Good morning.

We'll call today's housing urban development and zoning committee meeting to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the row.

Alderman Cone.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Present.

Audownoman Keith.

Here.

Vice Chair Sonyer.

Alderman Browning.

Present.

Autumn and Aldrich.

Present.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Here.

Alderman Cone.

Vice Chair Sonyer.

We have five present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

With that, I'll accept the motion rather to approve the minutes from Tuesday, October 7th, 2025.

So moved.

Second.

It was moved by Altamand Aldridge and seconded by Alderwoman Keys.

That we approve the minutes from Tuesday, October 7th, 2025.

Madam Clerk, please call the row.

Alderman Cohn.

Auto Woman Sweit, sir.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keith.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Vice Chair Sonier.

We have five aye votes.

All right.

That we successfully approve the minutes.

We will now move forward in the agenda to recognize Alderman Aldridge and Board Bill 82.

Thank you, Madam Clerk, and members of the committee.

Today I present to you Board Bill 82, which is an agreement between the Comptroller's office and the individuals at the O Post building to buy the INECO Plaza.

But most folks that are unaware of what Inaclo Plaza is, it sits right next to the St.

Patrick Center and across the street from the post building.

Currently, right now it is uh fenced up at once upon a time.

We had seen a lot of uh our unhoused community um kind of using this area uh to uh sleep there when they didn't have anywhere to go the city fence it off.

It's a uh a nice square, but is really not being uh utilized.

And I know Mr.

John Burglin will be coming up here shortly to talk about it, but uh this has been an ongoing conversation for several years to be able to purchase this area that has not been utilized to actually uh revitalize it and to bring some actual use to it.

Currently, uh Mr.

Berglund, I believe, have a quarter of the um plaza.

It's very weird the way that the parcels are, and then the rest of it uh is the city.

So this is um like I say, an agreement between him and the comptroller's office for him to be able to buy it.

The comptroller office is here.

They're in full support of the legislation to be able to buy this land, and I'm gonna pass it over to Mr.

Berglin, and then after that, uh Mr.

Bergland will pass it over to Mr.

Sweeney.

Good morning.

Can you raise your right hand?

Swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Thank you.

Please proceed.

Uh my name is John Berglund.

I represent the ownership group for the former post dispatch building, which uh Alderman Aldridge mentioned.

We purchased the building in 2018 and have about 75 million dollars in that building, and that's where Square has uh their Midwest presence.

Uh back in uh 2020 when COVID hit, uh what Alderman Aldridge referred to.

We did have a large number of tents and encampments that went in there that did end up resulting in a fatality, regrettably, and so we have had an interest in the plaza uh going back some years, both a little bit of a defensive move uh because of the homeless population issue as well as um wanting to improve the property in 2020.

We purchased a 70-foot by 30 foot section of the plaza from North Side, which had purchased it from LRA, and we've been interested in purchasing the rest of the plaza so that we can improve it.

Uh the current plan is to uh use it for parking, which I know doesn't sound that clamorous, but the most common issue we get when we try to get tenants is where do I park?

And people in St.

Louis like to park right next to where they're gonna work, and so we would comply with all the um zoning ordinances for parking in terms of lighting and um uh fencing and and all those those things, and I think it'll be a very uh nice asset uh for the area as opposed to being an eyesore.

And so um we we've been in conversation uh really with the city for about five years, and we're very excited about the opportunity to to purchase the plaza.

One of the issues that's come up is the potential that it has been uh a park property, and I'm gonna hand that over to uh David Sweeney, or I can take any questions if there are any okay.

I do please proceed.

Dave Sweeney with Lewis Rice.

Uh yes, as far as the park, it's been held out as such for many years as interco plaza.

However, it never be legally became one.

It and to be a park, it needs to be done by ordinance.

That was never performed.

Um I have research I'm happy to share with anyone.

Um but going further to reiterate what John said is not only has it was it held out there, but the city actually at one point owned some under LRA, which Northside Regeneration purchased and subsequently John purchased.

So there's already a parcel that is privately owned.

We're simply seeking to do the entire parcel.

We worked with the comptroller's office to get an appraisal to get a fair market value for the city.

Um so that's what stands before you is that piece.

And something else John didn't talk about, but I know he's been in communication with the new St.

Patrick Center, SLPS.

Um, so they're very aware of this project as well.

All right.

Sorry about the ready when you are, madam clerk.

Um Madam Terra Wellman.

Uh so in the drive, um, so the original board bill uh that was um added, there's a new one in the drive that we will need to adopt as an amendment.

What we end up doing is we attach uh the zibot of the exhibit of the purchasing agreement as well as in section one where it says a board of alderman.

Um basically in the section one on page one of two, uh it adds uh language with section one and two where it talks about the exhibit being part of the actual board bill.

Um so we will need to um make a motion to accept, I guess amendment number one, which will be adding the new exhibit, this purchase agreement that was worked on um yesterday with uh the comptroller's office uh and the developer to make sure that this actual exhibit was part of the uh legislation if somebody would like to make the motion second.

It was moved by Alderman Browning is seconded by Ottawa McKeys that we accept amendment number one to Board Bill 82.

All in favor.

Aye.

Opposed.

Thank you, madam chairwoman and members of the committee and Alderman Browning.

And with that, I would open questions for uh committee members.

All right.

Uh Altwoman Sweither.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate this.

Um I guess the first question I have is uh probably for for Mr.

Sweeney here regarding the comment that it has to be an ordinance to be a park, and that is what would trigger us to have to have public vote.

You're right.

Okay.

Um yeah, historically, yes.

Thank you for bringing that up.

Uh years not that well, I guess it's long now.

Forest park and Barnes Jewish, there's a piece of property that was sold, and uh there was a voter petition that put it to change the charter that would require any parks uh to sell, like if this were one, it would have to go to a vote of the whole and so that requires I I can't remember if it says in the charter that it has to already be a park by ordinance or if it's parked land in the charter.

Because that would be a different I mean I I'm not I'm not trying to throw a wrench necessarily about just aborting litigation, I guess, in the future for the No, I I think it's very clear.

I don't have the charter for me.

I can't.

You check your pocket.

No, no, I have the rules.

I really saw you check your pocket just then.

We all have our cell phones.

But I will check on that, but we feel comfortable that the city has full authority.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Um thank you.

And I I'm not I'm I'm not super familiar with this parcel of land right now.

Is it currently paved?

No, so also uh this is the picture here.

Yep, that's the picture there, is not paved.

So I'll be honest, it's not the uh best looking inner co or not the best looking plaza.

There's some hard space, there's not uh there is some green space, but since it hasn't been maintenance, uh there's not uh a lot of green space.

Actually, right behind um, as Mr.

Berglin said, he had spoken with St.

Patrick Center and the public schools right behind this INECO is the public schools headquarters, and to the left of it is actual green space where people can see it.

So it's it's concrete and it's grass that isn't grown and it hasn't been beautified uh in a very long time.

Is there any desire by the purchaser to um add more green space or or in terms of you know planting more trees or anything to kind of offset the new pavement of this?

Yeah, I'll have him come up, but I will say again, uh even though this because right now it's fenced off, I doubt there's probably any trees that are healthy or any grass right behind this plaza and right behind um the post building is various green space trees, areas where people can sit down.

So, you know, I don't look at this as a lack of green space because there is some where um you can walk right across the street.

But this area that is sitting next to St.

Patrick's Center, uh I really even wouldn't even call it green space if you go down there, you look at it because it just haven't been maintenance, no trees or anything like that.

But I'll have Mr.

Uh Berglin come up.

I think like he said, his intentions is to put a parking lot because there's not much parking for the people in the building to be able to go there.

But if he would like to answer, I'll let him answer as well.

I get it.

I'm always just a little disappointed to see something that is uh a park or green space turn into a lot.

If you go down there now, there's nothing green.

Probably dead green space.

Yeah, I I mean more with like stormwater issues and different concerns, you know, I think people have about just generally concreting over every inch of permeable surface that we have.

It's not my favorite thing, but I do understand the need for parking and the you know availability of land that's there.

So I just wanted to know if you're doing anything to offset the stormwater concerns, anything like that.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, we don't we want to make this an inviting parking lot.

We're going to charge more because of proximity and people want to see the trees, they want to see it softened.

There's some mature trees along Tucker currently.

We would keep those.

And again, we would comply with stormwater runoff as well as what the ordinance would do, but we could plant some additional trees in there to soften things up a bit.

Sure.

And I I know you know, in the city of St.

Louis, we don't have requirements for that offsetting that other municipalities do.

I've been doing some research about this recently.

The other municipalities have, you know, if you pave over a certain amount of green space, you've got to replace it with a certain amount of green space or trees or whatever.

So I appreciate anything that you can do just out of the goodness of being a good developer downtown, because we just have a lot of uh it's a really hot area, a lot of urban heat issues downtown, and and anything that we can do to fight back against that is appreciated.

So thank you.

Absolutely.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, madam chair.

I have no questions.

Thank you.

Ottoman Brownie.

Uh thank you.

Um I I have similar concerns about eliminating permeable space.

Uh one thing I I'll point out is that MSD uh I believe has started taxing people on non-permeable services.

And so um there would actually be uh benefit to the developer in this case to uh create a permeable parking lot.

Uh and just you using it as an example in my award, the Missouri Foundation for Health has done an excellent job of creating uh a parking lot that has uh permeable services, uh places for the rainwater to drain, uh and it it helps out uh and it helps make it less of an impact on the surrounding area.

Um I guess my question is when I'm looking at the area, um I can count over 10 service parking lots in this area.

Um I understand the need for parking, and but my question is is there not an option to use the numerous surface lots around the building currently?

Um I understand the need for parking and but my question is is there not an option to use the numerous surface lots around the building currently but not all of them and so what we fight with every day is how many spaces per thousand and our competitive with what's going on in the county, three per thousand, four per thousand.

This will help us reach that goal.

Um the best that I could offer is the compliance with the ordinance as well as working with MSG on permeable spaces in terms of stormwater.

Very familiar with those types of issues, and we want to have something inviting for for the tenants of the building.

Okay, uh, yeah, that's that's understandable, and I understand there's been difficulties with the spot, which is why I'm I'm leaning towards supporting this today, just because I think there does need to be something done with this spot uh in order to improve the area, but um similarly similar to my colleague.

I'm I'm a little bit uh disappointed to see it uh proposed as parking when there's when we already struggle with too many surface lots downtown.

Uh but um understanding that there's there's things to to mitigate that, encouraging you to do so.

Uh the only other question I have about this is um looking at the charter.

Um what what I'm reading is that uh it says basically which which is principle used or held out for use as a public park.

It doesn't mention an ordinance.

So um what I'd request on this is a legal opinion.

I I think I'd feel more comfortable with this proceeding if I understood if there was a legal opinion saying that there did not need to be um uh a public vote because otherwise I do think there there should be yeah.

So I know Mr.

Sweeney spoke with the city councilor, and I know uh we can and Nancy Walsh, we can get the the legal opinion on the park element.

This isn't a park, but just to make folks feel comfortable, we can make sure that that is provided.

And if yeah, if you could afford us that that'd be great.

Um the only other thing I I guess I'll I'll ask for is um fine with moving this out of committee today, but before we perfect it, I I'd want to have that in hand.

We can work to hopefully get that uh before perfection.

Thank you.

And Vice Chair Snayet.

No question.

All right, the Adam and Aldridge open clothes.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee.

Uh I want to thank Mr.

Uh Berglin and the city councilor office for uh I sity counselor, uh Comptroller's office for working on this and coming together uh on this project as someone who live um one downtown and represent this ward.

I've seen how this area has not been utilized, how uh literally, if anybody go walk right now for several days, if not years, we have had this uh area fenced off.

I'm also not the biggest fan of a surface parking lot, but I think there's a lot of momentum that's happening in the old post building, especially as NGA comes in and they're constantly rapidly recruiting more and more people to be employees here in the city of St.

Louis.

Um they're gonna absolutely need space.

I appreciate Mr.

Berglund for acknowledging that he will follow the ordinance uh of surface parking lots that I worked with, the actual residents who stay downtown to uh ensure that we have security measures on uh these safest surface parking lots, such as lighting, such as um fencing, such as uh security to make sure that people who are either parking on these lots if they're going to a game, but mainly people that work in these uh that work uh close by that will be using these lots also feel secure when they come downtown, as well as uh thank Mr.

Sweeney for uh pulling together uh the the sale agreement with the computer office in a very quick time uh to make this happen and look forward to uh the future development of this area, and with that I would ask for a due pass recommendation on board bill eighty-two I'll accept the motion uh for us to pass Board Bill 82 as amended second and with the move by Vice Chair Sanya and seconded by Alta Woman Keith, Madam Clerk, please Kyle the row.

Alderman Cohn.

Audible Miss White Sir?

Aye, Alderwoman Keith.

Aye, Vice Chair Sonier?

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Alderman Aldridge.

I Chair Clark Helbert?

Aye.

Autumn and Cone.

We have six aye votes.

All right.

Congratulations.

Successfully passed.

Board Bill 82 is amended.

Alder Woman Cox Answee.

Are you ready for Board Bill 63?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Can you all hear me okay?

Yes.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Today I am here to present Board Bill 63, which is a rezone bill for the 2800 block of McNair.

This rezon was recommended from the planning commission in June of this year, and the reason for it is just to address clarifications on zoning with the property line.

But with that, I'll open to any questions from the committee.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the committee.

This is a simple uh boundary adjustment rezoning.

You may remember that back in June we had something similar on South Grand.

Um, this is in the Benton Park neighborhood.

Both property owners um brought this to the planning and zoning staff proactively, and um it concerns about a 40 by uh 10 foot strip of land that has always been used as a walkway to access this resident, and the resident had always been under the impression it was on his land.

The property next door was a church, the church closed, someone else spotted, and it was during that change of ownership that they discovered that the boundary was not correct.

So they want to move the boundary um about 40 feet.

So that that walkway will always be available to that residential unit.

So the current owner would sell it that access.

Uh both the property owners are uh like I said, amicable to this, and it was recommended by the planning commission.

Perfect with that.

I open it up for questions.

Audible Slicer.

Thank you so much.

I always find these uh bills to be really interesting and kind of funny, you know, it's something that's used forever, and then you realize that it's something needs to change, so I appreciate uh all the different steps that go into something uh that that seems simple.

I know how much work in the background, so thank you for doing it, and I'm happy to support this today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Audible woman keys.

No questions, thank you.

Audible men brownie thank you.

I have no questions.

Uh echo my colleagues' comments from the first um understand that work goes into this and uh happy to support today.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Saye.

All right, Alderman Aldrich stepped out, so be good.

Uh excuse me, Chair Clark Hubbard, Alderman Odenberg's online as well.

Okay, I was gonna um see if there were any speakers for the bill as well.

Okay, Alderman Oldenberg.

Would you like to speak?

No, I'm just listening and watching.

Thank you all.

Great.

Okay, with that, uh Alderwoman Cox Answee.

You are welcome to close.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

That will be all of my comments, and I hope this committee can uh consider this bill with a due pass recommendation.

All right, with that, I'll accept a motion uh for board bill 63.

Second moved by Vice Chair Saint Yeah and seconded by Alderman Browning, Madam Clerk, please call the role Alderman Cone.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye, Alder Woman Keys, aye, Vice Chair Sonier, aye, Alderman Browning, aye, Alderman Aldridge, Chair Clark Hubbard, aye, Alderman Cone, Alderman Aldridge.

We have five eye votes.

All right.

Congratulations.

Adam McCagley and Twee successfully passed Board Bill 63.

With that, I'll pass it over to Vice Chair Son Ye.

Thank you, Vice Chair Sanyay.

Madam Clerk, can you read the summary for Board Bill 80?

Or bill number 80.

Introduced by all the woman Shemin Clark Hubbard.

An ordinance to repeal ordinance number 69056 concerning the city's participation in the property assessment clean energy act and enacting a new ordinance regarding the same tool enable the city to join the Missouri Clean Energy District in order to provide an additional authorized entity through which owners of property within the city may obtain financing for energy efficiency or renewable energy improvements to their property pursuant to Missouri's property assessment clean energy act and stating that the steps to be taken by the city section through with and the activities such districts may conduct in the cities as a member of such district.

Thank you.

The summary did a good job, but I do have a few notes I want to share with you all today.

It does not spend a single taxpayer dollar.

It does not replace or remove any existing city program.

What it does do is expand access, allowing property owners, commercial developers, and lenders in our city to choose from more than one authorized program on when pursuing clean energy improvements to their buildings.

So this is about fairness.

It's about access to capital and every other major C-paced market in the country from Chicago to Denver to Austin, operate with multiple uh administrators, and they found that the competition produces faster service, lower costs, better results ultimately for property owners, and that there shouldn't be any reason why we as a city should be any exception.

So the Missouri Clean Energy District is a nonpartisan public entity entity governed by local officials, not Jefferson City or private interest.

It's an affiliate of the Missouri Green Bank, already partners with our city and already partners with our city's Office of Sustainability, which we've been very familiar with with our new plan that was just um adopted here in the city of St.

Louis at the Planning Committee.

Um they partner on federal clean grant energy programs, and this will simply build on that cooperation.

Um so now at a time, you know, the moment that we're all in and we all identify with in different ways uh down here, and we need to make sure that every tool is in a toolbox.

I talk about that all the time.

Um we can use this to modernize our building stock and reduce energy costs and track investments.

So essentially promoting and incentivizing housing providers and developers, uh commercial properties here to address the already um the already learning energy inequity here in the city of St.

Louis by joining MCED again at this no cost common sense way.

Um it's a voluntary program, and I do have a couple of speakers here with me today, and then we'll be available to answer any additional questions you may have.

Okay, and with that, um, we can go through the committee order of seniority.

Oh, I'm sorry, go ahead.

Um, I'm gonna put your hand up, and do you promise that what you're about to say is the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I do, I will.

Thank you.

You may proceed.

Good morning.

Um my name is Marty McCabe.

I'm the Vice President of Relationship Development for the Bank of Springfield, or as you were known down here, BOS Bank.

BOS operates uh three branches in Missouri in the St.

Louis area, Kansas City, and O'Fallon, Missouri.

And we have successfully financed numerous CPACE projects throughout Missouri through Missouri Clean Energy District across the state.

Our experience with MCED has been consistently positive.

Their process is predictable, professional, and timely.

They provide the expert guidance needed for this nuanced component of a project's capital stack.

CPACE financing offers borrowers long-term fixed rate funding aligned with the life of the project's energy improvements.

The structure ensures predictable interest expense and strengthens overall project economics.

Within the city, however, this current CPACE program structure leaves little room for lender discretion or borrower choice, which creates friction, friction, and ultimately discourages participation.

Having multiple qualified administrators doesn't dilute standards, it makes the market stronger and more reliable.

In short, we encourage the board to allow competition among qualified CPACE administrators.

Doing so will make St.

Louis more attractive for developers, lenders, and investors alike, accelerating growth and sustainable development within the city.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Are there any other speakers?

And I didn't know if there were any public anyone signed up to speak or in public.

No one, no one is signed up.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um we can go through the committee in order of seniority.

So we will start with Audible Woman Schweitzer.

Thank you, uh Madam Vice Chair.

Uh thank you for this.

Uh it sounds like it's authorizing a new pathway and not taking anything away from people who can already you know use programs in the city in the city and in general.

Um I've been looking at some of the information on the the website, and it seems like a really important way to allow developers to take advantage of more clean energy programs.

So something that I think we should be more open to.

Is there a reason why this is coming in front of us now if the program was established in 2011?

Uh right now there's a structure that doesn't allow for this access and this expanded access to this programming in the city of St.

Louis.

So this is our way of enabling like opening this door even wider um for city developers, which we all know ultimately passed down the cost savings to our residents.

Well, wonderful.

I look forward to supporting this today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alder Woman Keys.

Thank you.

I have no questions.

Thank you, Alderman Browning.

No questions, thank you.

Thank you.

Alderman Aldrich.

No questions.

And I don't have any questions either.

So you are recognized to close, Elder Woman.

Thank you, madam vice chair.

Thank you to my colleagues.

And uh with that, I would ask for your favorable consideration and then do pass recommendation for board bill 80.

I'll make a motion we pass board bill 80 with a due pass recommendation.

Second.

It's been motioned by Alderman Aldridge, seconded by Audible Woman Keys that we pass board bill 80 with the due pass recommendation.

Um Madam Clerk, may you please call the row.

Alder McCone.

Audible man Sweitzer.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonier.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard?

Aye.

Alderman Cone.

We have six aye votes.

All right.

Thank you all for the support.

With that, we'll move along in the agenda.

Are there any resolutions for review?

We have none.

Any committee discussions?

We have none.

Any written testimony.

We have three written testimony on Board Bill 80.

They're in the JRA.

Okay.

Thank you.

Does it say if they're in support or just as their own board support?

I'm sorry.

And support.

Okay, thank you.

Uh any announcements.

All right.

I would um I move to excuse the Ottoman Cohn for necessary absence.

No move.

Second.

All in favor.

Aye.

And I make the motion that we adjourn.

So move.

Second.

Previous row.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

We are adjourned.

Everyone have a blessed day.