since the last iteration of of a similar program um so that we don't run into some of the problems we had last time of you know a a business doesn't um exist or um or it was vacant or had tax issues or um or whatever we want to you know we want to make sure that we're um appropriately vetting them on uh on the front end, which was something that was I think lacking.

Gotcha.

Thank you, Madam President.

Well, the Alderman from the fourth year for questions.

Well the will the alderman from the fourth yield a questioning from the alderman of of the fourteenth.

Sure.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Vice President.

So now knowing instead of guessing, it sounds like it's gonna go through the Office of Recovery and Yes and wait, I'm not done.

You're gonna get your time.

I apologize.

Um what is your what's your uh what is your solution?

It sounds like SLDC is your concern.

It will go from tornado to probably SLDC.

You don't like that.

Totally hear it.

The program wasn't good.

Our job is to find solutions and to try to figure out how to get somewhere.

You want to take the money away and with this amendment by taking the money away from small businesses, where where you wanted that money to go?

Uh I would uh put it in in uh the personally I think that we should be doing a whole lot more in reserve.

So I I I would put in anything that we say I would put in research.

So you will want the this to go in reserves, the unspent for Rams money?

Yes.

But you do not have a solution to how to help small businesses in Northside that's been impacted by a tornado.

I I told you the solution.

I think we need to look very hard at uh at SLDC.

Have you been since uh since the previous program have you been looking very hard at SLDC to try to figure out a solution so that we make the program better?

Uh I think that uh over the years here, virtually everyone knows my feelings about SLDC.

Yeah, that was my question.

Have you looked very hard or talked with S D to come up with solutions to try to make the program better?

Yeah, I think the solution is we need a lot of change at SLDC.

A lot of change.

It sounds very vague, but um.

So if we if we adopt this amendment and we adopt the rest of your amendments, are you gonna vote on this board bill?

It'll depend on uh what the board bill looks like uh as it's as it's actually up for the perfection vote.

So you you've read the bill, right?

You know what the board bill currently looks like.

Yes, absolutely.

So do you the the current board bill as it stands?

The current board bill as it stands is a bad bill.

It's a bad bill, why?

Well, I could I it it would take me a long time to go over uh everything that is.

I got time.

Tell me your top five things and why it's bad.

Uh it's trying to do way too many things.

We need to pick one or two things and and do them well.

So we should just invest in water and not support tornado recovery.

I think that uh the water investment is necessary, absolutely.

You would be fine with just investing in water.

I mean, uh uh when this previously came up, there was an amendment to just invest in water, and I think it had the vote.

Yeah, and now we're on a new bill where I think there is some collaboration and solidarity that I think post that was before tornado too, right?

Sure.

You know.

But you said we're doing too much.

You just believe that we should just do one or two things.

And do them well.

Seeing the bill that's been public for the last I don't know, few weeks.

I'm curious, since you've you're offering amendments to a bill that you would like to change.

What are those one or two things?

Because outside of legislating in the committee, this is an opportunity or yeah, outside of the committee, this opportunity to do the work on the floor.

So I'm just curious of what are those two things that you would like to see in the Rams bill.

I'd like to see much more in reserve.

I think that w currently we're making more than a million dollars a month off interest that we can be nimble with.

I think if we were to to spend a whole lot more in reserve and create an endowment, we can meet a lot of a lot more needs, frankly.

We we'd have a million dollars a million dollars plus a month to allocate at whatever issue is in front of the city, including tornado recovery.

So you all of it to go to reserves.

That's the only thing you'd like to see.

Uh I think I I'm not saying all of it go to reserves.

I think we need a much more substantial amount reserve.

Gotcha.

Would you like to see funds going to the tornado recovery?

Absolutely.

I think that we sh should absolutely be using the interest for tornado recovery, and I voted to allocate uh interest to tornado recovery in the pension.

Interesting.

You don't believe we should touch the principal.

I I I think it's a mistake to get into the principal.

I've said that since the day that we uh got the settlement.

I think that creating an endowment that spends off millions and millions of dollars a year allows us to be nimble and meeting.

If I got recovery.

The last time there was just amendment to do touch principal for water, you supported that though.

Yes.

Water is a critical need that uh everyone north, south, central corridor, everyone needs Oh, okay.

Everyone needs water, and everyone needs homes too.

And everyone don't have homes in the tornado area.

But you said you'd think it's a bad thing to touch principle for tornado.

You know, we can make money off the interest, but it's a great thing to touch money for water.

Do you own the hair light?

I'm not even gonna go down that that path.

I think it it's it's it speaks for itself.

But let's get back to your amendment.

With taking the money away from the small businesses, is uh as I'm clear there is no solution that you have for how to invest those money in small business in North St.

Louis.

I'm not the one who came up with this bad idea.

But you are the one that's coming up with a horrible amendment.

So let's talk about your amendment.

And you also have the opportunity for this bad idea to attend the committee hearing, show up to hearings, be part of these conversations.

So I understand you don't like the bill.

It's bad.

It's a bad, bad, bad bill.

Brett or the element from the all of Ford saying it's bad, bad, bad bill.

Agreed.

And these amendments will make the bill better that you'll support the bill.

It it it would be a better bill.

And you would support the bill?

It would depend on how many of these amendments got through.

Okay.

I'm done.

Thank you, Allian.

Absolutely.

Any further discussion seeing none, it's been moved by the alderman from the fourth, seconded by the alderman from the second that we adopt amendment number three to Board Bill 22 as amended.

There's been a call for roll call.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Alderman Oldenberg.

No.

No.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

No.

Alder Woman Son Yay.

Alderman Browning?

No.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyus.

No.

Alder Woman Boyd.

No.

Alderman Aldrick.

No.

President Green.

No.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

When I vote, 13 O's.

By your vote, you have failed to sustain the motion of the Alderman from the fourth.

Alderman from the Fourth, you are recognized.

Thank you.

Mr.

Vice President, members of the board.

Not about the small business loans.

This would uh turn the uh neighborhood implementation plan into loans.

This would allow us to reutilize these dollars over and over rather than one-time expenditure.

Uh yes, uh, I move that we adopt uh amendment number nine.

Amendment number nine.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fourth that we adopt amendment number nine.

Hearing no second, Alderman, you can move on to your next amendment.

Thank you.

Uh I'll just uh speak to the bill as a whole.

This is a bad bill.

Alderwoman was previously talking about being ashamed.

Uh I can tell you that uh, especially for uh uh those of us who are on the board during uh the ARPA uh funding.

Uh I think we're gonna we're gonna be ashamed a decade from now when we look back and realize that we spent more than 750 million dollars and don't have much to show for it.

With that, I'll yield.

Any further discussion on board bill twenty-two as amended.

Any further discussion Madam President, you're recognized to close.

Oh, I'm sorry, Alder Woman from the 7th.

Uh thank you, Mad uh Acting President members of the board.

I would like to bring amendment 15.

I'm sorry.

I would like to bring amendment 15 to the floor.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 7th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th.

That we adopt amendment number 14 or I'm sorry, 15.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Any opposed?

Uh point of order.

Actually, should have had yeah, yeah Madam Clerk, please strike that uh we need discussion on amendment number 15.

I'm just trying to move this board uh quickly through these things.

But uh Alder Woman, please proceed.

Thank you, Acting President, members of the board.

Uh amendment 15 is an amendment um that would make sure that we implement our ordinances with NWB and prevailing wage and non-discrimination as these projects are happening.

I know you know, obviously what we're hoping to see with these funds is a lot of rebuilding, and we want to make sure that folks who are here um and folks who make up the communities where the devastation happened, get an opportunity to happen.

Um we have some ordinances already on our books that reference these things.

Um and so the first portion is to make sure that this is implemented with these funds, and then the second portion of this amendment uh puts in reporting requirements, so it will require the administrator of the funds um establishing this ordinance to submit quarterly reports to the Board of Alderman where they will be made available on the City of St.

Louis website for transparency, and they will um include information about contract awards, subcontract awards, total dollars awarded to MBE and WBE for firms, total dollars awarded to St.

Louis-based for firms, um, and total dollars uh awards based to local firms as well as professional service agreements.

And so the desire behind this amendment again is to make sure that our local contractors, developers, um entities, as well as our minority and women businesses that they get an opportunity to be a part of this process, and this does have the support of the president of the board of alderman as well as the mayor's office.

Thank you.

Any discussion on amendment number 15 to board bill 22 as amended, madam president.

Just rise to say that yes, um, I support this.

I uh MoCAN came to us with um this kind of recognizing that we are going to have a lot of development um as a result of this uh board bill and wanting to make sure that um not only are we following following our MWBE uh requirements that we currently have set in ordinance, but that we are being more transparent with the issuing of contracts and subcontract awards um from this that come as a result of these dollars, so we have a better idea of just how many MWBE WBE firms are um are performing work, the total dollars that are going to St.

Louis-based for uh firms and the total dollars going to St.

Louis area-based for firms.

Um I know one of the critiques of funding thus far has been that um there have been contracts that have gone to out of town uh contractors, and this is a way to hold us think more accountable to making sure that uh those dollars stay here um and we are public and transparent um about our goals to keep those dollars here.

So thank you, uh Alderwoman from the seventh for uh working on this and bringing it forth.

Any further discussion on amendment number 15 to Board Bill 22 is amended.

Alder Woman from the first, are you standing to be recognized?

Okay.

Any further discussion.

Seeing none, Alder Woman, you're recognized to close on your amendment.

Thank you, acting president, members of the board.

I would make a small correction.

I actually went to Mocen myself.

Uh if you were at the Hoods Committee here and I had I was talking a bit about accountability, um, and some folks from OCAN as well as some contractors actually saw some of the media coverage that happened when I tried to bring an amendment forward to talk about oversight and accountability within the office.

Um, and so they saw that, and then we were able to have conversation.

And so I want to just make sure not just Mo CAN, but I know there are many MOCAN as well as many uh contractors and even local businesses, as Madam President said, um, have just raised flags for us that we've heard over time, especially on the budget committee of some of the concerns.

And so I think the hope is that this can help us to begin to get ahead of that as well as have some transparency.

I'm looking forward to this information being available on the City of St.

Louis website so that anyone who is interested in seeing those dollars and tracking it can, as well as the fact that it will have to be reported on a quarterly basis, so we will be getting regular um updates.

But I think this is really important to make sure that as this money flows, it flows through our com uh economy and that our minority and our women business entrepreneurs, as well as prevailing wage and other things are implemented as we hope to you know move forward in our recovery and rebuilding our city.

Thank you.

Uh and just a point of clarification as long as the president is on the chamber, I am uh referred to as vice president.

Uh so with that, uh we now have before us uh uh amendment number 15 to Board Bill 22 is amended.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed.

Motion carries amendment number 15 to Board Bill 22 as amended is adopted.

Any further discussion on Board Bill 22 as amended?

Alder Woman from the eighth.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice President.

I just wanted to take a moment to rise um and also speak in support of this bill as a whole, and I wanted to do it in the context of a recent event in the eighth ward that I think really illustrates why each aspect that is included in this bill is really vital at this time.

As some of you may be aware, um, between Broadway and Bill, there was a large sinkhole that opened over the weekend.

Um, and that sinkhole was caused by a water main break that created a cavern.

That water main break was due to extremely old infrastructure that our city has not addressed in a very long time.

And that sinkhole shut down the entire stretch of I-70, and in doing that impacted our entire region.

So I think this illustrates why the portion of the bill that speaks to water and infrastructure is very important.

I know the bill only funds a portion of what the water department needs, um, but I believe that small portion will be critical to a larger aspect of all the other things we know we need to do to be able to get that done.

Bonds, the rate increases and the state and federal funding that we know that we will need.

So I think the sinkhole shows us why the infrastructure aspect is so important.

The sinkhole also created something else.

It created a change in the way a lot of people have been traveling throughout our region.

People in my ward are now needing to go either to Illinois or through North City to get to the airport.

People that are in North City and North County are now needing to come around downtown and south on Jefferson to get to areas in the south.

And I think that illustration shows something really important, which is that a lot of people in our city haven't had to experience these kinds of differences in their areas before.

And now we have a moment for the first time where we have an opportunity to see other aspects of the city.

So I wanted to take this time to to speak directly to some of my constituents and other folks in South City.

In this time right now, where maybe for the first time you're traveling north on Jefferson, I want you to look around and I want you to notice what you see.

And if you have a problem doing that for any reason, I think that problem alone should tell you why the north side investment components of this bill are so critically needed right now.

We know that tornado recovery is extremely important.

We know that quite honestly, before the tornado even happened, these areas need an investment.

So I hope the sinkhole can take give you a moment to reflect and think about that aspect.

Lastly, I just want to point out what I think is a perfect poetic illustration of where this occurred.

Um it occurred right outside of the convention center, the very stadium, that this created this opportunity and this cash inflow that we have right now.

Because when infrastructure fails downtown, and when downtown fails, it affects not only the entire city, but the entire region.

So I just want to say this.

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 12th.

Yes, Mr.

Vice President.

Um, if the Alder Woman from the 13th would yield, please.

Well, the Alder Woman from the 13th yield a questioning of the Alder Woman from the 12th.

Yes.

Thank you.

Alder Woman, thank you.

Um that in let's see how far was this.

You had a board bill.

Um 131.

Right.

Um that was for appropriation of the Rams bill of funds, right?

Back a year or so ago, right?

Right.

And then also uh the Audder Woman from the uh seventh board also had a companion, well, it wasn't a companion bill, it was a separate bill, and hers was board bill 153 as amended, and it also was about allocating the Rams fund.

And we had quite a little kick-up uh in February of 2025 about what should be done.

And I want to remind people if it were not for you and the Alder Woman from the 7th agreeing to put that money on the both of your board bills on the form of calendar, we would not have much of a ramp um amount of money.

People forget that.

You know, sometimes things happen, and um, I was able to help facilitate that, so I'm very thankful, but we did not know that in a couple of months there was going to be a tornado that would vastly affect our lives.

But because we could not come together on something, and maybe that was the reason, we actually had this fund um sitting there.

So when people sent me and said, Did you know about this uh Rams fund?

Yeah, I knew about it.

I also did the first um resolution back when we first got the Rams fund in 22 because we were not getting information about what was going on with the Rams.

They were very secretive, they were over their holding uh meetings, but they weren't telling us anything.

But anyway, back to you and uh all from the seventh.

Put your board bills on um the informal calendar.

Um, and so we didn't spend it, and and thank God we didn't.

But in the meantime, I don't know if you remembered this.

We gave 30 million dollars, and it's in this board bill from the top of the 280 million we got from the Rams Fund, we gave it uh with a board bill that was given uh from former Alderman that coder, it was 30 million dollars to go to the convention center, right?

Right.

But what I don't see in this bill, and it's it's it's amazing to me, is that we gave another 15 million dollars, not from the Rams Fund, but from the Auto Fund, and this was sponsored by uh then eighth board alder woman Kara Spencer and Mayor Jones into uh and so that meant that the convention center got 45 million dollars for one building.

Is that correct?

Correct.

And so where is the convention center located?

No, downtown.

It's downtown.

That's thank you.

I just wanted to bring that up because I wanted people to realize that sometimes people uh have done great things, and you and the auto woman from the seventh did great thing to decide not to try to fight it out anymore and to uh put those board bills on the informal calendar, and I'm very thankful.

I want to thank you and the autumn from the seventh.

That's my only uh thanking and I want to have it made known that downtown uh got 45 million dollars for one building, and that's important to me.

Thank you.

And that's important to me because I now would like to know if the sponsor of the bill because it would answer with uh guilt question.

Megan Madam President, will you yield the questioning from uh the alder woman of the 12th?

Yes, alder woman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Um, I'm sorry, when you were going through your list of um how much money was appropriated to what maybe I'm gonna try to see if I can get this.

So we know the convention center between the Rams money and the uh $15 million, which I raised a lot of hell about because I they had told us they needed 30 million, and we all agreed that that's what we're gonna give them, and then we gave them 15 million more, which um may that Kitty have to leave because she was way over her budget.

So how much exactly does downtown get from this uh Rams fund now?

Not counting the 45 million they already got.

What is the exact amount?

In this current bill, uh there is 55 million dollars dedicated to downtown.

Okay, and so my next question is this.

Um North St.

Louis and the tornado impacted areas are not the same in this bill, right?

Because there are some parts of the tornado impacted areas that's not in North St.

Louis, is that correct?

Correct.

And we we intentionally wanted to um make sure that both tornado area and north St.

Louis was included um in this bill, and I you know, I want to thank um Alder Woman from the 13th in particular, you know, for raising this point that um, well, the 13th ward as a whole was not uh hit as bad with the tornado as some areas.

The 13th ward, for example, still has had, as you know, massive disinvestment over decades, and so we wrote the bill to make sure that not only that tornado impacted area um but the greater area of North St.

Louis would um be eligible for funds.

But I guess my question is so if it's tornado impacted, but it's not in North St.

Louis, because every time I drive down Lindell, and I'm not I'm not feeling sorry for the people in Lindle, but I do feel some kind of way about looking at Forest Park.

I'm a tree hugger, so when I look at Forest Park, I'm really sad.

And when I look at the people who live on Lindell, because their houses may be bigger, but their houses got hit a lot.

And it wasn't just Linda, if you go on to Washington and all of those places, so under the tornado impacted area, would they be included in the amount of money?

Um or not?

Yes, all of the neighborhoods that um were impacted by the tornado are included.

If you go to the definition section in the bill, we have a definition section for tornado impacted neighborhoods and a definition section for North St.

Louis neighborhoods.

Right, right.

And how much did does the tornado impacted neighborhoods get?

Uh in the bill right now, it is 86 million uh specifically for tornado uh related uh expenses.

Let me get up my spreadsheet here.

Uh no, sorry.

Trying to find the right spreadsheet.

Let's see.

There we go.

Okay.

So we have 89 million for uh so we have 78 million for uh housing and the long-term recover uh tornado recovery fund, uh maximum of 10 million for infrastructure, 7 million for resident support, and 4 million for uh delivery and administration of funds.

So that's 89 million in the tornado recovery bucket, and then um 31 million for implementation of the North St.

Louis neighborhood plans.

So that's specifically for North St.

Louis is 30, what 39 or 31 million?

Uh 31 for the neighborhood plans, but then recognizing that the tornado fund overlaps with most of or a good portion of North City, there's a lot of duplication of neighborhoods that are eligible for both buckets.

Okay, and then the water department gets 40 million, right?

Correct.

And then there's a vacancy retention fund um that gets 10 million.

And is that for North St.

Louis, or is that for the entire tornado impacted area, or is that for the entire city?

Uh that is for the entire city.

Um, but as we talked about in committee, we know that the majority of vacancy and is on the north side.

Um, and uh, you know, parts of Southeast City and Dutchtown and Gravoy Park.

And so the anticipation is that most of that money would be going to that obviously the areas that have a lot more vacancy.

So when people are worried about North St.

Louis getting money, the only part that's specifically for North St.

Louis is the 40 31 million.

Is that it?

For only North St.

Louis, but 89 million from the tornado recovery fund.

As I said, I think there's only two neighborhoods that are not in North City that qualify for the tornado recovery fund.

And what what is the qualification except for that we listed it?

I thought in the um in our board bill, we listed what were the tornado impacted neighborhoods, correct?

Correct.

And there's only two, I believe Skinker Devolver and uh Central West End or the two uh tornado impacted neighborhoods that are not on the north side.

And I I don't know, I thought it was another one right now or something like that.

Maybe three, but okay.

So um, and I bring that up to say, so all of the people who worried about the money that North St.

Louis got, we didn't get a lot of money.

We was this was to me, we were gonna get more before the community.

Um and we have the all of them from the 13th talked about the disinvestment.

The first disinvestment we have, I want you to know is that the LRA properties are horrible.

They are horrible.

It should, I I begged the former mayor when we had a big amount of ARCA funds to take a big amount of money and tear those properties down.

All of those people who want to tell you about how you can save LIA properties, no, you can't.

I've been rehabbing since 1979.

And I want you to understand that by the time it becomes an LRA property, and I tried to teach this to Alderman from the 21st when he wanted to do the dollar program, he did learn later and come back, is that you have to be four years vacant before or four years not paying your taxes before you go to our sheriff's sale.

If you're any kind of uh you if you something that's a house or property that can be saved, the people at the sheriff's sale buy them.

So now it's been five years.

They go to LRA, they sit around, and the only thing that they do is bring down the property value and commit that and have all kind of crimes and stuff uh that are uh committed in those properties.

And it uh and I begged the former author, I'm sorry, the former mayor to tear those properties down.

And for all those people who said, Oh, we need to be saving the brick.

I wish you would learn about why we have brick buildings.

We have brick buildings because back in the 20s and 30s we heated our houses with a fireplace and the embers went up the uh the chimney and the chimney had to be really tall because if the embers came down, they would burn up the frame houses.

So we became a very strong brick and uh uh uh stone coalition of people, and that's how we got these strong unions.

We don't do that anymore.

We don't do that in the richest communities.

If you go out to most communities, unless you go to Huntley Hill or someplace, they do not build all brick houses, they build houses and then they put a brick front and wrap around and then they do some kind of uh wood siding or something other kind of siding.

And I say that is because all these people who push leave these terrible, terrible buildings in our neighborhood.

That's you need to put that right by your house.

Because during the tornado, what happened every year?

I've been driving my neighborhood for years, and I always turn in buildings that need to be torn down.

And I did that for a lot of years, and then all of a sudden it slowed down on the prior administration.

And they had a lot of excuses of why they didn't do it, but real things that they didn't understand.

And so with this tornado, we had a great deal number of LI properties that fell on people's buildings.

Um, and these were people that I can show, these are properties that I can show I turned in.

So when I look at this amount of 31 uh million dollars, and I look at this tornado impacted, what I've found out in my years' experience of dealing with uh a large fund, and I'll give you for example the uh healthy homes.

Every war used to have a healthy home uh pot of money, and what is it called healthy homes, but we had war monies to have pots.

Then under Francis Slave, while I was going off this board, they went to this great pot of money, and it has been the most ridiculous thing for people who lived in North St.

Louis trying to have access to that.

That's what I'm gonna tell you is gonna be a problem.

Um the people who have the most uh knowledge will get the money, and the people who have a lot of need will not get the money.

I think that that is awful that we don't we have such a low amount of money that it was put into the all into the tornado impacted area because what we just said is downtown has 55 million dollars, but counting the money that we already gave to downtown, and this was the thing I said to all the people who were lobbying for downtown.

But counting the money that we already gave to downtown, and this was the thing I said to all the people who were lobbying for downtown.

First of all, I've been here to watch you get billions of dollars.

I've been here to watch them get all the block grant money.

I've been here to watch them uh build buildings that they didn't work and tear them down and do other things.

I've watched the Cardinals when they their tax abatement ended, they just moved to another court.

I know how much uh rent or lack of rent that the blues pay, and people would be surprised at that.

So to me, we don't have nearly enough money in the North St.

Louis fund.

Um it's shameful.

So when you look at downtown getting $55 million and North St.

Louis getting 40, but uh you're gonna get most of that.

It was like it's a sh like we're embarrassed to say we're trying to make up for something that has been an ongoing problem, um, and which was created by our great city forefathers and um for mothers, and that was created because LRA is impacting our community, and as LRA is impacting our community, so are the you don't get grass cut, it looks like we live in a forest someplace with the grass.

The grass is up to your knees.

It is awful to live there.

So we don't get the grass cut on the LRA properties.

I actually have a house that is totally um enveloped by grass that hasn't been cut in years in my community.

The only reason I just don't even bother with them is because it's off from someplace.

But just to give us 31 million dollars is just really not enough.

Everybody might think that's great.

Um, and if that was maybe before the tornado, that still wouldn't have been great.

But after the tornado, for downtown to be getting 55 million dollars is too much for me because they have had so much of the money.

If anybody sat around and looked at how much money they have been put in there at the expense of North St.

Louis, I know that people are hollering and screaming, oh, North St.

Louis should be all.

They should get every bit of it.

They should have gotten all of the ARPA funds that should have been over there.

That would have been a good thing if we had taken if we work on new water, which was my preference to do half water and half North St.

Louis, then we should have at least demolish the houses because that would have saved a lot of people having their houses, uh houses that belong to LRA fall on them.

We'd also save a lot of people who don't have insurance, because part of the things that insurance looks at when they come into a neighborhood is what the neighborhood looks like.

So when you're living on a block with tall grass, they're not created by the people who live there, by the way.

So the people who think, oh, that's just how the people over there live.

It is not.

You will go over your LRA properties, and all the properties are cut except LRA properties.

And then we have this asinine thing that we do that we don't cut a whole neighborhood.

We come in and cut lots every four weeks and then property every six weeks.

So there's always tall grass in North St.

Louis that the people did not create.

So the people start cutting the front yards, and when they start cutting the front yards, then uh the thing that uh they are being told now from 4 street, which is also asinine, is don't cut the front yards because then we won't know that we're supposed to cut the backyards.

You should have a list to do that.

And um, not too long ago I had a uh conversation with the Alderman from the second, and we were talking about this money, and we were talking about a hundred million dollars in North St.

Louis.

So um for me to see 31 million dollars is um sad, and to see downtown getting 55 million uh and uh convention center got 45 million, one building that we built and we gave millions of dollars to, that is not a equitable district distribution of the funds.

Now I know the ultimate from the forest says he don't believe in uh uh spending the money down.

I always did.

I heard that was from not from him, I heard from other all the people who were told the former clear that don't spend the money.

That to me was like um your husband sending you extra money for child support, and then you said I'm gonna put this away, not spend it on clothing, shelter, and all the things.

So to me, uh the 31 million dollars is a slap in the face.

And I the people who kept sending me all the uh emails saying, Oh, we're disappointed in the hoods, and this is what you need to do.

I'm disappointed in the hoods also, and you didn't have to tell me what to do because I've always thought that we should have gotten more money than this, and um, for us to sit on this money all this time, um, and now we're gonna uh dress it for tornado.

But we still not get to the root cause of the problem, which is that we already disinvested.

So you give us 31 million million dollars, and then other neighborhoods with 89, but it's really for tornado.

So you never get to the things that didn't get done.

Um whereas downtown is crying in oh us, and I don't want the big time to go away, but you have gotten billions and millions and billions of dollars.

And North St.

Louis has not gotten billions of dollars.

And you should have spent we're having a uh crisis like this, the money should have mostly gone to North St.

Louis.

And I'm not saying that we didn't have a tornado impacted area for other neighborhoods, but we got 89, what did you say?

89 million in debt and 31 million in North St.

Louis, and um no, the 13th war had as much problems nor did the 14th, but the 12th Ward and the 11th Ward and some of the 10th war just got devastated.

Um, and I don't see how we're only gonna uh address the tornado impact and not the impact of leaving LRA sitting in our community for all these years and not doing the things that we're supposed to do, and you never ever grow black wealth when everything that you do is against North St.

Louis or just a little bit.

I just heard the Ottoman from the uh I'm all from the seventh say how disappointed she was um in the album from the fourth.

I'm disappointed in this board bill because I'm quite sure we had more money before the tornado, and now it seems like we have less.

And I'm disappointed that um the people who live in the community.

I've never seen where the mayor and the president of Board carry a bill, but the people who live in the community are not part of that.

And I'm talking about the people who represent uh the 11th, the 12th, a little bit of the 13th, we're not carrying the bills that you all carry in the bills.

The optic of debt is wrong.

And if you didn't think about it, the fact that you didn't think about it, the optics of debt is wrong.

And so um again, I want to say how very disappointed I am.

I agree with the people who say we need a hundred 150 million dollars.

I agree.

And that would have been a little bit.

Um, but um hopefully, instead of continuing to send all that ARPA money to the water department, why don't we put all the money into now doing something constructive, which is demolish the LI properties?

Because the government is not going to demolish our properties.

They told us that I knew that from the beginning.

We didn't get those demolished because we didn't take care of them.

So why don't we hopefully take some of the money from the ARPA that's going to be left over, and it's soon getting to a point we can be setting up to tear buildings down because this is not enough money for North St.

Louis.

Um, and uh I uh I'm I'm greatly disappointed.

Alder woman from the 7th is disappointed, I am too, because it seems that after tornado, we have less, and I find that disappointing.

Thank you.

Any further discussion?

Alder Woman from the 13th.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Vice President.

The only question I want to ask the board.

I keep hearing uh about the tornado victims, but on the amendment that was just to stand it, you all voted against the tornado victim.

So we need to make up our mind.

Are we supporting the tornado victims or are we not supporting the tornado victims?

Because the amendment that was introduced was saying exclude those areas that have been impacted by the tornado, and then it was a no-go.

But now we're we're uh rallying and saying it's about the tornado victims.

So I just wanted to bring to the board of all the tension, you double talking with that.

So that's my comment.

Thank you, Alder Woman.

Is there any further discussion on Board Bill 22 as amended?

Roll call.

Seeing none, Madam President, you're recognized to close on board bill twenty-two as amended.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh Vice President and uh members of the board.

I as I close, I just want to reiterate that this bill is not the final step for any of the priorities that we've discussed today.

It is simply a step.

Um, with respect to tornado recovery, the city is still working with state officials to direct the roughly 185 million dollars that has been approved thus far for the Missouri legislature.

A lot of that is going to demolition work and working with our U.S.

Senators and representatives to make sure that we get additional federal funding through the community development block grant disaster recovery fund.

Later today, this body will also take a final vote on long overdue water rate increases to keep our water division operational and make it possible to borrow the funding that we need to tackle the almost 700 million dollars in critical capital improvements.

And with the city making these commitments today, my hope is that our corporate community will step up and join us in revitalizing not just downtown but North St.

Well.

Um, as we've you know discussed today, we know that the amount of needs that we have, whether it is the billion dollars just from the tornado um damage, the 700 million in our water department, or the you know, five to eight billion dollars that it would actually take to revitalize downtown.

Um the city can't do this alone, and so we need our our corporate partners in addition to those state and federal partners to step up and help us in uh in achieving all of these things so that we can have a safe, vibrant, and growing city.

Um, and with that, I close.

It's been moved by the president, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 7th that we perfect board bill 22 as amended.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderwoman Sweitzer.

Aye, Alderman Aldenberg, aye.

Vice Chair Cone, aye, Alderman O'Reilly, nope, Alderman Devotee, no.

Alderwoman Velasquez, aye.

Alderwoman Sanye.

Aye.

Alderwoman Cox Antwi.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderwoman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyers.

No.

Alderwoman Boyd.

She can't vote.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderwoman Keys.

Aye.

Alderwoman Boy.

Aye.

12 aye votes and three no votes.

By your vote, you have sustained the motion of the president and have perfected board bill 22 as amended.

Report of Engrossment.

Board Bill 15, 16, 26 as amended, 31, 18, 23, 37 as amended in committee.

19 and board bill 25 as amended on the floor.

Third reading and final passage of board bill's consent.

Board bill 15, 16, 26 as amended in committee.

Board bill 31 18 23 37 as amended in committee and board bill 19.

We just do report of it.

You are recognized on the motion to adopt the third reading and final passage of board bills on the consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam President.

Members of the board, I move that we adopt the third reading, finally passage of board bills on the counter.

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

That we adopt the third reading and final passage of board bills on the consent calendar.

Is there any discussion?

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

Oh, wait, sorry.

We're on third reading.

Got to do a roll call.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman's slide, sir.

Aye.

Alderman Aldenberg.

Alderman Call.

Aye.

Alderman Orion.

Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alderwoman Sanye.

Aye.

Alderwoman Cox Antwi.

Aye.

Alderman Brownie.

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderwoman Keys.

Aye.

Alderwoman Tayas.

Alder Woman Sayas.

Present.

Alderwoman Boy.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

14 aye votes and one voted present.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderwoman from the 10th to third read and finally pass the bills.

Third reading and final passage of board bells.

Board Bill 25 as submitted on the floor, introduced by Alderman Brownie.

And the co-sponsors include Alderman Cohn, Alderwoman Boyd, Alderwoman Cox Antwee, Alderman Devotee, Alderwoman Sweitzer, Alderwoman Clark Hubbard, and Alderwoman Velazquez.

An ordinance pertaining to water rates finding determining and declaring that an increase in certain water rates is necessary for certain purposes.

Defining certain terms, repealing and replacing parts of ordinance 71683, which are presently codified as section 23.06.130 point 23.16.025.040.

And 23.20.

And amending points of ordinance seven one six eighty three, which are presently codified in section 23.16.220 of the revised code, all having as their subject water rates and charges and containing up emergency provision.

Alderman from the ninth, you're recognized in the third reading and final passage of board bill 25 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 9th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 8th.

That we third read and finally pass board bill 25 as amended in committee.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Any further discussion.

Seeing none, Alderman, you recognize closed.

Thank you.

It's been moved by the Well one.

Was sorry, did I miss a hand?

Alder woman from the 12th.

Never mind.

That's okay.

Um it's been moved by the Alderman from the ninth, seconded by the Alder uh woman from the eighth.

That we third reading finally pass board bill twenty-five as amended in committee.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alder Woman Schweitzer.

Aye.

Alderman Oldenberg.

Alderman Cone.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan.

Alderman Devotee.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sany.

Alder Woman Cox and Twee.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alder Woman Tyus.

No.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Yes.

Alderman Aldrick.

No.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderwoman Keys.

12 I votes.

Two no's.

But your vote you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the ninth to third read and finally pass.

Uh Board Bill 25 as amended in committee.

Reported the finally passed and signed by the president.

Board Bill number 15.

16 26 as amended in committee.

31 18.

23 37 as submitted in committee.

19 25 as amended on the floor.

That extend of report of finally passed and signing by the president.

All other business being suspended.

First reading resolutions in reference to committees.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item twenty-two.

Second reading resolutions, committee reports, and adoption.

We have none.

Dispense with line item twenty-three.

Alder woman from the 10th.

You are recognized on the motion to adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam President.

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 consent calendar.

Is there any discussion?

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

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Motion carries.

Miscellaneous and unfinished business.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item 25 announcements.

Monday, June 22nd, 26th.

Budget and public employees, 9 a.m.

in the Kennedy room.

Special full board meeting, 10 a.m.

in the chambers.

Legislation and rules, 230 p.m.

in the Kennedy Room.

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026.

We have a HUDS meeting at 11 a.m.

in the Kennedy Room.

Wednesday, June 24th, 2026.

Public infrastructure and utilities, 3:30 p.m.

in the Kennedy Room.

Thursday, June 25th, 2026.

Health and Human Development, 9 a.m.

webinar.

Personnel and administration.

11 a.m.

in the Kennedy Room.

Friday, June 26th, 2026.

Full board meeting, 10 a.m.

in the chambers.

Any further announcements?

Alderman from the third.

She's on the left.

Thank you, Madam President.

I I would like to announce and add a transportation and commerce committee meeting for Tuesday at 10 a.m.

Alder Woman from the 8th.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just wanted to take a moment to wish my husband Jason a happy anniversary and thank him for delivering ugly flowers to my desk today, and also thank him for allowing me to leave for our trip a little late today, so thank you.

Anniversary.

Even better, Alderwoman.

So tomorrow, uh at the Greo Museum starting at 12 p.m.

We will have a fun festival.

Um and a lot of uh small business and vendors that will be able to sell the merchandise as well as tomorrow we will be having uh the Juneteenth Festival at the House of Soul where myself and Clark Hubbard, all the women of the 10th War will be speaking alongside other folks with house so is always fun.

We shut down Wash after.

There's plenty of vendors, it's just a good black, fantastic time.

So come on out and celebrate with us for Juneteenth and a 14th War.

Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

Um I would actually like to ask for a moment of silence for uh um for a bad manager.

Uh she was a so many things, educator, a mentor, a organizer, activist.

Um I met her when I was literally just like 17 years old.

I've known her consistently throughout the years.

Um I actually uh you know just learned of her passing very recently, like this morning, so I still just can't even process that she's not with us.

Um but I'm so thankful for everything that she gave for our city.

I mean, she did amazing things in public health, she did amazing things around criminal justice reform.

Um she literally gave me milk to get pepper spray off of my body several times.

Um and even to this day, we've had plenty of conversations and I just really regret not going to see her as recently as I I I could have.

Um, but I really would appreciate just you know, I know there are a lot of folks in community who are mourning over her, her family, and so if we could just give her a moment of silence, that would be amazing.

Please stand and bow our heads for a moment of silence for Basman.

Any further announcements?

Any further announcements.

Seeing none, alder woman from the 10th, you're recognized on the motion to excuse.

Thank you, madam president, members of the board, all members Alder Woman from the 10th, you're recognized on the motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

I move that we adjourn until Monday, June 22nd, 2026 at 10 a.m.

in the board of Alderman Chambers.

It's been moved by the Alder Woman from the 10th, seconded by the older woman from the seventh that we adjourn until actually it should be month Monday.

Okay.

Um Monday, June 2nd in the Board of Alderman Chambers.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Oh motion carries.

We are adjourned.

In person.

Okay.