Good morning.

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

Madam Clerk, please call the row.

Alder McCone.

Audder Woman Sweitzer.

Present.

Audible woman Keys.

Here.

Vice Chair Sonier.

Alderman Browning.

Present.

Alderman Aldridge.

Present.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Here.

Vice Chair Sonier.

We have six presentations.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

With that, I'll accept a motion to approve the minutes from Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

So move.

Second.

It was moved by Alderman Aldridge and segmented by Alderman Browning that we accept the minutes from Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

Madam Clerk, please call the row.

Alderman Cone.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Audownoman Keys.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonier.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonier.

We have six I votes.

Right.

But then we successfully approved the minutes from Tuesday, February 10th, 2026.

We will move forward in the agenda.

Audder Woman Jamie Cox Answee.

You are recognized on Board Bill 131.

Maybe I'll just put a look closer.

Okay.

Can you all hear me now?

Okay.

Okay, fantastic.

Uh thank you, members of the committee.

Uh, today I'm here to present uh board bill 131.

Uh this board bill is an amendment of a cooperation agreement uh between the city and a nonprofit association, uh the Gateway Foundation.

Uh the reason for this cooperation agreement amendment is related to a parcel of land located in City Garden uh that has a uh building facility that the city has been sharing this cooperation agreement on for some time.

Uh the original intended use of this agreement was for primarily restaurant use, uh, but since then that uh prior establishment has been vacated and the uh building is sitting vacant.

What we would like to do is to be able to amend that cooperation agreement to expand the purpose of that use uh for the organization.

Um, and the organization would like to turn it into primarily a visitor center.

And so this facility would include a visitor center, concession stand, available gallery space uh for potential artists and residents, and it will also be open to the community for other potential exhibit space.

And so again, this agreement would just be uh expanding that use to allow uh the current organization in place to be able to uh amend it for that use.

And with that, I'll take any questions from the committee.

All right, did you have any speakers?

Uh I don't have any necessary speakers, but I do have a member from the foundation in the audience.

Perfect.

Um, Madam Clark, are there any public uh signed up to speak on board bill 131?

We have none.

Okay, we'll go forward with the committee.

Alderman Cone.

Uh your mic's not on Alderman.

Audder Woman Sweitzer.

Thank you so much.

Uh so the urban garden is as part of the parcel.

That's the name of that parcel.

Uh it's the the building is like the terrace building, and it's located within the urban garden city garden.

Okay, but it's um the entire parcel is called the urban garden, or it's just part of it.

It's just part of it.

Okay.

Um, and so that's been what has been the restaurant area before.

Yes, it's been uh primarily restaurant use for I think the last six years during COVID.

Um, but honestly, over that time there's been a number of restaurants within that use.

Right.

It hasn't necessarily been able to exercise its full potential with that prior use.

Yeah, I've always enjoyed going to the restaurants there.

I think it's a great space.

Um, and so you said it's going to be a visitor center.

That's correct.

Okay, and there will be food or there will be obviously.

Yes, there will be food and beverage concession available for the public.

Okay, awesome.

Um, I really love the space, and I think you know, whatever we can do to be supportive of it, um, and more to happen there.

I think that's that's great.

And I'd love to hear from the Gary Foundation about any plans and anything that we can do to be supportive as well if they are gonna give some testimony just to give us an update.

Thank you so much for being here today.

No problem, Audown Keys.

Thank you, um, madam chair.

This is this sounds just so exciting.

Uh, can't wait to see what the new look uh of the venue will be.

So um I'm gonna say congratulations in advance.

Thank you, Auto Woman, for that.

I really appreciate it.

Automan Brownie.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, I'm familiar with the space.

I'm familiar with the the challenges it's had, and this seems like um an excellent pivot in a way to activate the space in a new way.

I appreciate the creative thinking and to how else can we use this space and would just further emphasize the need to continue to get more people downtown so that uh these types of uses can succeed.

I think in another city with more population as downtown, you'd you'd see things more successful in areas uh where which are like primarily walkable and uh you know the the city garden is a beautiful space.

It's I think one of the most special things about our downtown.

And so uh I hope this is successful, and I hope that this can help uh activate that space in a new way that we haven't seen before.

Thank you so much.

Adam and Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Uh, you know, I'm really excited that uh I know there's been challenges with this space to try to keep restaurants in.

It's already hard to keep restaurants, uh, especially in the atmosphere that we are uh operating in in the world, but especially also at that uh I think the last one was like bigger 801 or something, which was really good, but it's always hard to try to get folks to know that hey, that this is here.

So, you know, I totally support um this being turned into a welcome center.

I love walking to City Gardens.

There are so many like little nooks and crannies and cool little things that is in City Gardens is you know, in my opinion, one of the we got amazing parks, but it's a really good uh interaction park.

And I think they recently added some new stuff like an Afro pick.

I don't need it right now, but if it keeps growing, I will need it and have used it.

But it's um, you know, I totally support this uh concept, you know, changing to a welcome center with having smaller food.

And with that, Madam Clerk, I would like to be added as a sponsor.

So note it.

Thank you so much, Altimate Aldrich.

No problem, thank you.

Vice Chair Sany.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee.

Um, I just want to thank you for your leadership on this.

I think this timing is perfect because I know the brick line is coming that's gonna connect um, you know, Marquee Street from the soccer to the arch.

And so I think this is great time.

I saw in the exhibit that it noted that this is also be a space for community events.

I would echo what folks said.

I love the space, I like walking through the space, and I think this is just an excellent time project.

So um, you know, congratulations to you.

So much auto woman.

All right.

Do you have any clothes?

Anybody have any closing comments or if that uh woman, you're welcome to close.

Thank you so much, madam chair.

Uh, again, I appreciate all the committee's comments uh for their uh support of what's going to be a potential great addition for downtown and for City Garden.

I would like to just take a moment to cede some of my time uh to the representative if you would like to speak just to the vision of the visitor center just to address Alder Woman Sweitcher's question, if you would like and if you could just describe a little bit of what the visitor center is going to entail and maybe accomplish for the committee, that would be great.

Sure.

And ma'am, before you start speaking, can you speak your name and your title for the record and raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Please proceed.

Hello, hi.

I'm Dr.

Heather Sweeney.

I'm the executive director of the Gateway Foundation.

Um excuse me, I can you speak loud into the mic, I can't hear you.

Oh, yes, I will.

I will project.

I I'm gonna hope that I can use my diaphragm.

So I'm gonna I will I will project for you all to hear me.

Um so um thank you for having me.

Uh well, I'm gonna say this morning.

Uh we haven't hit anything yet.

Uh so to give you some insight into what we're looking to do with the terrace view space.

Um, you have all hit on some really key points of our goals uh for this uh reprogramming.

We want this to be a community hub and a space in City Garden.

We have so many neighbors and residents, tourists that come downtown, and it would be nice to have an extension of the City Garden experience in an interior space that prolongs that dwell time of individuals who come to City Garden.

So we're looking to have it be that visitor center, that ambassador, that person and that and that space that you can come to that's central into the city garden acreage, um, and then offer some grab and go concessions because we know that that is supportive of our visitors.

We have a lot of families with kiddos, and I know my next.

So for them to be able to have something while they're visiting, and then also we're looking to position it as a um destination for extension programming for arts and culture organizations here in St.

Louis.

So we're looking to extend that experience because that is such a resonance with City Garden in our 29 sculptural works.

So we're hoping that this is going to be both programmatic um for the public, but also just a public amenity in general.

I don't have a question.

I would just like to make a motion to embank this.

Second.

All right.

Alicia with objection.

Excuse me.

I didn't hear the motion.

I made a motion to embank an auto woman Schweizer seconded.

And then I think Madam Chairwoman is about to do a roll call.

Roger.

Thank you.

It was moved by Vice Chair Sanyang and seconded by Auder Woman Slicer that we move for Bill 131 and bank.

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Aye.

Auto Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Audible man Keys.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonier.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Autumn Aldridge.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

We have seven eye votes.

All right.

Now you're welcome to close.

Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman.

Uh, and thank you to the Alder Woman of the Seventh Ward for making that motion.

I truly appreciate this.

Excuse me.

Could you all please speak into the mics?

I can barely hear anyone on the on the board.

Okay.

How about this?

Okay.

I was just thanking uh the alder woman of the seventh for that motion and for the committee for this unanimous support of this board bill.

Again, I think this is a true asset, uh, not only for the downtown community, but for the VATR community uh who comes and visits City Garden.

So with that, Madam Chairwoman, I close.

And I ask for your favorable consideration of Board 131.

Uh I make a motion that we pass Board Bill 131 with the due pass recommendation.

Second.

It was moved by Vice Chair Saye and seconded by Alderman Cohn that we move for Bill 131 and bank with the due pass recommendation with a call for previous row with no objections.

Congratulations.

Thank you.

All right.

Now we can move forward.

You are recognized again on Board Bill 132.

Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman.

Uh Board Bill 132 is a vacation bill related to the Mark Arthur Bridge downtown.

Uh I did share uh a brief image and exhibit to the board bill if you all would like to reference that uh with where this location is.

But basically, there is a portion of the MacArthur Bridge that is located on the Illinois side of the bridge that is currently still owned by the city property.

Uh obviously, with any uh you know infrastructure piece, there's a cost to maintain that piece.

And with this portion of property being on the Illinois side of the river, uh we felt it was in the best interest of the city uh to vacate that portion and return the rights of that property to uh East St.

Louis and the state of Illinois.

Uh so this board bill just outlines where that property is and vacates the right of way of that and directs BPS to do so.

Uh and with that, I'll take any questions from the committee.

All right.

Did you have any speakers for Weber 132?

Oh, yes, we have one online.

All right.

What's their name?

Kevin Trapp.

Mr.

Trapp, can you turn your camera on?

Okay, well and the pressure.

I'm sorry.

Come on up.

Perfect timing.

Okay.

Perfect timing, Mr.

Trapp.

Can you um when you begin state your name and your title?

And can you raise your right hand swear to tell the whole truth and about the truth?

I do.

My name is Kevin Trapp.

I am with the Board of Public Service.

I am the chief bridge engineer for the city of St.

Louis.

Hi.

You don't know what I need to do.

Oh, they said you were a speaker.

Okay.

Um the City of St.

Louis owns a bridge over in East St.

Louis.

It was the top vehicular deck of the um the free bridge.

When we uh we used we the city built it and owned it over a hundred years ago.

We swapped ownership with the railroad EAS Bridge back in the 80s.

The vehicular bridge was taken off the entire main bridge, except for excuse me, I'm out of breath.

About a two thousand foot section over on east side where the railroad bridge kind of cuts off to the south, and the vehicular bridge went to the east or northeast.

The city rate maintained ownership of that bridge.

It's about 2,000 feet long.

We have um uh demolished about 900 feet of it, but we still have a third of a mile of a bridge.

It's barricaded off, it's a liability.

There's YouTube videos of people climbing all over it.

Um the mayor of East St.

Louis wants it.

He's gonna demolish it, I believe.

He probably thinks it's a scrap metal.

City does not want it.

It's a huge liability.

We should get rid of it.

That's what I have to say.

Apologize, I was not better prepared.

You're fine, absolutely.

Okay.

Uh we'll go for Adam and Cowell.

Uh thank you.

I it just curious.

Have we ever vacated a bridge and donated it to another entity in the history of the city?

There was a city-owned bridge.

We have um given away ownership of bridges, but it obviously doesn't happen very often.

It's yeah, I definitely own a bridge.

The EADS bridge, possibly, uh, and maybe the Chain of Rocks Bridge, but I'm not necessarily familiar with the ownership structures of those at the time that they were uh taken possession by their current entities.

Chain of Rocks is now owned by Trailnet, I believe.

Uh and then uh uh the EAS bridge, I believe, is owned by Metro, if I'm not mistaken.

But uh I I just think it's important that we have some context in terms of the decisions that we're making and not just what's happening right before us now as well.

Um so the city does own the the vehicular deck of the bridge.

Metro or by state owns everything below it.

That was part of the ownership swap with Terminal Railroad in the 80s.

They owned all of Eads Bridge, and we owned all of the free bridge.

And there's a I forget the ordinance number, but it was just a straight up swap of ownership.

Um there's a bridge on River De Pair Boulevard close to Broadway that we have given ownership of to the county.

That's the only one I'm really aware of.

Okay.

This is not something we typically do, obviously.

So if we're vacating this and quit claiming I'm just reading the summary here, but it doesn't mention sale to East St.

Louis or East St.

Louis taking possession of this.

So I I'm just concerned, you know, East St.

Louis isn't exactly flush with cash either to address the concerns of it.

So if I can just speak to the detail, uh it's not located in the summary, but in the legislature, uh, we specifically specify, and I believe it's also for a dollar.

Uh it's the value of the sale.

So again, it's a small portion about two thousand of the bridge.

So it's not an entire swath, and there is an actual transaction, if you will, but it's for a dollar.

I I guess where I'm going here is you know, I don't want to put the burden of demolition or maintenance onto a community that isn't able to afford it either.

So they requested it, is all this is uh we didn't reach out to them asking them to take the bridge, they reach out to the city and said they want it.

Do we have that in writing somewhere?

I mean, aside from them signing and executing an agreement.

I don't think I don't necessarily have a copy of it in writing, but I understand that BPS has been having extreme discussions about this portion of a bridge for uh very long time.

I think it's over a year, was what uh Rich Bradley referenced.

So this has been an ongoing discussion about um East St.

Louis wanting to take ownership back of this property, and I will also just mention the cost burden of it um for the city of St.

Louis.

It would be substantial if we were to retain the cost of demolition.

And uh as Keith mentioned, the safety concerns with having pedestrians accessing this portion of the bridge is also a liability for the city as well.

Um so it's not just retaining the cost, but it's also retaining the liability.

And again, this property is located in Illinois, so it's not even in the state of Missouri.

Okay.

Okay, I have no further questions.

Thank you.

Adam on the slicer.

Thank you so much.

Those are great questions and very helpful uh context.

Is there um an idea of how much the city is paying every year to either have some sort of insurance or is there no insurance?

Well, the city's self-insured, is the city insured this bridge?

Uh I assume it's under our general self-insurance.

We don't pay for it other than I believe the fence over there is maintained.

Sure.

It's every couple of years.

Someone I just wondered if there was any way to quantify the cost of the city yearly of retaining ownership of the bridge versus selling it for a dollar.

But we do have an estimate of like three million dollars to demo it.

Okay, so a significant cost to just demo.

So a significant cost to just demo.

Okay.

And that's the only path forward with this bridge.

There's no reuse or anything.

There's no, you know, it will never again because it doesn't span.

Right.

Terminal railroad owns the main bridge, and they specifically in this deal said no more vehicles ever on this bridge.

So it's it's truly a bridge to nowhere.

Okay, perfect.

That that's a very helpful uh reasoning there.

So thank you so much.

And I support this.

If I could just add um quick context to the Alder Woman's question, the pedestrian side of the uh Missourian city of St.

Louis side of the bridge, which would be in my ward, uh was vacated a long time ago for pedestrian access.

So there is no other exit point as well.

It's truly solely for the terminal railroad use that the purpose of this bridge existed at he finished.

Okay.

Adam McKeys.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have no questions.

Thank you.

Adam and Aldrich.

I'm sorry, Ottawa Browning.

Uh thank you, Alderwoman.

Um just looking at a map here, it looks like this you you mentioned part of this has already been demolished.

And then it I think it will what I'm looking at on the map here is the part that remains is just east of Route Three, and it kind of comes down and lands onto Reber Street in East St.

Louis, reverse 10th.

Yes.

Okay.

That's uh and then there's three you mentioned three million dollars in the capital improvement plan to demolish this part of the bridge by selling this to East St.

Louis for a dollar, did you say?

Uh are we getting rid of that 300 uh that three million dollars that we would need to spend to demolish it?

Yes.

So this is a real win for the city, and that we're getting rid of a three million dollar liability.

In my opinion, 100% win.

If you could just speak in the mic, uh in my opinion, it's a hundred percent win for the city.

Okay, that that is um that was my question.

You know, uh looking back about what could have been, I wish we could have kept the vehicle deck and turned it into a pedestrian deck, like uh the chain of rocks, which uh Alderman Cohen mentioned is now um I think is looking at it, I think it's owned by the city of Madison and it's maintained by TrailNet.

Uh but uh nevertheless, you know, this is a really cool bridge.

Um, you know, history told a different story, and now uh I think it's a good decision to go ahead and let go of this piece so that we can save the city money and hopefully help East St.

Louis get rid of that nuisance for them as well.

Uh so no more questions, and um I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor.

Thank you.

So not it.

Now, Adam and Aldrich.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee.

Thank you, Alderwoman, for bringing this uh legislation for just to be clear, this would be uh us entering into an agreement to sell a city good.

Is what do you say that's what we would be doing?

We are vacationing a vacating a portion of the property that the city currently owns.

And we'll be selling it for a dollar.

That that is correct in terms of the action that the bill is taking, yes.

Okay.

Seems like a familiar path we've been down a road of selling things.

I guess the bridge is good to do.

Um do East St.

Louis have the funds to I guess do the demolition of well, going back to Alderman Cohen's point.

It's not like they're uh if we struggle into be able to have the funds in St.

Louis, I doubt like St.

Clair.

I think the county is where they're at, have the funds.

So are they have there's been any conversations that they will have the the funds to be able to actually do the demolition?

Is that the goal for them to do it instead of us?

So I am not privy to necessarily what available funds the city of East St.

Louis has.

I understand our obligation here is to make decisions on behalf of the city of St.

Louis best interest of the city of St.

Louis.

That said, my understanding is that this property is located within their area and their boundaries, and they have expressed interest in the property.

Uh so I think if the city is wanting to take back ownership of a property that's located on their side of the river, that should be well within their right to make that decision.

Okay.

And maybe there's some questions for uh BPS Lee uh director I see walked in to uh is it okay to ask you a question?

Yeah, I'm happy to respond to Director Brad.

Good morning, ma'am, chair committee.

Rich Bradley, president of the Board of Public Service.

Just um a little bit of background.

So Mayor Powell requested from Mayor Jones uh the ownership of this approach.

Uh this is not an active bridge, it will never be an active bridge.

It is simply a piece of structure that sits there in a piece of city owned right-of-way.

It is the only piece of city owned right-of-way that we have uh in Illinois that I am aware of, serves no useful purpose.

Uh the mayor's plan in East St.

Louis is to remove the bridge uh and develop that area into some kind of a housing development.

We don't have a lot of details on it, uh, but the conversation was yes, they would remove it and develop it with funding that they had.

Uh there is also a letterhead agreement between Mayor Jones and Mayor Powell that they requested ownership of this.

And so when we finish this board bill, um, assuming we finish this board bill and ordinance, we will do a full agreement with uh the city of East St.

Louis to take ownership of.

Thank you.

Thank you for the uh kind of the background.

That's all I got right now.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Snaya.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee.

Um, I think that I understand pretty straightforwardly what this bill is attempting to do.

Um, you know, I think one of the positives of it is that it will allow for longer and wider um railroad cars on the approaches.

Um, and I think that's a positive.

And the new gridders will be able to extend the life of the bridge to 2085.

Um, I just wanted to highlight that for folks who might be watching at home, some of the pluses of doing what we're doing.

I think infrastructure wise, those are good moves to make.

So in addition to not having to spend money on maintaining a bridge that doesn't necessarily serve a purpose and um of which we only owned a part of anyway, um, creating this better you know situation where it can have a longer lifespan and where those um railroad cars will have be able to be bigger and have more space.

I think it's also beneficial.

So I don't have any questions for the Alder Woman.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

You're welcome to close.

All right.

Thank you so much, uh, Madam Chair, members of the committee for your questions.

Oh, no, but we can't.

Yeah, let me make sure.

Madam Clerk, was there anybody signed up to speak on Board Bill 132?

We have none.

Okay, great.

Now we can proceed.

Thank you.

Um again, I would like to just reiterate um a number of things that were covered in the questions.

Uh, I think this action is a net benefit for the city in terms of uh relinquishing a portion of property that we're not in the best position to maintain and also allowing the area and the jurisdiction on which the property sits to take full control and direction of that property.

So with that, I ask for your favorable consideration of board bill 132.

Uh I make a motion that we pass uh board bill 132 with the due pass recommendation.

Second.

It was moved by vice chair signed and seconded by Adam and Cowan that we move that uh board bill 132 pass recommendation.

Madam Clerk, please file the role.

Alder McConnell.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Audible woman keys.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sony.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

We have seven aye votes.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all.

Audible and slice to you are recognized on board bill 160.

Thank you, madam chairwoman and members of the committee for hearing this bill today.

There are actually two bills uh on water spends and needed water infrastructure repair in front of us today.

One is around interest allocation for ARPA funds, and one is about reallocation.

We'll start with the bill on re uh on the interest spend um and get that going first, and then um I will not ask you today for a vote on the reallocation, uh, giving some more time for the departments to go through those numbers and make sure that all of the numbers are correct and all of the um if there's any other movement that needs to happen, we that work here in committee.

Uh so today on board bill 160.

Uh so today on Board Bill six, this is a 1.2 million dollar allocation of ARPA interest funds for the water division regarding repair of infrastructure and replacement of infrastructure.

Uh so Director Patel has been kind enough to come here and talk with us today and has some really good background on the needs of the water division in this in this in topic of water infrastructure and repair, as well as looking forward at how to make sure that not only uh the needs that are able to be met by these bills are addressed, but also the much larger needs of the water division, which will be met only by a package of funding.

So I will let Director Patel speak to to that and turn it over to you.

Thank you if that's all right with um chairwoman.

Thank you so much.

Director Patel Good morning, uh, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Nirj Patel.

I'm the director of public utilities for the City of St.

Louis Water Division.

So Board Bill 160, um, you know, the 1.2 million dollars uh, you know, is uh set up for uh water infrastructure repair and replacement.

Um, you know, this funding along with the other board bill um, you know, is necessary.

I we presented recently about our financial position uh, you know, to the public infrastructure and utilities commit uh committee.

We are in the process of a water rate review uh for uh water rate sufficiency study that will come out uh in early March and maybe have recommendations on whether or not the revenues that the water division is receiving are sufficient to cover the cost to operate uh and maintain uh and improve uh as necessary, the division and all of the assets that it owns.

Um, you know, this this amount of funding in Board Bill 160, we do have set aside uh a list of critical water main replacements in residential areas in the city.

Um, you know, the list uh currently sits at over 64 projects that we've identified.

Um, you know, these are located all across the city.

Um and they do range uh in cost, but uh approximate about half a million dollars each.

Um, you know, the average length of these are uh city block.

Um these are six, eight, and twelve inch mains in the city, um sometimes approaching a little bit larger, but they serve the residential areas in the city.

Um, you know, we do intend to put these funds in Board Bill 160 to use to do a subset of these projects, probably two or three of them that we've identified.

Um, you know, one of them being uh a main and Weber Road.

Uh it's a 12-inch main.

Uh, we've had a high number of failures uh at this main feet of 12-inch main replacement that would save us ongoing emergency costs uh that we're experiencing.

Uh, another one is that uh Kia Cook um, you know, it's approximately 450 feet of eight-inch main um and 1250 feet of six-inch main um between Alexander and Bamberger.

Um another one is in Sample Avenue.

Um these are just examples.

Um, you know, this is 650 feet of 10-inch main and 750 feet of eight-inch main, that again has had uh, you know, historically high number of breaks.

Um, you know, that asset needs to be replaced now instead of just continuing to address these repairs, which are uh a high cost.

Um additionally, we do know that we have a number of valves out in the system um, you know, that are frozen or inoperable.

Um, you know, examples of this uh were seen when we recently had over a hundred main breaks uh, you know, after the cold snap here um in Tower Grove South.

Uh there were a number of broken valves that caused us challenges in doing those repairs to restore service to that area.

Um, you know, we've identified these valves that need replacement.

We've replaced some of them, but not all of them.

Um, you know, an additional area is actually in Jefferson between Wyoming and Utah.

We've had an ongoing issue there with failed valves that need to be replaced.

Um, you know, these projects are necessary, they are costly, but we will put these dollars to use immediately uh to repair or replace this infrastructure.

Um, and replacement is critical here because it does renew that assets service life for a much longer period of time.

And it it is more efficient to replace water main replace valves than to attempt to do repairs to try to save some money.

So that's you know, pretty much what I've got here today.

Um, but this is a a you know, amount of funding that will help us to get started with some meaningful renewal.

Um, and then the other bill as well will provide a necessary lifeline for us to continue operations, maintenance, and doing uh the capital renewal that we are doing.

Thank you so much.

Thank you so much for providing more of that background.

I'll just point out a few of the numbers that he said there.

64 mains that desperately need this attention, and this can address three of them.

That is a significant difference in the amount of need and the amount that can be addressed with this bill.

Um I know that I sound like a broken record or a broken water main if uh I keep talking about this, but uh the water division has so much need.

We know it, you know it, our residents know it.

Um I really appreciate uh the mayor's office working to make sure some of this uh ARPA water uh interest goes to this incredible need.

So um thank you so much for your time.

I'm happy to answer any questions on this specific bill uh and happy to take um just any any um any support you have right beforehand.

I appreciate Madam Clark, is there any public comments I'd have before Bill 16?

We have none.

All right, Altam and Cowell.

Uh thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm just curious uh with the 64 mains that need to be replaced that are high priority critical, what would be the total cost to replace all of those?

Thank you.

Uh Director Patel did quote a half um a million figure per uh 64 on average.

So that's 32 million.

32 million.

There you go.

30.

Uh so I just it's an astronomical number when you're thinking about it.

And I'm I'm curious uh with the the three, and I know Director Patel, you kind of highlighted, you know, how and why you're choosing those three.

Can you just reiterate how those are the priority?

I and I'm just thinking in the back of my mind, there's a water main that seems to have broken five or six times on Gustine uh south of Merrimack.

Uh and whenever that goes out, probably a good quarter of my ward seems to be impacted by it.

Uh you know, can you just highlight why those three are taking priority at this point in time?

Sure.

I mean, they are all priority, um, but we do have them ranked based on number of recent breaks.

Um, you know, we update that regularly.

Um these mains that are aged out all need to be replaced.

Um, you know, but again, you you can't do all of that without that amount of funding available.

So uh, you know, we do have about 28 million dollars estimated for that list of uh main replacement, but you know, we are in the throes of the water master plan.

Um, you know, we do have an internal capital project list that is up over 700 million dollars.

Um, you know, you cannot bite all of that apple at once.

And so we do have to start with some of the ones that are causing us the highest costs um and the highest number of recent breaks.

Uh, you know, but if the funding is available, if we do collect on, you know, higher amounts of the debt that we're owed and get other funding sources in, uh, maybe as recommended by the rate sufficiency study and another increase uh to allow us to do more capital work, um, you know, then we would address more of those projects.

Um, yeah, I'm familiar with the main that you talked about uh in Tower Grove South and Gustine.

Um, you know, we did replace a number of valves that allow us to minimize the area that is impacted when that main breaks.

Um, and we did do the repairs this go around, but we do have a need to replace mains in that area as well.

So um, you know, these these replacements are dotted all across the city.

Um, and it is just a matter of prioritizing them based on the recent break history and the recent costs that we've seen.

Yeah, I I'm familiar with the one in Tower Grove South as well.

That's Gustine north of Gravoy.

I'm talking about Gustine south of Merrimack, uh, which is in the Dutch town area.

Um so uh Gustine south of Merrimack and Dutchtown, you know, at least during my tenure has had several breaks over the years.

Um, you know, I can appreciate the magnitude of this situation.

Um, I've been very supportive of the Alder Woman's efforts uh in terms of you know prioritizing funding for these uh, you know, through whatever means we can.

I'm just curious though, uh thank you.

I don't know where that happened, but uh whoever made the adjustment on the microphone.

I oh Alderman Aldridge, thank you.

Uh so uh I am curious.

Are we having conversations with the comp controller's office, the administration, etc.

on you know, bonding out?

I mean, you mentioned a 700 million dollar capital need.

Um what are those conversations in terms of you know bonding out, you know, from either a fee increase or you know, if we do have you know ARPA interest or other, you know, interest accounts that we're able to use to pay on bonds.

What are those conversations looking like right now?

Sure.

So we are in conversation with uh the controller's office, uh the state of Missouri, which has you know SRF funding available, uh, you know, our financial advisor and PFM.

Um, you know, taking a look at the the funding approach um for this large list.

The water master plan also has a task item to look at the funding approach and stack for this level of reinvestment into the water system.

Um, you know, so there's a lot of factors that we are looking at and considering.

Um you know, we don't have that all figured out right now.

I know we have some bond authorization available.

Um, you know, we do have an application into the state for uh $35 million package of SRF that would require bonds being issued um and purchased by the state.

Uh you know, that would have a lower interest rate, but also some other requirements there.

So um, you know, but we know that these ARPA dollars also have the shortest time frame here.

Um, you know, this interest is a little different, but uh the reallocation piece as well.

So it is an approach um that is taking all those factors into consideration.

And you know, just to uh reiterate, we don't intend on stopping with two or three replacement projects as we build out our capacity and engineers, which we have a high vacancy in, um, project managers, which we have a vacancy in.

Um, you know, we have to to grow with the funding that's available, um, restaffed to be able to meet that challenge and need as well, and then address more of that list, uh, identify more issue areas, which the master plan is taking a look at to reduce the ongoing issue of high occurrence of water main breaks and uh save emergency costs and instead renew the system which has served us for so long.

All right, uh thank you, Director.

Uh look forward to working with you on addressing these needs and uh continue to keep up the good work addressing the quality of water for all of our residents.

Thank you.

Alderman Keys.

Um, thank you, madam chair members of uh the committee.

Uh I have no questions, but I would like to just uh tie on to uh Alderman uh Cohn's uh comments.

I'm in total agreement.

Uh, you know, we've had our share of water issues over uh northern part of our our city, and um I'm a big fan of anything that we can do uh to help our residents as well as uh get these issues that we're having with one of our most precious assets here in the city, which is our water.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Alder Walner Schweiter and Director Patel.

Um I really appreciate the clear-eyed approach at which we're approaching this uh this issue.

I I think everyone in the city has experienced uh some level of impact from water main breaks or uh other issues from our aging infrastructure over the last several years.

And uh it is very clear that we you know this is a problem we needed to address years ago, but what we can do now can make a big difference, as you pointed out, saving money on emergency costs.

Uh it's not just about replacing things, but it's also about making sure that we're not spending unnecessary money on when it's an emergency.

Um, I highly encourage anyone who wants to know more about this to go back to the January 14th meeting of the public infrastructure and utilities committee.

We had a wonderful presentation from you, director uh on exactly all of the needs and the financial uh situation of the water division.

Uh it really spelled out the need for ongoing investment.

And as the alder woman from the 11th just pointed out, this is uh this issue that affects every corner of our city.

So I'm very, very grateful that we're able to get uh a little bit of money, but you know, just to be clear, one point two was it one point, yeah, 1.2 million is um as we discussed it, it covers only a small fraction.

It's a drop in the bucket when it comes to what we actually need for our water.

So this is gonna be an ongoing effort, but we really appreciate the administration working with you to find this money today uh to get us into a place where we can at least get started on this work.

Um I believe I'm already a co-sponsor on this, but I just want to double check.

Um it's not on the agenda, but if not, I'd I'd like to make sure I'm a co-sponsor on this as well.

Uh I have no questions.

Thank you.

Adam and Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

I'd like to make a motion we in bank board bill 160.

It was moved by Adam Aldridge and second of a vice chair's thank you that we and bank board bill 160 with the cafe preview throw with no objections.

Priscine.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Uh thank you for bringing uh this bill forward, all the women getting uh kind of creative and ways to be able to support our water division.

You know, water is uh the the best asset we have, one of the best assets we have in the city of St.

Louis.

We have so many great assets.

That's what make St.

Louis so amazing.

Uh, you know, we got the best taste in water that there is.

I've been to other cities, and it just got that kind of chlorine taste.

But when you taste St.

Louis water, it tastes like it came from a natural spring.

And we have to make sure um that we continue to support our water department.

Um, I do have a question, and I didn't launch a public infrastructure meeting.

I know this is only with all the water ponds and drop in the bucket, but also I know outside of this, it seems like our water department is under water.

So um how how much I guess uh are we are we underwater?

Uh, you know, this is just a fix three vows or three lines, you know, and then I know you have another bill that we won't um take up today that will put more money um to it, and it sounds like from the inquiry from the Aldman from the third, just to fix the vows is about 36 million, but that doesn't get us out of being under the water.

So, what is I guess our deficit in the water division?

Thank you.

I think uh first of all, thank you for the motion to bank and voting for that.

I appreciate the support on this.

Um as director Patel pointed out, you know, there are 700 million dollars of need already pointed out on infrastructure.

Uh, there are many vacancies in the water division for people like engineers who are crucial to the day-to-day operations that is being addressed.

Those vacancies have reduced uh in the last few years.

Director Patel can speak more to all of this.

Uh but there is a master plan in the works now, a rate sufficiency study in the works.

Uh what I really like to think about with the water division is that investing in this division is directing it directly investing back into the city and into ratepayers uh because this is a publicly owned utility.

So when the city of St.

Louis protects it, when the residents and the ratepayers protect it, it just pays uh dividends for for the future.

Uh as Alderman Keys pointed out, it is our most precious resource.

Um so while there are sizable investments that need to be made, it is like you know, an investment in ourselves in our future when we do those things for the water division.

Um Director Patel, if you want to speak more to the master plan and any um kind of preliminary information that you're finding to Alderman Aldridge's questions, I would appreciate that.

Thank you.

Sure.

So um, you know, one of the task items in the master plan is uh a comprehensive update of the capital improvement list, uh, you know, the projects that are recommended, uh, you know, sequenced in time with cost estimates.

Um, you know, this will be based on the condition assessments that we're doing of both the distribution system and the water treatment plants.

Um, you know, that approach is more comprehensive and certainly has more backing with uh you know the backing of a national consultant group that does this kind of work for other large water systems.

Um, you know, the the list that I mentioned that is uh you know up around 700 million dollars is an internal list that we've maintained um you know, with the knowledge of of assets and their conditions.

Um but this master plan will find additional projects, um, recommendations and sequence that approach.

Um so it is a little early to say what that number is that needs to get reinvested in the system.

Um, but it's also important to highlight that uh reinvesting in any asset is an ongoing thing.

Um, you know, these these assets do have a service life, uh just like your home, you need to do maintenance on it, you need to do some replacements and renewals on it.

Um, you know, if you have a leaky roof or if you have uh a foundation that's starting to show issues, you need to address those things as they come up.

Um and so you know, reinvestment in the water system is ongoing, but that renewal uh you know pays itself back with savings.

And so, you know, part of the assessments that have been done in the master plan are showing that these critical mains and the their replacement um, you know, can project out and maybe do some savings and not repairing a uh segment of Maine an additional 20 times um, you know, in the next 20, 30, 40 years um, because you've done that proactive replacement of that asset which is aged out.

So um, you know, that's just a little bit about what's going on behind the scenes in the water master plan.

Um, and again, it does have that financial review um and that funding approach uh built in as well.

But it is an ongoing thing to continue renewing into the asset that has served us for so long, and we'll need to continue to serve uh the residents, the city uh, you know, businesses that rely on water service uh, you know, for generations to come.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I hear the investment and you know, continuing to invest in our water benefits.

I guess I was almost just honestly like looking for a number because I believe right now we are we're eating into revenue.

There's more expense than actual revenue, correct.

Director Patel, you can speak to Yes, uh there is.

And so, you know, we continue to borrow from the water contingent fund uh to make up a deficit in the budget annually.

Um, you know, this is ongoing.

It it's been going on for uh seven years or so.

Um, that every year when we do take a look at the budget and pass that budget, it borrows from the contingent fund rather than rebuilding it.

Um, even with the prior rate increases, that is why we're doing another rate sufficiency study.

Uh, you know, taking a look at the capital needs as well, um, to project out what may need to happen to to water rates um, you know, to address these needs in the future um and actually build that contingent fund back up.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, I would I would really just like to add to that um that it has to be a uh package of uh investments, the bonds and the state revolving loan fund, which was mentioned earlier, those are things that are really important um and can only be accessed if the water division has money in that contingency fund to pay back or in what's coming in through rates to pay back uh that that debt.

Um one of the things I I always really like to point out is that the water division has almost no debt.

I believe there's a nine million dollar debt um within the last 15 years that was taken on.

Um, and then if you compare that with uh and an asset like the airport, which has over 500 million dollars of debt, uh you can think about how much more the water division could do if it was borrowing more money, knowing that these um investments last, you know, ideally they're being replaced more than a hundred within a hundred years, but some of those investments have lasted the city of St.

Louis upwards of 50, 75 years.

So this is something that again um can be protected now to pay dividends later to make sure this remains a publicly owned asset.

Vice Chair Stein.

Thank you, Madam Chairwomen.

Um firstly, Director Patel, I really appreciate your always responsive.

I know that in a lot of ways you're trying to make a dollar out of 50 cents um and have got to experience firsthand the many issues that happen.

I had uh water main break that was several, several feet, I think 32 feet or 34 feet long.

I you know, we have had a number of issues, and you and your team in your office have always been helpful, including when we had snow and ice, and I was really concerned about a break and that becoming ice when it was, you know, freezing for many days, and I saw hard working staff get out there and address those issues.

So I always just want to start by thanking you for your leadership and navigating this, um, getting getting through these times.

Um, I would agree with the comments that have been made before me around uh, you know, I'm really a fan of our water company because it is one of the few public goods and public assets that we have, and I really would like to keep as a public utility.

And I think we've seen several examples across the country of what happens when we don't take care of them.

And we know that there are always folks who are looking to privatize things.

Um, but as we have other conversations, I think we can see the benefit of you know what it might look like to have a water company and regulate certain things versus when a company is a little bit more private, like an Amrent.

So I really appreciate that.

Um, for me, my questions are just really aimed around kind of clarity and future planning.

Um so this 1.2 million is really primarily going towards the three locations of Kia Cook, Rebra Road, and I couldn't with what was the third one?

And are those the correct three locations?

Um those are those are higher priority ones that we've identified.

The other one is uh Semple and Bircher.

Thank you.

Um in all of the 64 that you've identified that need investment, those are all current critical or priority.

Correct.

And can you explain to me what the level of tiers or categories are in general for evaluating them?

Yeah.

So uh, you know, the age of the asset, um, you know, when that main was installed, um, the number of breaks that we've experienced in the last five years, um, and then the total number of breaks that we've experienced uh over that service life uh of that asset.

Understood.

Um I guess my other question kind of gets along the things that were mentioned by the committee where there was the comp trailer.

Um I think one of the things that is alarming to me is it does seem like the city is the only one that seems to be invested in the water infrastructure.

Do you have anyone on your team on your staff who looks at federal funds or state funds or has those conversations about pursuing grants or you know, I know we mentioned the bond of the comproller, but there are you know a lot of other dollars, and I see other cities kind of taking advantage of that, and I don't see it here.

Um, and even in regards to the debt comment, you know, um I became very familiar with bonds when I was on the school board, and I think I am not against us having bonds and having debt, and I actually think that maybe we haven't approached that the right way because the whole point of government levying debt is you're making a fiscal investment for the long term.

And so I would rather us have a couple million in debt and then not need 32 million just to do some basic fixes to you know evolve.

So I don't really know that we've been taking the best, in my opinion, financial approach to this.

Um, but I am curious about just your staff and your team or what support you do or don't have in regards to pursuing other funds, because obviously you have a huge role.

I deal with your other staff all the time, and I'm just wanting to understand what other conversations are, what might be helpful for you to be able to pursue some of those other funding opportunities.

Sure.

No, thank you for the question.

It's it's uh, you know, a very important piece.

Um we do have a fiscal team um internally here at the water division.

Uh we've got an executive team that takes a look at these things.

Um I mentioned our engineering staff who does a lot of the project planning um and execution of these projects.

Um, you know, in the past, uh, you know, bonds and and uh debt issuance have been leveraged, uh, you know, going back to the 80s and 90s, uh again in the the 2000s.

Typically, you know, we'll take a look at our rates at the same time to make sure that they are in order, um, able to support that new level of debt that we don't um you know have a deficiency in a rate sufficiency study to uh you know provide that up-to-date information.

Um, you know, a lot of that is a challenge though, when we can't support the ongoing annual operating costs of the division, um, you know, with the revenues themselves.

And so, you know, that is why we're taking this approach to do this rate sufficiency study, build in some capital projects that are urgent and critical, um, and then you know, be in a position to go acquire the debt.

Um, Alban Schweitzer uh, I think, you know, mentioned it and cleared it up that we do have to be in a position to be able to pay that debt back.

Um, that has been a challenge.

Um by way of the federal funding, we are taking a look at that.

Um, you know, for drinking water utilities, the federal funding comes through the state, um, which does have primacy over the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Um, and the state revolving fund program is a you know, a program that was set up to address these capital challenges that water utilities faced with uh, you know, improper funding mechanisms that existed.

Um, you know, things have changed over the years, and so there are new opportunities and and funding uh mechanisms, debt instruments that are available.

Um so we don't want to lock only into one type of funding.

Um but when it comes to some of the infrastructure funding that is out there right now, um, part of the challenge is that it is a loan product um that is being offered, um, unless the community is disadvantaged.

And some of the factors that the state of Missouri looks at for deeming uh a water system disadvantaged do include um that the rates are a little too high for the residents to support.

Um we don't meet that criteria because of our low rates.

Um, you know, there are other uh factors that play in as well.

Um, you know, uh economic factors, uh, but you know, we do score high in some of those criteria, but largely speaking, the the debt is um, you know, a loan product, and it does have to be repaid back, but um it is a tool to leverage, and you know, we intend to leverage uh bonds to be able to do that long-term renewal um and spread that cost out over time.

Thank you.

That was a very thorough explanation.

So I what I took away from that is that the next rate conversation is going to be really critical because that rate has to be something that looks appetizing to possible grants or funders or loans for us to be able to provide evidence that we can pay them back.

And right now the rate is so low that it's hard to provide that evidence that we would be in position to pay those loans back.

Correct.

They they do take a look at your financial stability and uh you know we need to be stable uh in order to apply for some of these products.

Um, you know, whether it's the federal stuff through the EPA or the stuff directly through the states, um, or a private uh you know, financial option in the bond market.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um that really does um complete majority of my question.

So I guess the just flag I would raise is I am curious.

I know you have 64 marked, um, but knowing how uninvested, I do wonder how long will that number be 64 um before it jumps up again.

So I definitely would hope that we can start having um more proactive conversations about investments because I think that 64 number, if we probably talk in three or four months, um, will be higher and will continue to uh go up.

So I would just raise that flag, but that's not really a question for you.

Thank you.

Uh to that.

Thank you so much.

Uh, to that point, uh, you know, when the water division were we were having these conversations about rates in the past, the number for the capital and uh needs inventory was closer to 400 million dollars.

And with more time that's gone on since the water rate increase in um 2023-2024, that has dramatically changed uh to 700 million.

And I, to your point, agree completely that as they do more proactive investigations, there's going to be more need found.

Um, and I want to say for the importance of having those public conversations.

The last time we had a water rate increase, it happened quickly.

It was an emergency and the money was needed then for you know what we saw then with the main breaks, but were emergencies.

Um, but we can learn from from things, and not everything needs to be treated as a two-week emergency.

Sometimes we have emergencies that are months of discussion, and it needs to be that kind of proactive um upfront information getting to the people to make sure we're we're talking about this need and this asset.

Um, that said, uh, the public infrastructure and utilities committee has had already that one conversation in January with the water division.

They sent a letter to uh Chairman Browning and to the mayor's office, uh pointing out the different needs that they expressed with both in urgent capital in investments as well as rate sufficiency study under being underdone gone.

Uh and they gave a really great presentation.

They're scheduled to return on more March 4th uh at 3:30 p.m.

to continue that conversation uh as that uh rate sufficiency study moves along.

Uh at that time, with all of that said, there is conversation with the water division, the mayor's office, my office, all the Brownings office with the consumers council and the um and everyone who's at the table about how to have a um a rate review process after a rate is is um found or suggested by the rate sufficiency study.

Uh and that is so important because that rate review, while this is um this isn't a utility that's under the purview of the public service commission, it's under the purview of the um city of St.

Louis is really incumbent upon us to have that thoughtful discussion and have multiple times for people to weigh in on it.

I do want to applaud the water division for putting a note in everyone's water and trash bill that says there is a rate sufficiency study going on.

Go to the website, learn more.

This is what's happening, so that people are getting that information right to their their door, right to their mailbox um about this conversation months ahead of when this conversation is really going to ramp up.

So um that is just I think really important, um, both from the having the money on an ongoing basis to meet the needs to pay the bonds to be smart uh responsible uh stewards of this uh of this resource uh as well as recognize what that allows the cities to even apply for if the rates are so low that the city is looked at as an asset that's not meeting its own needs or has no has not taken on that responsibility of its asset.

Um so those are really great questions, and I just appreciate you asking them uh March 4th.

Please come.

Public utilities uh meeting.

Thank you.

All right, with that.

If nobody has any further questions or comments, I don't mean your welcome to close.

Thank you so much.

Uh, I would ask for uh your favorable consideration of board bill 160 and a do pass recommendation.

I make a recommendation that we pass board bill 160 with a do pass recommendation.

Second previous role.

It was moved by Otter.

I'm sorry, Vice Chair Sign Yay and seconded by Alderman Browning with the call for previous role with no objections.

Congratulations.

May proceed with Board Bill 161.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, members of the committee.

Board Bill 161 in a similar way is taking American Rescue Plan Act money and reallocating it to the water division to meet many of the needs that we've already spent this time discussing.

This is a reallocation bill.

And right now the bill is for $6,866,460 and 48 cents.

That is a very specific number because these are very specific funds that are being uh asked to you today to reallocate uh from funds that will not be able to be spent for whatever reason uh to the water division.

This is something that we should spend more time on as a committee, and it's important to really get right as we head into the deadline of the end of this year to spend all of the American Rescue Plan Act money.

Uh so I'm not asking you all for a vote on this bill today.

I want to give uh the City of St.

Louis departments that are um have worked so hard to put these numbers together, the mayor's office and the partners in the community some more time to discuss this and make sure those numbers are right, uh, whether that's moving a little bit up uh from that number or moving a little bit down.

I think we'll will uh be figured out within the next week to make sure that it's it's um as uh correct as possible.

So we're not looking at any future amendments um as we do, you know, want to spend all of these every cent uh down to that 48 cents.

Um so uh today I do have Caitlin Smith uh from the mayor's office to speak on the bill uh as it is now.

And as I said, there will be more departments here next week to speak to those reallocations, and I'd be very interested in any questions you all would like to ask now for us to bring back to those departments so they can be most prepared for you next.

Uh but if it's all right with the chairwoman, I'd love to turn it over to Ms.

from the mayor's office.

If you're like me speaker, swear to that whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Caitlin Smith, policy advisor to the mayor.

Yeah.

So uh as Alder Romans Weitzer said, this board bill is just uh reappropriating some ARPA funds all to the water division.

Uh the mechanism it is using is this is to replace funds uh that the water division lost during COVID from the increase of uh revenues that were or the increased costs that the water division was having, as well as the decrease in revenues that the water division was bringing in.

So we're able to do that through the mechanism that the treasury put out.

Um so this is like the simplest way that the city can make sure we are keeping them.

Um and then when it comes to specific department questions, I have some answers, but mostly uh we'll be bringing all the departments in next week to be able to answer exactly like which why funds couldn't be used.

We're also creating a fact sheet like the last reappropriation uh board bill that we had that um alder woman Clark Hubbard sponsored a year-ish ago.

Um very similar breaking down exactly why uh you know this project was completed and but it had you know this amount of funds left over.

Uh, and the hope is to be able to share that at uh by the end of this week so that way you guys have the weekend and a day or two to look over it before we have committee next week.

Well, first of all, I cannot say how proud I am of you standing here in this position, seeing the the way you have elevated uh it's very inspiring.

So I'm excited for you.

You're doing a great job.

Thank you.

You're doing a great job.

Uh so just for clarity and for the record, we want to make sure that we do put board bill 161 with their presentation on the agenda for next uh Tuesday, which is the 24th.

And with that, uh move forward through the committee.

Other man co.

No questions.

Audible man keys.

I have no questions, thank you.

Other man Browning.

No questions.

I guess let me break the train.

Also echo everything that the Alderwoman from the tenth said.

So proud of you, Miss Caitlin, and glad to continue to work with you.

Um, so looking at the board bill, just getting questions.

So, like I said, can maybe some department heads can answer these.

Um, just looking at where funds are being moved around in the exhibit, just got some questions of like why they're being moved around.

So uh the first one out of human services, the 10,000 out of impacted tenants fund.

I'm sure you know I was gonna ask that, you know.

Uh what's what's up with that and why?

Yes.

So uh this 10,000 is coming out of the administrative side of the fund.

It was two separate contracts, one to the administrative side on what employment connections needed to set up the fund, and then a secondary fund for the contract on what would go directly to tenants.

Um, so this is on the administrative side of that project.

They know that they will not need to spend at least this $10,000, and so they're back to the city to be able to reallocate.

It can't because they were separate contracts, it can't simply move over to the other side to go directly to tenants, and because of how uh the treasury guidelines, we can't have this $10,000 go to any situation that's happening now, like the tornado, it would have to be for any impacted tenants that happened until 2024, 2022, end of 2025.

So it wouldn't be able to be reallocated towards the tornado.

So the simplest thing is to bring it back with how the uh the impacted tenants fund was set up.

It's not meant to be something that we can give money uh to a tenant for something that happened two years ago.

Gotcha.

Okay, and then I see a lot of money coming from CDA when we had the HUDs hearing uh on November the like I think it was November the 4th or something like that.

Anywho, CDA was here and they talked about uh how they had a lot of money, November the 18th.

They had a lot of money that most likely was not going to be used.

I think it was roughly around four million uh at the end um of that spreadsheet of some of the ones that may be um in question where those funds was not gonna be used.

Is that some of the uh money that we're seeing?

And I didn't add it up if it comes to the same amount, but is is that those large chunk of CDA money is is that because of CDA conversation that former director Noel Pfeffer said these are not gonna be used, so these are the monies that's being reprogrammed for the water?

Yes.

Uh this uh chunk is roughly two million.

Um yeah, these are all projects that cannot uh finish drawing down their funds.

Some of it is because uh projects uh were damaged by the tornado, and like the urban league has like we need to focus on this area.

We don't we can't spend down this money now, uh things like that.

Um then other projects are um like there was one of them is her horizon housing, they had a large fire at their um uh property, and that caused uh the they the money that were was able to be given to them won't be sufficient to do the project anymore.

So a couple different projects.

The CDA director will here next week and give you much better specifics than I can.

Okay, that would be a question I asked because I know I didn't add up the calculation, but if you said roughly about two million, I think there's roughly about four.

So the question is what is gonna happen with the rest of the additional two million dollars that we need to make sure we get out the door.

Is that gonna go more to water?

Is that going else?

Is it gonna go to uh the other ARPA bill that we have that is like going for tornado um relief?

So I know there's extra money out there that we want to reappropriate, so curious where that's what's going on with that one.

And then last one, is there a reason I guess we didn't, you know, I always think this is a critical one and it is so much funding.

A reason we didn't get the maybe it's a question for the department, the money for summer and year-round youth programming.

Is that like is that yes?

Uh is that are you talking about under Slate or under uh violence prevention?

It says summer year-round youth programming about six.

I can't see it's kind of blurry.

Yeah, that is under one for five separate grant or uh contracts.

So and no, I know it looks like a lot total, but it's under five separate contracts.

Most of them was because like they didn't fully staff up until the end of 2025.

So the like year of uh salary that was going to go towards the person that wasn't um employed until the end of 2025 needs to come back, that kind of thing.

Um, and then yeah, or they don't believe they'll be able to hire a position at all for so that we're getting back basically that person's salary, and you can't reallocate uh appropriation that was supposed to be a salary into direct needs.

And we are able to reappropriate because I always thought we had hard guidelines, and I see uh like the counselor here.

I thought we had heavy hard guidelines that we was able to appropriate.

I think by 2025, we had to have it all appropriated and then all spent by this year.

The way that we're reappropriating these funds for water is legally available to do even though it's a different purpose of what the funds was originally allocated for.

Yeah, under the Treasury guidelines, yes.

Do you have you?

Thank you.

That is an important question.

The city counselor's office is here to talk about the Treasury guidelines.

All right, Madam Chair to have her speak.

Wonderful.

Come on up.

Thank you.

Make sure to introduce yourself.

Hi, I'm Nancy Walsh from the city councillor's office.

So that's a great question, Alderman Aldridge.

Um we were obligated.

Well, we were required to have all the funds obligated by the end of 2024, which means the city was bound in some document to spend it on certain things.

Treasury later gave um additional guidelines that allowed for some flexibility to move funding among projects, et cetera, or even create new projects if you could fit it into certain lanes.

Um lane is you can treat if you have enough revenue replacement dollars allocated to your city.

You can treat certain funds as revenue replacement and pay yourself back for expenses that you had before the end of 2024.

So for instance, the water department spent a lot of local money, as it always does in 2024 for various repairs.

We are allowed to, and you'll see legislate or uh wording in this bill that says this is being used as revenue replacement to pay the water division back for 2024 expenses, and they will put together those details.

They've already figured out what uh expenses they can use to justify that.

So we're really taking money, this ARPA money, paying ourselves back, excuse me, um for those expenses, and then we can hand the money over what to water to use for new projects.

So ARPA Treasury will really when we report, we will be reporting those dollars, which we're taking as excess dollars from projects that aren't getting done on time.

We're taking those dollars and reporting them under those old ARPA projects, which were not only obligated, they were actually expended in 2024.

And essentially converting that to local money that we can spend with the water division.

So I know that's complicated, but we figured out how to do that, and Treasury has expressly said we can do that.

Well, I have full faith in you, Ms.

Nancy and everyone in the city councilor's office just so for its public uh viewership that we are able to still um because I think sometimes there's confusion if we obligated it already, if we could move it, but you guys did the dot the i's and cross the T.

So I I trust our legal here.

And we do have to be careful, and that's why we want to look at every situation one-on-one, because we have to be careful about how we uh we can't just do it however we want.

We have to be careful and and fit it into their guidelines.

So that's why we're holding just to make sure all eyes are officially dotted and to use a cross on this bill.

Right.

Gotcha.

And just last comment, I do appreciate uh I think the Alder Woman from the 13th ward will say make sure everything is spent.

I see you even spending like 70 cents on items, uh 29 on item, 68 cents on items.

So trying to get every penny out the door, appreciate the the even the small nicks and crannies.

Uh thank you, Alderwoman.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Sierra.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee.

Um I've been able to have a lot of conversations with the Alder Woman off record as well as the mayor's office.

And um I would just thank them for being very responsive and addressing my concerns.

I think some of the details are still being worked out, but um hopefully we've got a resolution until next week.

And so I'll hold uh my questions until next week, where hopefully uh my concern is addressed in some of the questions that I have specifically for department heads.

They're here to address it.

So for now, just thank you for your work on this and thank everyone for their responsiveness and addressing some of the concerns.

Thank you.

Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Sorry to be back out.

Only request that I would uh have, I guess, to the mayor's office, and maybe can work in coordination with HUDs.

I know we already had a meeting to get an update on where we were with funding since these legislations would change some price tags.

It would be good to get another update of you know, where are we with actual all ARPA funds if these bills were to pass and like what's still left out there on the table or um so it's a holistic approach of everything as we're moving money to get a uh update on where we are currently at with ARPA?

I think that's a great idea.

And I I think the dashboard being updated and all of that is also really important.

A lot of people uh look at this committee and at the that information online to know where the city's at.

So thank you.

I'll think that request is being taken back as we speak.

I can hear her typing ferociously in the background.

And I know we got the best chairwoman that always will make things possible when you get so uh I guess that's more of at the mayor's office to come holler at HUDs.

Okay, Vice Chair Cyan.

Um, this would just be for next week, so not so that you can answer now.

Um, just if we could have a list of if there were any organizations that were supposed to be funding, like we can click on the link and kind of see the legislation or ordinance.

But I know that some of the money was in conversation with specific organizations.

I kind of was able to do some digging and funding myself, but if it was a way that we could know um any of the like a list of organizations and the amounts that were supposed to go to them, or if they were contacted, it was just kind of difficult as I was sifting through to figure out like did the money just sit with CDA or were there conversations with other entities and problems in the contract?

Um so any information on that would um be helpful.

Thank you.

I I appreciate that question.

The um uh frequently asked question list that's being finalized this week does get to a lot of that, where specifically the money um went to why exactly why it wasn't spent um or couldn't be spent.

Um that's may it sound like the same thing, but it's a difference.

Um, so uh all of those specifics uh definitely for uh the end of this uh this committee will have in their hands.

Thank you.

All right.

Was there anything else you wanted to?

No, I I thank you, madam chairwoman, members of the committee for hearing this bill today.

Uh, even though we're not taking a vote, uh, I do anticipate there will be um some changes in the bill as those um eyes are dotted and teeth are crossed, as Alderman Aldridge said.

Uh and I uh look forward to coming back next week to discussing this more and really appreciate your time hearing this bill uh prime uh today.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

With that, I'll turn it over to Vice Chair Sanyet.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

You are recognized to speak to board bill 158 seven.

Did you want to do 157 or 158 first?

Actually, that's what I was gonna ask, Madam Vice Chair, since I'm gonna wait.

Um, I would like Julian or someone from the STA Recovery Office to be in here uh for board bill 157.

And can we just go ahead with 158?

Okay.

Madam Chairwoman, you're recognized to speak to Board Bill 158.

Thank you, Madam Claire.

Can you read the summary for Board Bill 158?

Board Bill 158 introduced by Alder Woman Shameen Clark Hubbard, an ordinance amending ordinance number 72051, which ordinance repeal ordinance number six nine zero five six to repeal certain provisions of ordinance number seven two zero five one and re-establish a clean energy development board to administer a property assessed clean energy program within the city of St.

Louis.

Thank you so much.

So, Board Bill 158 is a cleanup bill.

I've been here um six years at this time now, going on seventh, and I absolutely learned a lesson uh with this one.

So, you know, I stood up before you all my colleagues here on October 14th and talked about how this is gonna open the gates and get another tool in the toolbox and take away the monopoly.

I was excited about um being able to champion this and six little words, turn that whole bill around and thankful to um the lawyers at SLDC, city council's office here.

Um, Mr.

Campbell, Josh Campbell that reached out to me as well.

Um, I'm grateful for this opportunity to now stand before you and ask for your support um in 158 and for the grace and timing to be able to course correct this legislation and get it um on path for some things that are coming down the pipeline um in the city of St.

Louis as we speak.

So Board Bill 158 um will reinstate um the work, the business that our St.

Louis City PACE program is able to do.

Um, again, taking away those six little words in the middle of that bill and section two that repealed uh the authorizing ordinance for them.

And with that, I will accept any questions you may have and hoping to have your support here and on the floor as well.

I am going to try to suspend the rules to move this as quickly as possible because again, the work that's being done as we speak.

Thank you, Chairwoman.

And we will go through the committee in order of seniority.

Alderman.

No questions.

Thank you, Alder Woman Schweitzer.

Thank you so much for catching this and for working quickly to get it fixed.

I appreciate it.

Thanks so much.

Excellent.

Alder Woman Keys.

I have no questions.

Thank you.

Excellent.

Alderman Browning.

No questions.

Just thank you for returning to this.

It's good that we always check back and figure out how to make things work better.

So I really appreciate you coming back and putting the work in.

Excellent.

Alderman Aldridge.

Okay.

Um I don't have any questions either.

I actually think this is good for the public to see this is how legislation works.

You always say that the work happens in committee, Chairwoman.

Absolutely.

And this is the work.

Um so I don't have a question.

I would just like to make a motion to embank um Board Bill 158.

Second, previous role.

Hearing no objections, we have embanked, and hopefully that will support the Alder Woman and her efforts to suspend the rules to get us moved along.

Absolutely will.

Thank you so much.

Uh, with that again, thank you.

And I'm asking for your favorable consideration and do pass recommendation for Board Bill 158.

I make a motion that we pass Board Bill 158 with a due pass recommendation.

Second, previous rule.

Hearing no objections, Board Bill 158 has successfully been embanked and passed.

Um, Alderwoman, we have Mr.

Nick's here.

Did you want to go back to 157 now?

Yes, please.

Okay.

You recognize for 157.

Madam Clerk, can you read the summary for Board Bill 157?

Board Bill 157 introduced by Alder Woman Shamem Clark Hubbard, an ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment appropriating 3,800 of interest fund earned in the city's fund received under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and authorizing the transfer of such funds to cities' ability to provide services to prevent homelessness and displacement for households impacted by the tornado containing an emergency and severability cause.

Thank you so much for Board Bill 157.

Um I'll let uh the more detailed questions um and answers go to uh director Nix of the STR Recovers Office.

But what I will say is when I was um presented this, my first question was and knowing in the back of my mind the challenges that we have with spending this money and hearing about this money has been spent is where exactly will this money go?

And I was told that it will go directly to home repair, which we know we need now, 277 days um past this tornado.

Um it was important for me to ask that because I didn't want to hear about it going to any administrative costs.

I didn't want to hear about it going to any marketing or anything like that.

We again we are fighting for them now more than ever to get these funds on the ground.

And so I was guaranteed by um the STR Recover's office that this is going directly to the home repair program.

And the only piece that might go outside of the home repair program is to an organization we all know and love, and that's legal services to east of Missouri, when they work on their title clearing um the programming that they do sometimes to help support the residents on title clearing.

And so with that, um, there is an amendment that I'm asking that we adopt amendment number one is printed out, but it's in the drive as well.

Um, and that's just to make sure that uh this um appoint.

I'm sorry, this apportionment specifically awards of funds appropriated pursuant to section two subsection A of this ordinance, which may be distributed through existing or non-emergency contracts to specific recipients, contractors, or vendors, and for which requirements of the city ordinance may be waived due to the emergency nature of the eligible uses of such funds.

Again, streamlining this process to get this money around.

But when I saw that again, I was like, Well, where is this going?

Because we need to know this getting to the people.

And again, they assure me that it was going to legal services to eastern Missouri would be the only thing outside of home repair.

And with that, I would like to welcome up um director Nix of the STO Recovers Office.

If you want to adopt the amendment first or if you want to go, it's up.

Um, I make a motion to adopt amendment number one to board bill 157.

Second.

Previous roll.

Thank you.

Perfect.

Well, I think Alderwoman Hover, Clark Harbor Claver did well.

So I will just open it up for any questions directly from the committee to the cost.

Excellent.

We will go through the committee in order of seniority.

Alderman Cohn.

No questions.

Alder Woman Schweitzer.

Thank you so much.

I think this is a really important use of funds.

I agree that home repair and the direct repairs are just crucial.

And that legal service of Eastern Missouri and the and the work that they do in title uh clearance helps move along issues when properties do have issues to you know get loans and to get things that are just necessary.

But if there's not a title, then that makes it harder.

And um, so I appreciate that creativity here.

Um in terms of the home repair program, do you anticipate that going to a contract that's already open or an emergency contract or multiple contracts or multiple different ways?

Yeah, so maybe I'll just give an update on where we are overall private property assistance program.

I know many of you actually there's pretty high overlap with the budget and public employees committee who I know have the opportunity to address frequently, but not as much with you, um Alderman Cohn and Alderwoman Schweitzer.

Um so overall, where we are, we have the private property resistance on February 28th, where we have asked people to openly apply if they have demolition debris or repair services needs um for their respective homes that were impacted by the tornado.

We announced that deadline in late January.

We were at about 1,600 applications at that point in time.

We now have over 3200 application for private property assistance in the tornado zone.

Um our current assessments, we believe that there is enough money when we take um SB1, specifically the 100 million from the state, as well as the dollars from FEMA to cover most of the demolition debris removal that are required in the area.

But the largest gap is in home repair.

So about 2,000 of the 3,000 applications are for home repair while we are early into the cycle of actually assessing the homes for eligibility, where they fit the program and how much they cost.

We know the need if all those homes were approved is well over 150 million in home repair costs.

So I want us to kind of level set on that being the bigger topic and the bigger number that I know I shared in the elected officials briefing last week, but a problem that I know me and the mayor are trying to reconcile, how do we start to address a need that's way more massive than this 2.8 million?

Um what this 3.8 million does, it does go to an existing contract.

We have already awarded SLS as our primary provider.

So the infrastructure that supports all of the repaired properties work is already set up.

Um they actually will be running out of funds relative to the number of homes pipeline here in the next couple of weeks.

So this funds will help support them to continue about a month more amount of work that it can add into the pipeline.

So it'll go immediately into an existing amendment to just increase the not to exceed for an existing contract and then flow out directly to contractors and to families.

Thank you.

And that information was also helpful in kind of my next question, which was how soon do you anticipate the money being spent?

Definitely by the end of 2026.

You said it's another month of work.

So good to know.

So do you anticipate this summer or so yeah?

So the way it'll work is we'll as soon as it's approved by the Board of Alder, we'll get it passed through ENA and immediately add the amendment to that contract.

Um, we already have the homes queued up.

Um, so as soon as we have confidence that the money's flowing, we'll start queuing up the contractors for that.

Is usually about 75 days from the day we have the repair estimate to when the work is completed, work is billed at the end of that completion.

But for the contractor to take on the work, they have to know that we have the funds obligated to the contract to support that work for them to be comfortable doing it.

But they'll usually reimburse within 15 to 30 days after the work is completed and keys are turned back over and it goes through city inspections to say the work was performed accurately.

Thank you so much.

Uh those are all my questions, and I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor to this bill.

Thank you.

Audible keys.

Um no questions, but I would like to be added as co-sponsor.

Thank you, Alderman Brownie.

Uh thank you.

I'd start to I'd like to start by requesting um or making a motion to uh embank this.

Second.

Alderman Browning made a call for in bank.

Uh I did a call for second, and Audwoman Schweitzer did a call for previous row.

No objections, we have embanked this.

Thank you.

Um I think it's clear that we all very much in support of this uh and continue to be in support of tornado relief.

I think um when it comes to the what we see out in our city.

Uh the the common refrain I keep hearing is it's been nine months now, and look, this block still has a bunch of homes that are falling down.

And there's this feeling like nothing's being done.

Uh, and very few are going to watch this HUDS meeting, but just to get the information out there, when we talk about title clearance, that is something that is directly affecting whether or not we can get on to private property and do debris removal or do anything else.

Is that correct?

Um it is.

I will say it's not our major problem.

So when we look at the number of properties that we've moved through, uh, we've had about 47 properties.

Last numbers I looked that have gone through legal services to title clearance.

Um that's out of already over 500 that processed.

So we're not seeing a huge number um, luckily, that have had title issues, but we are working um directly with those.

The main issues for people not seeing visibility on the ground has been largely the length of time is taken for the state FEMA contracts to be set up to start doing work on the ground.

That work will accelerate in earnest in March is still the estimated timeline from the state.

And then the other one has been before the city only had his healthy home repair program, was the only repair program doing work on the ground.

Our office has been in the process of setting up a whole new program underneath private property systems program that has just started moving the initial pipeline of about to four to five million and removing those repair estimates through pipeline.

So we've unboarded contractors, and that work has already started.

And so what we expect to see is in March, both increased demolition and a lot more earnest speed toward repairs over that month.

Still small relative to the size of the need, but a lot more visible progress than what we've had over the last eight to nine months.

That that's really helpful.

And what we really need from people is just to work with the city to sign those agreements that let us uh come onto their private property as needed.

Um I'm grateful to hear that the applications for the private property uh assistance has improved somewhat since uh we last met uh at budget and discussed this.

Uh, I think it's really important that um people do see that progress on the ground, but understand what has held us up from getting to that point so far.

I mean, what I've heard you say is that we had the healthy home repair program previous to this, but that it the infrastructure to do something that this scale just wasn't really there pre-tornado and was difficult to set up quickly post-Tornado.

Uh obviously nobody plans for this to happen to our city, and the city wasn't humming along on May 15th.

Uh, but we had to just react and and set things up.

And I think the recovery office has done a great job at uh doing that pivot and just getting to a place where we can get directly relief on the ground and start to clear some of this debris that people have been living next to uh for several months.

So just just again, thank you for your work uh and uh happy to support this today.

I I think this is just gonna continue to inch us forward in that way that we have to do after a disaster, and uh we'll continue to make progress.

Thank you, Alderman Rowley.

Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Thank you, Julia, for being here a little earlier than our typical budget meeting.

So I guess we get in uh twice.

Yeah, we get twice in one month, like we did in January.

Um so just to dive into this this 3.8 million and what you plan to use it for, because I heard legal service and also to streamline maybe the uh home rebuilding that has been under the healthy home, but you guys are changing it a little bit.

So could you break down again what the the goal of this three million is for?

So the 3.8 million will go to fund direct home repair and the direct costs required to administer that home repair program.

Um so what that means within private property assistance, it'll pay for things like the right of entry, title search process, the instructional inspections and the repair estimates that are needed to start the work, and then it'll pay for the actual scope of work for the contractor to perform that work up to the $50,000 program limit tied to the program.

And how many homes are we looking at?

Um so depending on cost, let's say it's the full in cost because sometimes it you're looking at about 50 to 75 homes.

50 to 75 homes, depending on the depending on the cost of the broader set of repairs.

Okay.

And um you've been doing this for a little bit out of the 57 uh whatever homes, an average like home repair, could you like so right now most of our repairs are coming in right around 42,000 per home?

Um, but that's not including kind of the that's the direct cost that's not including the construction management costs and the cost to secure the right of entry, the structural inspections and that part.

That's the direct repair cost.

Okay.

So roughly 42,000, there's uh about how many homes?

About 50 something.

Sorry.

So how many homes need to be repaired?

You said roughly about 2,000 homes.

Yeah, yeah, but you guys are looking at about 50.

Did you say you was looking at this would cover an additional 50 to 75 homes?

Okay.

So that's to do the the average work you say of damage is about 42,000, 57.

That would do let me let me try to resate this.

With the 57,000, just the work alone, you say is about 42,000, just that do the work, that would get us to the 3.8 correct.

I just did 50, I did 42 times 50.

That's about Yeah.

So that doesn't include the full, so that includes the full cost.

You have that that's just a direct contractor cost.

You have construction management fees that sit on top of that.

You have the broader inspection set costs that happen on top of that, as well as the ROE administrative fees.

So we usually see all in, you usually see about another 20 to 30% on top of direct construction cost to deliver.

So it seems like it's like less money actually needed.

This 3.8 is not enough.

If that is just the the repair cost, and then you're also saying there's other fees and stuff like that.

I just did 42,000 times 50, and that's about 2.1 mil.

If you Yeah, so I usually look at about 75,000 as the max upper bound of usually what it takes to do the full cost if you end up at a 50,000.

So that's where the 50 men comes from.

The 75 is the estimate when you take in account the average cost of all those other pieces.

So that's got under why you land in between 60 and 75,000 for the average home.

Okay.

And you just saying if we with this 3.8, this would just be able to help fill the gap.

There is thousands, but just help fill the gap of about 50 something homes.

Yeah.

And we're roughly targeting about 40, we're starting at about 40 houses a month, trying to ramp up to about 100.

So this would give us more one room to cover more homes, more months of homes over the course of the next.

And as this goes through the ENA process, maybe if it moves quick, um, I mean, how soon do you expect this like money to be out on the ground?

So to be depleted.

So right now, I'll I'll have to get the exact exact, but I think from the moment it goes out, it's about 75 days for the moment that we do the initial repair estimate and approve the work through completion.

So we're looking about 75 days from the moment after we get it past three and a and get the contract approved and then get the those in pipeline.

But assuming that we feel confident it's coming out of committee, I've already kind of put the contractors on plan to start to review potential repair estimates to make sure that we have that pipeline available.

So that the ball can start moving before you know, kind of signed through the mayor.

Which is good.

I guess only thing my fear is, you know, looking at some of the things y'all presented in the last budget, is that out of the Rams money and as I've been including board bill 93 and 94, it seems to be like the office is out of money, uh, pretty much of like everything that's been allocated and spent.

This seems to be an emergency because what it seems like is you're out of money for what the board has originally allocated you all for.

So you need this because 100%.

Yeah, so yeah.

So this is what we kind of talked a little about in elected officials' briefing, but yeah, overall the home repair need, if every single person who applied to the program and we want to service and decide as a city that we're investing in repair in an area that's been disinvested in and have insurance for a lot of reasons, we all know about the full cost of home repair can be between 100 and 50 million if everyone who's in pipeline right now was eligible to the max amount.

So there is a massive gap.

And for context right now, the total that we have put into home repair as a city combined with state resources so far is that about 16.

So this would bring us to 20 million.

So this would start to make a decent dip in that gap, but there's still a wide gap that exists in home repair funds.

Absolutely.

And I understand I guess what I'm just getting to is that we're doing this, we're doing this 3.8 million of emergency funds moved to home repairs because the office is I mean, it's kind of similar with water, like water struggling.

It sounds like the office of recovery is about to be out of funds to be able to continue.

We don't have the sufficient dollars for the need of home repair, correct.

Okay.

And so my concern with that is it's good that we're doing like 50 to 57, you know, and you already gonna get the ball moving.

There's a lot of homes that need to be repaired.

The board of Alderman can't file any legislation anymore.

Uh well, we could if we change the rules, but um a chuckle.

Maybe if we do change the rules, I'm sure other stuff will come up.

But uh suspend the rules, is that as we move into March, and I know we look forward to the debris in the state to do their stuff.

We look into April, there's a two-month gap where uh funding from the board to be able to support the office will not be happening.

And if you already at the beginning of February is basically out of money for the home repair, and from what you provided to the rest of the budget committee, I mean board bill thirty one or whatnot, I'm trying to pull it up.

I'm trying to pull it up.

Um all of it pretty much is allocated and accounted for 93 and 94 is allocated and accounted for that.

I'm nervous we're gonna get to like April, and like the office of recovery is gonna be like we don't have any funds, maybe outside the state funds that we're hoping to start in March to be able to like proceed with work in the tornado area.

So where you are right, alder and alderage is the amount of dollars needed for repair.

If we wanted to truly scale up to address the need, we don't have the funding to support the full scale of need of the repair based on applications we're seeing right now in the pipeline.

So from that statement, yes, you are accurate from a standpoint of a full-scale operations.

We believe we'll hit it's hard to say because we don't know how fast the contracts can ramp up, but we are looking at about an April or May time frame where home repair would slow down, right?

We've been in this process where we didn't have enough capacity for repair.

We'll soon be into the process of maybe we've brought enough capacity and now we don't have enough funds, and that is a scenario.

Gotcha.

And that's only the I mean, I'm glad we're doing this to be clear, but I'm flagging that we're we're getting to a um as the months continue, and the work is, I mean, we're talking about generational uh neglect, and this is gonna be decades and decades of rebuilding.

But what we do know is that we have an office and an avenue to like do this work, not uh not sure what the feds or the state gonna do, FEMA and what the state, but when we get to, you know, March or or April to May, as you said, that you know you may be like during a time period where you don't have funds um to be able to continue to do the work that's that's necessary from the local level.

Um, which on side note, what I'm advocating for is that like we should be giving y'all more funds through a Ramsville because you're about to run out of money, but we're we're past that.

Um I know there are a lot of work you are right here.

Your mic, they're they're saying your mic may die.

Thank you.

Can you all hear me?

Um, so yes.

So, in short, that I think the board of alders and the mayor and our elected visuals have a big question to think about, which is there is a massive need about home repair.

There's also a lot of massive needs.

I know you all broader infrastructure, and the question is where will the where is the board of aldermen and the mayor interested in focusing a broad set of those dollars?

What we're working through is trying to make sure home repair is not slowed down.

So we are pursuing avenues with MHDC dollars that exist at the state level with other dollars that can exist at the state level to help supplement um broader efforts to make sure we don't hopefully see a lag in between is not promised because those are still ongoing conversations with the state, but there is substantial amount of need for home repair, and with the diverse sets of needs of the city, it is gonna be a question that the Board of Aldermen have to wrestle with on how much money to invest back um directly into home repair needs of people impacted by the May 16th tornado.

Of course, you know my position, but I'm also in the recovery office and that's who exists to serve um every day, but I know it's across a broad set of questions.

Gotcha.

I'll leave it there for now.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um no surprise, my thinking line of questioning is similar to Alderman Aldridge's.

Um I just um, you know, I have family that was impacted by the tornado, and so I have real life receipts of how this is working for people in real time.

And um, you know, you didn't say this, but inevitably people are gonna have to start talking about demolishing their homes, and they're gonna have to figure out between demolishing their homes or repairing their homes.

And it's just, I mean, if you are getting 3200 applications, I know you said 42,000.

Everybody that I know that has a home to repair, I haven't seen a number cheaper than 85,000.

Um, once you get done adding the contractor fees, once you get done going through things, obviously there are certain individuals that have insurance, so it could be very different for those individuals, but for others, you know, we're just not in a position there.

So I would absolutely echo, you know, Alderman Aldridge's point of like we absolutely, and I want to be clear about my priorities.

I have a lot of priorities for the city of St.

Louis, but my first priority is making sure that you know residents have homes and they're taken care of, and we can keep as many people in our city as possible.

And I think that if we don't, you know, get to a conversation early next session um about what it looks like for those residents whose homes, I mean, because also every time you go through a winter, every time you go through a snow, every time it rains, your home not being repaired means it's in an even worse state.

So, you know, my family member who's one of them homes, the initial rate that they were given has totally increased exponentially because it gets damaged again every time we go through another storm.

Um so you know, I think that while I understand like holistic conversations and holistic packages, all the needs of the city, like I do hope that we can prioritize this, honestly, with the same fervor that we should be prioritizing water and some of these things as like people just have needs because it is getting to a point where they're gonna leave or they're gonna stay or they're gonna leave, but a lot of them are leaving and a lot of them are not leaving and staying in the city, they're leaving going to the county.

I know some of this is not necessarily your place to raise, um, you know, Director Nix, but I hope that I can give you all the leverage and all the support to be able to say, you know, because what I see is caseworkers and people who are working and dealing with these residents that are gonna have to sit down and tell these individuals you gotta think about demolishing your home because we don't have a surefire path to what funds will be available.

We're not sure how they're gonna come.

I I don't, you know, I'm not the opinion that everyone can be saved, but I I mean we do have 250 million dollars sitting.

So some things could be saved, some things could be remedied, some criteria for evaluating the homes and knowing which ones are savable, more details on how they can be stacked with you know the state funds that you mentioned with MHDC.

You know, I think those conversations really, really need to be had.

I've been able to say some.

I have two family members that have insurance, they're gonna be okay, it will work out.

Many others just it's just not gonna happen based on the property value and what was happening.

Uh so I don't really necessarily have any questions except to say that I think this legislation in front of us is a good start, but certainly not a finish.

And I think it needs to be prioritized for another conversation when we come back um in May, and we can file legislation again.

And I would love to get an update on where we are.

And I hope for you, I hope we can just empower you to be honest with us because I think we need the honesty and the transparency and vulnerability of yeah, we're having really difficult conversations with residents because of where resources are.

I mean, if 3,000 people have applied and it's average of 85,000, I would say the real average is probably between 85 and 140 for repairs.

We're far.

And I think we just have to have those real conversations and revisit them.

So I really appreciate the auto women's leadership on this.

I give my full support to continue in this conversation, and I hope you know it's a it's a great start, and I hope we can definitely talk about doing more.

Yep.

No, definitely.

And what we're doing right now for you all is we have been doing a full unmatch needs assessment throughout the zone.

So we're doing a new assessment now that snow has fallen.

We can get a latest view of what's on the ground.

So we'll have a full estimated view of what the emergency demos demos are and repair needs are out in that area and the potential implications on a long-term investment to inform the full conversation of the full amount of need.

Um, but we are not taking our foot off the gas from the recovery office standpoint with our state partners trying to make sure we also get resources from them there.

But hopefully we'll I know it is a priority of the mayor and mine to make sure that when you all come back out of session, we have a clear need, clear understanding, and hopefully very clear alignment to quickly move on additional funding into the tornado zone.

Thank you.

Um with that, all the women, you're recognized to close.

Thank you so much, Director Nick and thank you to all of you all.

Um the lines of questions are right on point because when we talk about filling in this gap and what we can and can't do with this money, that that discussion around who was insured and who was underinsured or didn't have insurance, as well as something that hasn't been brought up that needs to be brought up, that there are some individuals and residents that were uninsurable.

Because I had constituents who had literally just received notices days before May 16th that they were being dropped by their insurance because they had flat roofs that they couldn't get up on that their insurance had ran a drone and saw that.

And this is in the Academy Sherman Park neighborhood, which you know got devastated.

So there's so many, it is very much so case by case and being able to fill in the gaps where we can is important and our important role that we play in that process.

I just appreciate all of you all support on.

And with that, um, I'm asking for your favorable consideration and do pass recommendation on board bill 157 as amended.

I make um a motion that we pass Board Bill 157 amended.

Second previous role.

The second was from Alderman Aldridge and Ottawa and Aldridge also made a call for previous role.

Hearing no objections, we have passed board bill 157 as amended.

All right, with that, we will move forward in the agenda.

Do we have any resolutions for review?

We have none.

Uh any committee discussions?

We have none.

Any written testimony?

One written testimony in support of 158.

All right.

Other than I'll just repeat that that private property assistance application, it was still open and it's open until uh February the 28th.

So please get in the system.

And this evening, um, in the elevated 11th ward at 4343 West Florist and at the uh O'Fallon Rec Center, there is a tornado um community meeting and recovery fair.

Mayor Spencer and Director Nix with the recovery office will be there.

That's at the O'Fallon YMCA.

And one of the things I liked about this is um not only are they making sure they talk more about the private property assistance program, but also what happens after you apply, because those are the questions that I get the most from my constituents.

Uh next week's meeting is going to be packed, uh, not only with Board Bill 161 and others, but we will also have a discussion, um, a presentation rather from SLDC around development, the status um of development in the city, as well as um discussion and approval around a resolution for the Board of Adjustments rules and regulations.

So I look forward to that meeting.

All members were present um today, so we don't have any excuse.

So with that, I'll accept a motion to adjourn.

It was moved by Alderman Browning and seconded by Alderman.

Um sorry, moved by Altman Aldridge and seconded by Ottawa and Browning with a call for previous role by Ottawa Swisser.

We are adjourned.

Everyone have a blessed day.