Today's housing urban development and zoning committee meeting to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Alderman Cohn.

Present.

Alder Woman Schweitzer.

Present.

Alder Woman Keys.

Here.

Alder Woman Sunye.

Alderman Browning.

Present.

Alderman Aldrich.

Alder Woman Sonye.

I'm sorry, Chair.

Clark Hubbard.

Here.

Alder Woman Sun Ye.

Six present.

We have quorum.

Thank you.

Uh with that.

I'll accept a motion to approve the minutes for February 24th, 2026.

I move that we approve our meeting minutes from Tuesday, February 24th, 26.

It was moved by Alderman Cohn and seconded by Alderman Browning that we approve the minutes from Tuesday, February 24th, 2026.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Son Yay.

Six eye votes.

Thank you.

With that, we've successfully approved the minutes from February 24th, 2026.

Ottawa Miss Weisser.

You're recognized on Board Bill 161.

Committee substitute.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee.

Board bill 161 in front of you today.

This is the third committee hearing for this bill.

It needed that much attention and scrutiny from this members of this committee to make sure that we get it right and that uh the various organizations that are mentioned in the bill uh for reallocation are able to have plenty of time to discuss this with the various departments.

Uh so with that, I have a committee substitute, which is on all of your desks, thanks to the diligent work of the clerk.

Um, that I would like to, if possible, suspend the rules uh to adopt or to to introduce and then have a second motion to adopt.

I make a motion to suspend the rules in order to adopt the committee substitute one sixty-one committee substitute that's in front of us.

Second.

It was moved by vice chair sign yeah and seconded by Alderman Browning that we suspend the rules and for the purposes of adopting committee substitute board bill 161.

Madam Clerk, please call the row.

Alderman Cohn.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Aye.

Oh Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sonier.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Six eye votes.

All right.

With that, we have successfully suspended the rules for the purposes of adopting committee substitute for board bill 161.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Uh today in front of you is the changes that have been discussed.

You need to adopt a motion.

You know, I think with suspension of the rules, we've adopted it.

Madam Clerk, is that correct?

Do we need any other vote to adopt it?

Yes.

You do adopt to adopt committee sub to pass it out of committee.

We do have another vote, but not to adopt it any, not to put it in front of us any further, correct?

Sorry, I can't hear you.

Just we had a suspension of the rules to adopt the committee substitute, and I'm wondering if we need a motion now or just to pass it out of committee.

You can you've already did the committee sub to adopt it.

So now I'll yeah, you did the com you are did the committee substitute.

So now you just want to know if you need to hit the vote to pass it out.

Right.

Yes.

Okay.

So I think we're good.

Uh always good to get this stuff right so that we don't have any issues in the future.

So I appreciate your patience.

So I appreciate your patience, uh, members of the committee.

Um before I go any further, uh, the chief of staff from the mayor's office, Miss Casey Milberg, is here to address the committee and discuss a little bit more uh of the reappropriation process.

Um, and I appreciate you uh hearing from her today.

And without further ado, I'll pass it right over to her.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Okay.

All right, good morning, everyone, and thank you so much for uh your time.

Thank you for the diligence and the effort uh that you have put forward on this so far.

Wanted to take a few minutes since I know there's been um a lot of questions, and this is really the first bill that uh you all have dealt with and that this body um has seen in the closeout period for ARPA that we're now in.

So I wanted to kind of talk about that, that shift, how the administration is approaching it, um, what you all have seen, what you all can expect to see moving forward, and just contextualize that a little bit.

You know, I think uh that is one of the pieces that has come through over the past few weeks of uh really thoughtful discussion in this committee is you know, that's where we're at.

There's a lot of desire for everyone to understand what that looks like, what that means, um, both right now and both moving forward.

So wanted to take a minute to talk briefly about that.

Happy to take some questions.

I do have to duck out of here at 1120.

Uh, we um, as I know you know, uh we have a situation with our board of police commissioners and the budget they proposed, and we have asked um some folks involved in that to uh meet with us so we can try to make some sense of that.

So that meaning is at 11 30, so I do have to duck out um at 1120.

If there's any questions that we're not able to discuss before, then we'll be happy to do offline you know have additional conversations about that.

So, as you all know, there was about 498 million dollars that the city received an American Rescue and Act fund several years ago.

The obligation deadline was December 31st, which means the contracting deadline, uh, December 31st of 2024.

Uh, where the city is currently at has been the past year and it's really accelerated, shifting entirely to the federal spending deadline.

We are in what's called the close out period right now for all intents and purposes.

All funds must be completely spent down and documented in that way by December 31st of this year.

Um, and uh the latest data based on submitted invoices, and we know there's often a lag, is um there's you know, upper 60 percent of total ARPA funds have been spent.

Um, so you know, focus areas right now for spend down include timely expenditure, making sure that all the folks, all of our city workers who've been working so hard these past few years uh with our community providers, with our departmental folks, um that they're really keeping on those providers that they're really drilling into hard questions.

You know, this is the time right now where our community organizations are getting a lot of questions about what's your plan for this, or you know, can you back this up or can you justify that?

And then it's not meant to be dismissive of them, their value of their work.

It's just a reflection of the unique time-sensitive nature of these funds and where the city is at right now in this process.

So um the act of monitoring uh is continuing.

Uh, you'll probably continue to hear about um escalated touch points with community partners as well who are getting funded through the city, as well as with city departmental um uh members themselves uh to make sure that you know any funds within departments um being used by departments, not necessarily third-party folks are also being held to that standard too.

Um so you know, most cities that are trying to look ahead, most local governments who've gotten this, are trying to build in a little bit of time in the fall to get ducts in a row.

And so when you hear about September deadlines and whatnot, that's the envision there is really taking that time to make sure that during the later fall period of this year that we can get ready for what we know is coming, which is audits.

Every single city, every community, every state that's gotten these dollars will be facing you know, there's uh one thing about ARPA, it's um the compliance and oversign regulatory requirements in it are like I think almost any other bill that had come before it's pretty stringent.

Um the feds aren't messing around on it, and so every uh local government, every state government is taking this extraordinarily seriously.

So that is why you continue to hear about that September deadline um and the activity that you can expect in the closeout phase is going to be um continuing to increase in terms of what's your plan.

Do you have justification?

This looks like it's missing.

Um are you meaning this treasury stand the treasury department's high burdens here?

Hey, this looks like it could be a risk.

Are you sure about this?

Can you really point to this?

Can you really prove it?

So that's what's going on right now.

Um, you know, I know that there are so many, there were thousands of programs that were funded, right?

Um, by the city through this.

I mean, in terms of just the reach and the spread, it's tremendous and significant.

And I know our city team has really stepped up to the plate in tremendous ways in trying to do the monitoring and the oversight and the compliance pieces of it.

Um, they're going to continue to do so.

It's going to continue to be a really big lift on them, but they're still going to do that.

Um, and so uh I know that they're going to be facing for the rest of this year pretty increased um asked on them as well to make sure that everyone who's received any dollars from this um that they're making the burdens that they have to prove to the city.

Um, you know, we do not, and I know I've spoken with I think every single person, certainly on this committee and those folks in the body, everyone's united in the desire to send not to send a single penny back to the feds.

You know, I think everyone's on that page.

And so uh, you know, what it's gonna take is going to continue to be a very significant lift of really stringent monitoring and requests.

So um just wanted to talk a little bit about that and share that for the uh for context in terms of how this ARPA bill, you know, it's maybe a little bit different than prior ARPA bills you all might have seen that the community might have seen to share for the folks here and watching where the city is at in this effort and what you can expect to see and continue to see moving forward and why that is.

So did want to hit pause.

I know that was a lot.

I know some of that was familiar to all you know to some of you here who've been working in ARPA before and happy to take any questions as this committee sees Fed.

Thank you, Adam and Cow.

No questions.

Ottawa McKees.

Thank you.

Uh Chairwoman uh Clark Hubbard, I have no questions.

Adam Aldridge.

I'm sorry, Adam and Browning.

Uh thank you.

I I appreciate all the effort that's been put into figuring out exactly what dollars are available to move and working and double checking with the different uh nonprofits and other agencies that we've been working with.

I I understand it's been an enormous lift.

Uh and I completely understand what you just said about uh the audits that are coming and the need to be very careful here.

So uh no questions, just want to offer my appreciation for the work that's been done here.

Thank you.

It's I cannot speak highly enough of our city team.

I mean, it's on top of doing their normal jobs.

This has been like I said, for the rest of this year, the close-out period that we're in.

It's gonna continue to be just a miss mealbook.

We can't so sorry, thank you so much.

I was just giving uh again thanks and gratitude to our city workers um for the work that they've done and just acknowledging that this is gonna continue to really escalate in terms of the lift on them.

This is on top of their regular jobs that they're doing this.

Um they all take it extraordinarily seriously, and I know the support of our wonderful compliance team in the city counselor's office, but it's it's a lift and it's gonna continue to grow uh throughout the rest of the year.

No questions.

Vice Chair Sany, no questions.

All right, thank you all.

Thank you so much, Ms.

Milberg, for being here and making time for it.

I know you have a million things uh going on today, so as usual.

Um, so just a little bit more color on the committee substitute that we've adopted that's in front of us, some of the things that were particularly concerned of this committee with specific uh providers that had received funding and the money that showed up in this this bill for reallocation for revenue replacement in the water division, all of the ones that have been flagged for me uh have been pulled out of this bill for further discussion with those providers.

I think what's important about that, and I would just be remiss not to say, is that is not a guarantee that they won't have to have um you know those really tough decisions about those reallocations still occurring, but it does allow a little bit more time for those conversations to take place.

Um today here with us, uh I'll just lit list them for the record Covenant House, Guardian Angel, North Aportion, Urban League, uh Direct Support, the Forward Program, and Northside Youth and Senior Services.

Um you'll see them all crossed out in the red line version of the committee substitute and crossed out in the uh fact sheet as well, as well as the list that of questions I compiled from our meeting last week and all of the answers uh that I was able to gather.

So all of that's in front of you.

I know you haven't had it for that long, but I hope the the many, many conversations that we've all had, and the you know, this being the third committee meeting, people might have had had some time to look over it.

Uh, if there is uh any further questions for any of the departments, we have some of them here today.

Also, Caitlin Smith uh from the mayor's office is here for any further questions that you all may have for her.

Um, and with that, I'm I'm happy to entertain questions and and keep this moving.

Ottawa and cow.

No questions.

Ottawa and keys.

No questions, thank you.

Adam and Brownie.

No questions again.

Just want to offer my thanks for all the work you put into this.

Adam Aldrich.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Um, I just want to thank you, Alderwoman.

I know this is the third hearing that we've had on this.

But I do appreciate uh kind of your due diligence and working with committee members because there was some concerns on uh some organizations that had kind of a different uh point of view from when the bill was first filed.

And um I do appreciate just kind of your your work around working with committee members and not trying to rush this.

We all know that water is extremely important.

It's something that um, as we continue to say, you know, our water department is underwater, uh, and we need to do everything because water is essential uh to the quality of life of people here in the city of St.

Louis.

But I think some of the organizations that uh you have worked with some of us on to make sure that there's more time is just as critical to uh especially helping uh change um the direction of some of the the things that happen in certain communities.

So uh thank you for your leadership on this and no more uh comment.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Sange.

I would just echo the comments of the Alderman of the 14th, and I appreciate you working with us and being open to the things that we could catch.

I appreciate the departments for their diligence.

You know, this is the first time the city has undertaken this process and reevaluating it and having these conversations is obviously not going to be easy, and I think for as complicated and messy as it got.

I don't think that as it could get.

I don't think we did that at all.

Um, so just my hats out to the administration and this in the Alderabh.

Schweitzer and the departments for you know being open to our feedback and making the adjustments, and I look forward to supporting this today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Adam Missy.

You're welcome to close.

Thank you all.

I I really appreciate the time and all of your comments and the amount of time you took over the weekend over the last two to have these these tough discuss discussions.

Uh as was pointed out, uh, these are going to be very difficult conversations to have as we move through this close out period.

But the goal is not to send a single dollar back.

And uh, you know, the the water division with the ability through treasury guidelines to do revenue replacement, we'll be able to put these funds to work in a way that will be very important for all of our our residents here in St.

Louis as they rely on clean, uh reliable drinking water here in the city, and uh our ability to provide that to them is paramount in my opinion.

So I appreciate your time.

And with that, I hope to earn a due pass recommendation of Board Bill 16 sub.

Madam Clerk, are there any speakers signed up for Board Bill 161 now?

Committee up.

We have none.

Any speakers online?

We have none.

All right.

Thank you.

With that, I'll accept the motion.

Alderman.

Alderwoman Keys.

I'm not sure if I was added as a co-sponsor.

I'd like to be added, please.

So noted.

Thank you, Alderwoman.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh with that, I'll accept a motion for Board Bill 161 committee sub.

I would I'd move that we pass Board Bill 161 committee substitute out of committee with fast recommendation.

It was moved by Vice Chair Sany and segmented by Alderman Cone that we move Board Bill 161 committee sub with a due pass recommendation.

Madam Clerk, please call the role.

Alderman Cone.

Aye.

Alderwoman Schweitzer.

Aye.

Alderwoman Keys.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sanye.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Seven eye modes.

All right.

Congratulations, Alderwoman Slide.

Thank you so much.

Alder Woman Jamie Cox Ansley and Alderman.

I'm sorry, Alderman Aldrich.

You're recognized on board bill 155.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee.

Uh today I bring before you Board Bill 155, which seeks to establish a sports and entertainment district in the downtown area in the city of St.

Louis.

And the structure of the SID would allow us to do a number of really great things to help improve and enhance the downtown community, specifically related to beautification, streetscape, lighting, public safety, and a number of things community members have been asking us to do to help enhance downtown for a long time.

But before I pass it to them, I did just want to allow Alderman Aldridge to also speak.

He's been my right hand and partner and working to establish this, and the SID would cover both my portion of downtown as well as his portion of downtown.

So he can help speak to a little bit about how the SID would function and how it would work with some of the existing structures and communities we already have helping to improve St.

Louis.

Thank you, members of the HUDS Committee.

And also I want to thank Aldoam and uh Amy Cox Antweet.

As she said, we share downtown and uh she's also my right hand.

Uh we work very closely to try to come up with creative ways to continue to support downtown uh and make sure that we are uh doing everything from our and from the board of Alderman to make sure that a downtown continues to be a vibrant downtown.

Uh Aldo McCox Antweet really hit on a lot of the highlights of the CID.

I do want to mention, so this SID uh started because there was a state bill that was passed last session that allow downtowns and main streets all throughout the state of Missouri to create a CID uh within their downtown areas to help generate uh funds that will not be taxed by residents.

This would be funds that come directly to the state.

As Aldoer McCock's Antweet mentioned, these funds could be used for various things such as beautiful, security, and other ways to make sure that our downtown, not only in St.

Louis, but throughout the state, is just as vibrant.

There are already several um SIDs downtown uh throughout uh both our wards and the eighth ward and in the 14th ward.

And again, this SID will uh be very similar to the other ones, but focused especially around uh the entertainment uh venues that we have, such as Union Station, MLS Station or MLS uh uh stadium, uh the blues uh stadium, the Cartinal Stadium, but it will not stop there as the map uh is in front of us.

It will try to work to use all the funds that are generated uh again to make our downtown just as vibrant and beautiful.

And I think what is really cool about this piece of legislation that I have the opportunity to work with Aldoine Cox Antweet on.

It's not many times you see the state uh could coming from being a former state representative.

Not many times you see the state actually pouring in to support St.

Louis.

Uh so any time that we can also get uh funds that are going to come from the state department that's gonna come into the city of St.

Louis is a big win.

There's a lot of positive growth that's happening.

Uh we know that we have uh the Olympics that will be coming here.

We just had the Olympics winter game tryout.

So I think with the momentum that is happening in downtown, but not just downtown in our region, this could be a huge benefit to that.

As Aldo and Cox Antweet said, we have several people that are here to present, and we'll bring up our first speaker that will kind of walk through the slideshow.

But every speaker that's here, if you could just state your first and last name and the organization you're with, so we can have it on record.

I think the first person we have is a Mr.

David.

I think what we'll do is everybody that signed up to speak on Board Bill 155.

I swear you all in at one time that way we don't have to go back and forth on that.

And then when you come up to speak, then you can state your name and your affiliation.

So everyone that's signed up as their speakers, can you raise your right hand?

And swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Thank you so much.

Hi, good morning.

I'm David Richardson with Hush Blackwell, um, the attorney who's been working on the creation of the SID and uh worked on the legislation that got passed last year.

Uh as the Alderman stated, this is uh uh a unique SID.

If I could have the first slide that got created in 2025 in the legislature, and it was uh supported by both parties and the governor as well.

Um this SID, unlike the SIDs that you're familiar with, this is this SID has no taxing authority, no ability to impose sales taxes, no ability to impose property taxes, special assessments, or any other charges.

Um it can only be uh in a downtown or central business district.

It needs to be at least 100 acres.

It needs to have uh entertainment venues, facilities, and tourism attractions within it.

Um it unlike a lot of SIDs, this one is just uh uh created by a petition signed by 50% of the assessed valuation of the property since it's not taxing people or assessing people, it's just the the uh sense valuation versus the per capita.

Um but the big benefit of this CID, since it you're like, well, if it can't tax or assess, how does it what's its purpose?

Um it could enter into a contract with the state of Missouri, as Alderman stated.

Um, similar to what was done uh for the Enterprise Center, the National Geospatial, similar legislative kind of mechanism was created here that the Department of Economic Development and the Department of or the Office of Administration of the State of Missouri can enter into a contract with the CID once it's formed uh to appropriate money to it to further its purposes over the life of the CID.

And that can be up to two and a half million dollars a year uh for the first five fiscal years of its existence, and then four and a half for the remaining of the uh 20 uh 27-year lifespan.

Next slide.

So that's kind of the legislation that we have going there, and then what we what you have before you as uh our sponsor said uh the boundaries here that we propose is the central the true central business district of the city of St.

Louis, so from the uh the river to Jefferson, and then coal and car on the north down to uh 6440 on the south.

Um so it's far in excess of the hundred acre minimum, it's approximately a thousand acres.

Um the term of the SID would be for the statutory maximum term of a SID, which is 27 years.

And the purposes, the the four big uh purposes would be uh attracting entertainment events and tourism.

Because again, this is a sporting and tourism uh SID, and one of its things could be to uh help back um a ticket sale guarantees to get events here, um, which is a common uh requirement if you're trying to get uh you know the uh uh the the skating events, uh, you know, the Olympic trials and things like that, you have to guarantee tickets, so that would be one possible use of funds.

And then public safety would be another uh use, and then cleaning maintenance and beautification would be a third, and then other public improvements, whether that be streets, sidewalks, um, and then this SID would work in uh cooperation with existing SIDs that are downtown.

Um as you probably are aware, there is the downtown SID that basically goes from the river to 18th Street and coal to 40.

Uh uh that SID, unlike this one, has a special assessment and is a not-for-profit.

This SID is a government will be a governmental entity and again cover all of uh downtown, um, but will not be again uh assessing or taxing any of the property owners.

Its sole source of funding will be state funding that we get.

Next slide.

Um as I just said, so no direct economic impact on downtown property owners or businesses because it doesn't, it's not imposing these sales taxes, property tax, or assessments.

Um as I said, or said this as the statute sets forth, um we could get an appropriation of uh I my slides wrong here.

It says two million, it should be two and a half million.

Uh we can go back one.

Two and a half million through 2031, and then four and a half million uh through the life of the district.

The first appropriation would be starting in um with the fiscal year 2028, which would be July 1, 2027, and then those funds could be used for those um for core purposes.

And uh how it works with the state funding, where's the state funding come from?

You may ask.

It's uh again similar to what was done for National Geospatial or Enterprise Center or like Edessa or a super TIFF, it's basically the positive net fiscal impact that occurs from uh getting additional events, additional room nights, additional activity uh uh downtown, then the state would uh appropriate up to those maximums based on that economic impact out of state withholding taxes and state sales taxes.

So again, it's state revenue coming back to the city of St.

Louis for these public purposes.

Uh next slide.

Uh this would be a political subdivision because it's getting public funds, and it would have a board of seven directors.

Um at least two of those directors need to have proven experience in tourism, economic development, and marketing, and then to have representation of the biggest drivers of the economic activity that'll be funding this.

One director would be a representative of Explore St.

Louis, one rep one director would be a representative of the Gateway Arch Park Foundation, and the others would come from downtown attractions, venues, and businesses for the for the seven directors, then uh that's the end of my slides, and I'm happy to answer any questions specifically about um the legislation or the petition that we filed.

We we can probably just go through there all the speakers and then we'll follow up with questions after.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm Bob O'Lochlin, Chairman of Lodging Hospitality Management.

Uh we own Union Station and the Hilton at the ballpark downtown.

And I'm here to say that we fully endorse uh this going through with the sports and entertainment district, as it'll bring multi-millions of dollars of conventions, uh tourists, uh, sporting events, uh, concerts uh to our city.

In addition to it, it will help us add safety and security in the downtown area to support a safe environment.

We're hoping that we'll attract many, many conventions, many concerts, many sporting events.

And I could be happy to cite the ones we've had in the past and ones we're bidding on in the future, which once they get to St.

Louis, they want to make sure they feel safe.

The facilities that we have, I don't think there's anywhere in the country that you can find that many professional sports teams in one consolidated area, or you have the arch, the river, you have the uh LaClade's Landing, Convention Center, Dome, and 9,000 hotel rooms.

So I think we have an incredible package.

I think the state recognizes that.

That's why they approved it and that they will fund it starting in 2027.

And I think it uh will be great for our area, and I think it'll be a game changer for the whole region.

So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Good morning.

My name is Jim Mann.

I'm here representing the St.

Louis SC.

Um, as uh I'm sure you have witnessed, we're big proponents of downtown after building the stadium and seeing the excitement it brought along with the other sports teams.

Uh we're thrilled about what we see as great progress in downtown.

We fully endorse this effort and really look forward to taking uh downtown St.

Louis even even further.

Thank you very much.

Good morning.

I'm Mike Whittle.

I'm Senior Vice President General Counsel of the St.

Louis Cardinals, and I'm here on behalf of the Cardinals to express our full support for Board Bill 155.

Really, the key to our support is that, as mentioned, it will use or enable us to keep existing state tax revenues that are generated by the district and use them to help improve the key for us public safety in downtown and also uh help us attract uh major sports and entertainment events to the city.

And you know, for those reasons, we ask for your vote in favor of it.

And uh thank you for your uh for your consideration of the bill and all that you do for the city of St.

Louis.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board.

I'm Brad Dean, president and CEO of your convention and visitors committee for St.

Louis, and we are pleased to rise in support today of Bill 155.

Uh, if you think of the downtown region as an economic engine, then you would have to agree that this bill is like a precision timing upgrade, catalytic converter with turbocharge that's going to make that engine run faster, better, longer, and more efficient.

And we see a variety of reasons for that, but three in particular.

Uh first is it's not a speculative investment.

This is not some major capital investment that requires a TIFF or concessions.

Uh this makes the existing entertainment sports, dining assets in downtown better.

It gives lift to the entire region and allows us to operate at a higher level.

Secondly, this bill, if passed, will instantly make St.

Louis more competitive as it relates to seeking some of the events that Mr.

Laughlin talked about.

I was checking yesterday.

As we stand here today, St.

Louis Region is currently competing for 11 major events.

And when I say we, I'm talking about not only the CBC, but our partners at the Sports Commission, as well as partners like the St.

Louis Blues, St.

Louis Cardinals, and City SC.

Of course, we're competing for dozens of meetings and conventions, but currently we're in the throes of competing for 11 events that would have the kind of lift that your constituents would ask, what's going on downtown?

The kinds of events that just impact businesses all throughout the region.

In every single one of those 11 competitions, without exception, we're competing with another city or region that have either a similar uh mechanism like this, a sports entertainment district alliance, or a bid fund.

So in many instances today, St.

Louis is kind of like a boxer.

We're getting ready to step into that boxing match, but we have one hand tied behind our back.

This will instantly make us more competitive.

And you've seen recently events like U.S.

This will allow us to be even more competitive and bring even more events in.

The other thing that I don't think we should overlook, and certainly from the perspective of the CVC charged with promoting our region, is the impact this will have on public perception.

Go back to that list of activities that Mr.

Richardson mentioned.

Modest investments in lighting sidewalks, signage, as well as security, lift the perception of St.

Louis.

And as we all know, public perception is oftentimes lags the reality.

The clear numbers show that we're making great progress in public safety, but not everybody outside of St.

Louis realizes that.

Investments like the ones that will come through this mechanism will enhance the perception of St.

Louis.

So for all of those reasons, we see this as a momentum multiplier, taking what's already working and making it work better and allowing us to be more competitive and more successful at bringing more visitors into the St.

Louis region, providing events that our residents will enjoy, and lifting the entire region.

So we encourage your support and thank you for your considerations.

Hello, uh Chris Zimmerman.

I'm president and CEO of the St.

Louis Blues Enterprise Center and STEFO Theater at the shortest walk from my office of anyone here.

Um if you will, our I'm gonna call it our sports and entertainment ecosystem, which is what this group is comes together to actually show our city and our region at its best.

And as you think about things that we're really good at, it is putting on great sports events.

It's an incredibly competitive field out there to bring these events, just as it is in the convention business and others.

We have to compete against new buildings, we have to compete about against cities or states that have significant funds that they're putting behind make bringing these events in.

We've been working um on a very exciting event, the World Cup of Hockey for 2028.

It started with 15 North American cities and we're down to four or five.

We're not going to win this event because we just didn't have the resources to compete financially.

So these dollars, the ability to affect guest and fan experiences when they come here, they matter.

And I can tell you that this group is highly committed to winning.

And this is an important part for our ability to keep winning.

So I thank you for your support.

All right.

Members of the committee, I first want to start by saying thank you to all the speakers and folks that came to speak in support of this bill today.

Uh I think the showing that you've seen here just underscores how passionate our community is about making sure St.

Louis can compete and put itself on the map in the city that we know that it is.

And it also shows something that I think is very important for the public to see, which is the cohesion of our entertainment venues and leaders being willing to work together to make sure that we can landscape.

So with that, I am happy to take any questions from the committee at this time.

Ottawa and come.

No question.

Ottawa McKees.

I'm sorry, Ottawa Miss Wyson.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Thank you both for being here, and thank you to all of the speakers.

We have a lot of very heavy hitters in the in the room today.

I feel like I should ask a lot of questions and get through some stuff.

Um, but I appreciate you all being here and and speaking to us today.

Uh the one question that I had really was addressed by the presentation about the positive net fiscal impact.

So 2.5 million.

Is that based on the expected positive net fiscal impact?

I yeah, please come back.

Thank you.

So good question.

Actually, the statute says it's the uh positive net fiscal impact over the life of the SID.

So we will be contracting for uh an economic development study that then the office administration will vet and bless and approve, and then annually DED has to um certify that for that given year was there uh an economic impact.

It's the overall over the period of time of the 27 years, yeah.

Correct.

So the expectation is the 2.5.

Sorry, yes, and for a dollar amount, yes.

We expect we would that the economic impact will be far greater than two.

And you think that's it's gonna be a yearly review?

There will be a yearly report done by DED to the legislature to see how we're we're doing.

Yes.

Interesting.

Okay, thank you so much.

Ottawa McKeith.

Well, this sounds very exciting, and I would definitely call it a win when uh with the state coming on board to um you know supply some funding.

And so I would love to be added as a co-sponsor, and I'm totally on board.

Thank you, Audible.

Don't audit Adam and Browning.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, I I agree.

I think this is important for St.

Louis to be competitive.

I think it's uh gonna be a real opportunity for downtown to show just what it can be for people.

Um just a couple questions.

I I heard some talk about you know the perception of crime, and that's always a tough tough goal to hit, right?

Because what perception and reality, if we're playing the people's perceptions that can't be changed, sometimes we are playing a game that we can't win.

Uh so I'm curious if um when we're talking about security upgrades, what type of security upgrades are we talking about within the district?

Uh and I'm not sure who's the best person to answer this question is, but I'm just curious what the steps that will be taken, because I think public safety is important, but I want to make sure that we're not turning downtown into a fenced off, you know, brightly wit, you know, security zone uh so much as a area where people want to be and and spend time.

Yeah.

So I'll first speak to um just generally what is covered under their section of security and the bill and also what was intended at the state level, and then I'm happy to turn it to any other speakers that want to chime in.

Um I think when we talk about security, some common things that are typically included in SIDS that have security are additional staffing, patrols, additional security for staff at these major events that may be occurring in the footprint, as well as uh different equipment that might help with security, so security cameras, lighting, as you mentioned, fencing if there's any major event that's uh coming into street areas.

So those might be some of the things that can be covered under that cost perspective if that helps answer the question.

And I'll just jump in.

The I think like many of the other CIDs that we see, like with the downtown so they use uh some of those funds for additional security or in the central west stand or in other uh areas that have SIDs.

The goal of uh the legislation is definitely not to you know light it up, like you say, and then make it where we don't want anybody to come downtown.

We want our downtown to be vibrant.

But we know sometimes from city government that we lack funding um to be able to help.

So I think what the SID will be able to do is support additional funding if it is additional staffing that is needed during like a blues game or an MLS game or additional security teams that can help on top of our uh SLMPD that's already doing a good job.

We'll be able to fill in those gaps where sometimes right now we know the city can't do everything, and when we can have these creative uh mechanisms from SIDs to be able to kind of help additional security to just bring a little bit more uh safety outside of uh foot trap uh outside of individual people.

One of the things that you know this also could be used for is lighting.

We know brighter lights also deter crime, so it's a a gamut of things, but definitely it is to um not stop people from coming down, but just bring a little bit more of a security measure to make sure as we bring more people in that we have enough staff to have uh the security necessary downtown.

Oh, thank you.

Yeah, that that does help answer my question.

I think obviously we want people to be around downtown and we want these streets to be full of people, and I do know that when we have events downtown at polls uh a lot of resources to that area, so it would be helpful to be able to supplement those resources so that the rest of the city can be uh taken care of.

Um I uh was wondering though so we're we're anticipating about 10 million dollars in estimated costs over the next what five years.

Maybe a day, the question.

Yeah.

That is uh the CID Act provides that you have to have a five-year financing plan, so that's that five-year financing plan.

Um our first year would be uh zero from the state of Missouri because that's because this is the first year, uh, and then it would be the two and a half million dollars.

I'm sorry, sir.

Could you speak more into the mic?

Sorry, it would be it would be zero for uh for this first year, and then two and a half million dollars following four years.

So that's how we came up with the 10 years as required by the SID Act.

Okay, the 10 million uh is required uh by the SID Act.

And 10 million is a lot, but it's also not that much when we're talking, you know, infrastructure and other things.

So what is the anticipated breakdown of spending in the different areas that is uh allowed by this entertainment district?

So that that uh would be a a board discussion and a budget that you all then would review as part of the CID Act that requires you know the budget gets submitted to you and for comment.

Um so that hasn't been decided yet, but um as has been discussed here, it would be like uh with uh respect to public safety supplementing what the downtown sit already does the down the you know that goes from the river to uh 18th Street uh and then just seeing what the needs are as far as attracting events or other public infrastructure, but again, working with the other players downtown, the innovation district said the downtown SID, Greater St.

Louis, to um supplement and uh pool resources.

Thank you.

I appreciate that answer.

And um again, I I do think this is a really beneficial thing for the city and for uh downtown.

I hope that we can really bring more foot traffic, more people, uh, more events, things that really benefit the whole city.

Uh and I trust that you know we all have the best interest uh when we're we're setting this up.

So um would love to be out as a co-sponsor as well, and I have no more questions.

Thank you.

So noted.

Vice Chair Sany.

Thank you, uh Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Um I have been able to see this a lot in the media and the press, and I saw a very nice article with the two alders.

Um, so I'm glad that um, you know, downtown seems to be thriving and on a rise under I love to see that.

Um I've had some questions, but I was able to speak to the sponsors uh prior to this meeting.

Um obviously we also was adapted at the state level.

I think I understand the gist of you know what is getting at here.

I did mention to um both of the authors that probably my only desire um would be that there would be a little bit more room in the board for some immediate stakeholders that might not be as large as stakeholders, they may not be you know team owners, they may not be headquartered, they may own smaller amounts of property or own smaller businesses.

Um I do note that in the board description there is two directors' seats that are kind of not assigned by that, and it is said it's assigned by kind of um expertise or knowledge base, whether it's marketing or economic development.

Um and so just spoke to the authors about a desire to see if maybe that could be worded a little bit to make sure that that gives an opportunity for folks who are stakeholders, um, but not as you know, large.

Um, I'm not asking to do that today, but would love for that to be a conversation before we you know get to the floor and as we continue to have conversations.

Thank you.

I'll just add uh to the gratitude for you all and the work that you all have done is collectively to the leadership in the room and your continued commitment uh to the city of St.

Louis.

I think one of the things that wasn't lifted up here today um is the old um uh rising tide lifts all ships, and we know that when you all are thriving down there, how it directly impacts us in our areas is through uh employment, right?

Um, through visitorship, as you said, and making sure that we know that this I know people that have worked for the Cardinals since they got out of high school and they're in their 60s now, and I I love their excitement and their commitment to that and being able to have that pride into what they do and that pride in their city.

We know Brad that we talk about how we got to sell St.

Louis.

So thank you all.

Thank you for your leadership.

I would like to be added as a co-sponsor too.

And are there any public speakers in the room or public speakers on line signed up uh for board bill 155?

I have first Mr.

John Siegel.

Is there anybody that's in the room that's signed up to speak?

Can you all raise your right hand?

You all are is it only one?

We had two.

Robert Failing.

Okay.

Okay.

If you both can raise your right hand, swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Thank you.

Please proceed.

Thank you, madam chairman.

And all of these speakers answered all of my questions, and I'm sure my wife's questions.

And I want to be a co-sponsor too.

Mr.

Siegel, what ward do you reside in?

I really don't know.

We live in the Syndicate building downtown on L Street.

14th.

14th.

Thank you.

My name is Robert Fay.

I'm president of Faelig Brothers Box and Lumber Company.

Uh we've been in business on the 1900 block of Cole Street for 150 years.

Uh we went out of business about two years ago.

And we've been trying to sell our property.

And I just had a question.

Uh the creation of the sports and entertainment district, will it have any impact on our restrictions on what we can, what the property can be used for?

I don't really understand the how is how this works.

I will ask the speakers, I'm sorry, the sponsors if they can come up or if um maybe you can come up and speak to that.

I'm sorry, the sponsors if they can come up or if maybe you can come up and speak to that.

But before I do that, I want to thank you for your commitment to the city of St.

Louis.

I've passed by that as a little girl up until now, 50 years old, been seeing it all my life.

Just noticed that you had closed.

And there's listen, I want you to know there's a lot of interest in that area, especially people that are born and bred in that area.

So please connect with uh Alderman Aldridge and let us know how we can be um supportive.

Yeah, let us know how we can be uh supportive of you moving forward, and again, thank you for your commitment to the city.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, so I'll just uh to uh answer that question.

No, this wouldn't put any restrictions on any present or future builds.

Uh just like most CIDs, this is just generating uh revenue for the items that was listed earlier for beautification security and uh ways to attract more events into our entertainment.

So this would not uh with this new CI create any barriers for existing businesses um or future businesses that will be coming very soon because you got to speak on it to actually bring it um so I hope that answers uh his question thank you.

We have one online, okay.

If you can turn your camera, what's the name?

Michelle Robinson.

Ms.

Robinson, can you turn your camera on so I can swear?

You can raise your right hand, swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Please proceed.

Thanks for allowing me to speak.

I just want to say that I'm in full support of Bill 155.

I think this is awesome as a uh resident native to St.

Louis and also a homeowner downtown and um representative Aldrich's uh 14th ward.

I think this is nothing but a positive uh thing that can happen downtown.

I also plan events downtown, so I have a vested interest, and I want to concur with um Alder Woman Alicia Sonier that it would be awesome if some of our lesser stakeholders like myself had a voice at this table.

Thank you so much.

Is that all for the speakers online and in the room?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Did you have uh I'll go through and see if any members had any additional questions?

Committee, yeah, okay.

You're welcome to close.

Thank you, uh, Madam Chairwoman and members of the HUDS committee.

Um, you know, this is super exciting.

Um earlier today we passed uh another bill through transportation and commerce that's gonna, I think also do uh some great economic impact that changes some restrictions on our convention center, and then to follow up with this bill and being able to work so closely with Alderwoman Cox and Tweet as we've been uh we share downtown and working in collaboration.

I just want to thank one, all the speakers that came today and all the individuals that came out to hear the bill that supports it, as well as all the uh stakeholders that are working together in collaboration.

Uh, there's a lot of positive momentum uh going on in downtown, but also in our region.

And I hope when you know we leave today and and we pass this out of committee, and I'm sure everyone on this committee is gonna vote for it.

But it sends a strong message that there is a lot of positive momentum going on in our region, especially downtown.

There's some great events that are being planned uh and to be able to have this additional uh um funds that will be coming from the state level that will not tax any residents, any property owners.

I think is a win-win uh for downtown, but it's a win-win for St.

Louis.

So I appreciate all the work that folks have put into this, and I will pass it over to my colleague Aldoamcox Antwerp.

Thank you, Alderman, for those remarks and for your support and partnership on this.

Um, I will just echo everything that Alderman said and thanking our speakers and everyone that came out today uh to share their thoughts on this legislation.

Uh, I do agree that there is a lot of positive momentum going on downtown.

The perceptions of what's happening downtown were brought up, and I think it's actions like this today and this cohesion and this effort that really challenge those and show the St.

Louis community and the broader neighboring community that St.

Louis is a positive place.

It's a welcoming place to do business, and we have a great and lot of things to offer our area and our region and the people that are coming in and wanting to enjoy themselves and bring their families downtown.

So I think this action today puts us on a step to continue that work and to continue continue to be uh competitive in the broader market.

We see other cities going down this route.

We know St.

Louis is capable of competing for these major events, and now we just need to put the resources behind that momentum to really be able to deliver that.

Uh so with that, I will close and ask for your favorable consideration and do pass recommendation of board bill 155.

Uh I make a motion that we pass Board Bill 155 with the due pass recommendation.

Second.

It was moved by Vice Chair Sanye and seconded by Alderman Browning that we move Board Bill 155 with a due pass recommendation.

Madam Clerk, please call the row.

Alderman Cone.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sweitzer.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Yes.

I Vice Chair Sanye.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldric.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Seven eye votes.

Thank you all so much.

Congratulations.

Alderman Cone, you're recognized on Board Bill 66.

Thank you, thank you.

Yeah, should I be here?

I know.

No, you know.

Sorry.

Oh, why?

You are having you and A.

We're ready for you.

I'm just gonna let the room here out.

That's one way of doing it.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman.

Members of the committee.

Thank you, Alderman Cone.

You're recognized on Board Bill 66.

Thank you.

Uh Alder Lady Clerk Hubbard.

I do have a committee substitute that was sent out this weekend for Board Bill 66.

If uh someone on the committee would be willing to make the motion to put that before us.

I'll make a motion we adopt the committee substitute to Board 66.

It was moved by Alderman.

Seconded by Chair Saint Yeah that we adopt the committee sub for Board Bill 66.

Madam Clerk, please call the row.

Alderman Cone.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sweit, sir.

Alder Woman Keys.

Aye.

Alder Woman Sanyer.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Alderman Aldrick.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Seven eye votes.

Right.

Now we have War Bill 66 committee set before us, please proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I uh just to give some uh context to what brought us here today.

Um, as many of you are probably aware, I have uh worked on incentive reform for a good portion of my time down here at the Board of Aldermen.

Uh some of my earliest recollections were uh, you know, as chair of the neighborhood and development committee at the time, uh, which was responsible for any tax abatements under a million dollars, um, actually ended up shutting down committee hearings uh during that session in order to work on not only incentive reform um but also getting adequate staffing over at our planning division um because at the time we had you know less than a handful of people that were working over there with the exception of cultural resources.

Um and that has uh singularly been able to uh now we're working on things like updating our Zoop and uh recently went through the strategic land use process and also have uh neighborhood planning uh groups that are focused on um working with our neighborhoods respectively throughout the city.

And so um, you know, uh a couple years ago we ended up moving forward with uh another uh legislative action related to incentive reform that essentially created the uh development scorecards that we see before this committee very regularly.

Um prior to that legislation being passed a couple years ago, it was very often that people would come before this committee, and we would not have information except for perhaps some information that was provided by developers.

And um, you know, so now we have a fairly comprehensive evaluation uh process and criteria.

We have a uh fairly transparent process that allows people to understand what types of incentives they would be eligible for and what the requirements are for uh you know meeting certain expectations.

And so with the new federal administration, uh the president's office and myself had conversations around wanting to ensure that we codify uh what is known as the EJI, the economic justice index, um, into that evaluation scorecard.

Um the scorecard that's administered by SLDC, and we do have representatives from SLDC here today.

Um essentially uh the legislation provides for a baseline of what's required in that scorecard and the process associated for that scorecard in terms of the communication, the application, um, the engagement with community groups and uh partners and making sure that we have a little bit more of a an open and transparent process related to that.

Um we at the beginning of the session uh discussed putting in place legislation that would essentially codify uh the EGI and making sure that we are kind of living true to the virtues that are espoused in that while still providing some flexibility to SLDC for any future amendments or changes to the EGI that might occur as you know studies happen and things get updated.

Um and so that's where we are today.

Uh there were some uh conversations that happened when I initially introduced the bill, uh, which is why I've held it for a while now.

This was uh you can imagine based off of the number 66 a little while ago.

Um that we are uh uh kind of at the end stages of having the conversations with SLDC, their attorneys, and making sure that this kind of passes muster with them.

And uh I am happy uh for the efforts of the president's office and working with me.

I know it's been a little frustrating at times, but um, I do very much appreciate their willingness to continue the conversations and the work and specifically uh Janika Hayden has been the primary liaison uh with me at the uh president's office.

Um also James Morrow and Zach Wilson.

I know Zach is here, I didn't see James, but uh you know, Zach is also here in case you all have any questions.

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

Did you have any speakers that you wanted to speak first?

Or I know Zach loves coming up to the podium, uh so willing and wanting to.

Thank you, Zach Wilson with SLDC.

Um board bill.

Uh this is like Jane said uh Alderman said uh uh foundation of base and then our scorecard would get a little more detail on each uh category.

Um jobs we spell out exactly what we're looking for.

So then those redevelopment agreements, those clawbacks are built into the redevelopment agreement is how we score score the projects moving forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Adam Ms.

Weiser.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the committee.

Thank you, Alderman, for bringing this forward today.

I think one of the biggest concerns I have with issues of not necessarily the scorecard, but development projects in general is when we have a framework and then discussions occur outside of that framework, and there's negotiations behind the scenes and not in front of the public and not included in the scorecard.

Do you think this will help get to that issue?

I don't think that I would be the appropriate person to ask of that.

Uh you know, partly because you know, obviously SLDC, if SLDC wants to answer that, I'm happy to, but this in particular is focused on codifying the EJI.

So it doesn't exclude people from having conversations around projects or you know, I'm I'd be interested in a more specific example of what you're referring to.

But um, you know, I think in any development project, there are going to be conversations that take place, you know, off the record, you know, as you know, applications come through and you know, SLDC is going to have those conversations.

There are going to be projects that evolve and change over time as well that are going to require additional projects or conversations with project stakeholders, community organizations, et cetera.

Um, but in terms so I if you could be a little bit more specific with me in terms of any of the like specific concerns that you would have around those types of conversations, I might be able, you know, to more directly address it.

But um otherwise, you know, as you know, as an older person, I'm generally not involved in conversations related to all of the development projects that come before SLDC.

Um so happy to turn it over to them for any questions.

But if you have a specific example, I'm happy to Yeah, thank you.

It's it's about making our process predictable in a way that everyone involved understands it's going to happen and what the parameters are, what the considerations are and being consistent in that way.

Uh I think it's tough to do sometimes because there's so many different considerations in every development, and there's things outside that are just going to be impossible to put into a scorecard framework.

But I think in my interest in development in St.

Louis, as much as I can be creating that sense of you get what you expect, yeah, or you expect what you get, I guess is you know, that that's consistent throughout the process.

So in looking at anything that touches that, those are the kind of things that I'm interested in seeing.

I would say as the bill was originally written, um, there were concerns from um entities, organizations, and individuals that we were underneath the original version, not the committee substitute, allowing outside parties to have an adverse influence in the decision making process for incentive awards, um, which that has been addressed in the committee substitute, so it does have a more kind of standardized, you know, uh uh uh I'm gonna say relationship or requirement that you know they meet the uh scorecard assessment criteria, but of course it's just an assessment, right?

So it ranks things based off of where they you know provide information on their application, you know, it does not basically say, well, you have to get X, Y, and Z threshold to be awarded these.

And uh as many of you probably know, um, even if things score poorly on a scorecard, uh, the way the state enabling legislation is written, the Board of Aldermen and its infinite wisdom can always still go ahead and move forward with any type of incentives that they desire to award.

Um, so that is ultimately we're governed by the state statutes, and the state statutes don't require this.

They only require the Board of Aldermen to you know uh you know work with SLDC and others on the issuance of these tax incentives.

Um so in theory, the board can still override a decision of SLDC.

Um does not happen frequently, but uh you know, I think in terms of your concern, you know, the current committee substitute does address those concerns and um because the original version of the bill there were conversations around how that could potentially be uh adversely impacting our process.

Thank you for that.

Um it says the SLDC shall provide a draft of the impact assessment to the HUDS committee for approval and modifications.

Uh so is that dependent on that approval and modifications for moving in a new card, or can you speak to that line?

I'm sorry, can you repeat that?

Um there is a piece in here right before the separability clause that says SLDC shall provide a draft of the impact assessment to the HUDS committee for approval and modifications.

Is that I'm missing that last part of that?

Okay.

Line 12 and 13 of page five of the committee substitute.

It says SLDC shall provide a draft of the impact assessment to the HUDS committee for approval or modifications.

Page five line 13.

12 and 13, yes.

Well, it might be page three, it says page five of five, but this is only a three-page committee substitute.

So page the last page of this committee substitute in my hand says that I just want to make sure that's okay.

The same thing.

I'm just wondering if there'll be like a companion bill eventually with or if that's something separate that I'm not understanding.

Well, so my understanding from the president's office is that they are working on a companion piece of legislation for next session, but uh based off of Ms.

Hayden's response.

I think that that is not in the works at the moment.

But I'm still trying to find uh your reference point here, Alder Woman.

Unless I'm looking at something wrong.

Yeah.

Uh can you provide a page number by chance?

Well, it says page five out of five on the committee sub, but I think it's supposed to say three out of five or three out of three, rather.

I can hand it to you.

It also appears we might have a I might have a page.

Yeah, that's what we had talked about.

Okay.

So um essentially what that uh verbage is there for is uh as I mentioned earlier, SLDC still has the authority uh and flexibility to be able to modify the scorecard.

And so whenever there are changes to the scorecard, that language is in there to ensure that they come before this committee to ensure that those changes to the scorecard are adopted and written by the committee.

Thank you.

So it doesn't mean that there's currently anything in the works on SLDC's part to update the scorecard, but in the event that they do, they would come before this committee.

I got it.

Thank you so much for that clarification.

Um I'll yield to other members of the committee now.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Audible McKeith.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh I have no questions.

Thank you.

Adam and Browning.

Thank you, Alderman.

Um so I think you've kind of said that it's this is to clarify the or code cut codify, codify, codify, however, you say it.

Um the EGI.

Um, but I'm a little unclear.

Like what what is the problem that this bill is seeking to address?

What's the intention?

The uh concern when we had changes and administration at both the local and federal level is that uh the scorecard that you know we passed a couple sessions ago does incorporate the EJI into it, but it's not part of the original legislation that I wrote, you know, a couple sessions ago.

So now that we have the EGI in place, we want to add that and ensure that it continues to be part of the scorecard in some form or fashion.

And how when was the last time the EGI was updated?

That uh I want to say it's been probably about four years now.

So it's happened in four years.

Um how often does it get updated?

The EGI was paid by a consultant, but we have other similar types of tools we can use.

Uh we use uh a similar tool for the residential map uh for tax abatement, it's which is online.

It takes a lot of the same variables.

So we would like to adopt something similar to the EJI that we can control and uh feed and stop paying consultants to do a uh type of tool in the future.

Uh Otis Williams, uh SLDC.

Uh as to the timing for updating, it generally is a matter of resources.

But I'm sorry, sir.

Could you introduce yourself to the public and speak more?

Could you speak more into the mic?

Yeah, I'm sorry.

Uh Otis Williams, uh SLDC.

Thank you.

Uh and I I think what I was saying is that uh generally it requires uh resources of force to you know actually commission another study.

But this one is more is just recent uh really in the sense that uh uh it was completed uh less than four years ago.

And so we are still working through it and working to uh execute many of the aspects of that uh of that plan of the economic justice uh plan.

So uh I don't expect it uh to actually be updated uh probably maybe in the next three or four years.

Okay, I I I appreciate that answer because I think my my concern here is we have a lot's happened in the last four years, right?

In the last year, a tornado hit the city, erased thousands of units of housing.

Uh and uh we are bulldozing housing faster than we're building it at this time.

Um I ask because we we barely pass any incentives now.

I'm aware of very few projects in the pipeline.

Uh if we passed fewer incentives, we would pass none.

And I know while that's the goal of some people in our city, I think that's out of touch with the reality we find ourselves in right now.

At the same time, uh building permits are off to a slow start this year, and that is partially how we fund the building division.

So when people talk about how we're you know, we need the need to fund the building division, that's that's important.

Uh there's a lot of it at stake here as we make decisions about how we incentivize construction in our city.

Uh did SLDC request this bill, or was this brought by where did this come from?

No, I I believe that it was an opportunity to update it because of this number of questions have been asked as well as uh some ex uh through the experience of implementing it.

Uh but uh to the exact it may have happened right before I arrived, or as I was uh Zach, you might want to speak to that.

Uh I'm in favor of the community scorecard because my department created it.

Um we update it.

Um good projects pass the scorecard, bad projects fail the scorecard.

So the scorecard is not the issue, and we are in favor of this board bill uh to solidify the scorecard.

So I I would agree that the scorecard is not the issue.

I think the issue is this political body that's not following the scorecard.

Uh that projects score on the scorecard, but then don't actually make it in the form of a board bill because they're shot down behind closed doors with extra demands that are being made through a political process.

Um there is another board bill with this exact same language that it was introduced by President Green Board Bill 153.

I see that she's a co-sponsor in this bill as well.

What's the reason for that second bill?

I I did not expect you to answer that one, uh, Ms.

Hayden.

Uh so President Green uh introduced a companion uh board bill uh as uh I referenced earlier in my remarks.

Uh this has uh number 66.

It's been out there for a while.

So the president was uh, you know, as I mentioned also, I was working with her office, so she was very much aware of where things were with this.

Um but also I was very clear with the office the last several weeks that I was working on board bill 25 and getting that across the finish line, which we had.

So I started re-engaging in conversations about a month ago on board bill 66 to move things forward, and the president filed that on her own accord, and I couldn't answer questions on behalf of the president.

So you would have to ask her.

That that's fair.

I just was wondering because the committee substitute updates the language to match that bill, and that's what I'm asking you.

So your committee substitute is not a companion so much as it's a copy.

Correct.

So again, I can't speak for the president and her actions.

She knew where I was in my own process, but uh it was not uh based off of the conversations I've had with her, it was not a companion bill, it is a copy.

So just diving into the bill a little bit with some of the definitions, because um I know I've I've had conversations with SLDC about some of the definitions of how things are considered on the scorecard.

Um alignment with neighborhood plans, the definition there.

What defines a neighborhood plan?

Is it one that's been approved by the planning commission, or do form-based codes count, which were prepared with the community and adopted by ordinance?

Yeah, we left that intentionally a little uh broad so that those types of uh you know plans can be associated with that.

So uh the language that we're adopting and the committee substitute essentially allows SLDC the flexibility to interpret what those community plans are, because as I think many of us know, different neighborhoods are in different stages of uh you know, either redevelopment or forming neighborhood organizations and adopting their own plans.

Um so we did leave that somewhat broad to incorporate the diversity of communities and where they are at in our city.

But to be on the record, yes, I would think that a form-based you know zoning uh would be considered a neighborhood plan.

And I I ask, you know, because I think that flexibility is important, right?

Things are always changing.

Construction costs go up and down, waiver costs go up and down, um, financing interest rates go up and down.

Uh, and so like the environment and what it takes to get a project done, which is what the incentive is there for, that changes constantly.

So I have a little bit of concern about putting this into more of the legislative process, which I think tends to create things and make them a little more rigid and not provide that flexibility.

I mean, it takes just it takes four weeks for us to pass a board bill, uh, which you know, we can fast track things, but there's no way this board's gonna be able to be flexible depending on what the price of steel or lumber is.

Uh so that that flexibility is really important.

Um I had a few more questions, but it kind of sounds, I think the answer is going to continue to be that you want to allow the flexibility.

Uh, like for instance, geography is defined as projects located in areas of high need and opportunity that have experienced historic disinvestment.

I was wondering how that was defined and how often that would be updated.

But yeah, I mean, it's essentially the same.

And to your point earlier, Alderman, you know, uh the SLDC is not, you know, this is not a living, breathing updated and real-time tool.

So to be able to provide them the flexibility to make those determinations was important.

But per, I think Alderwolen Schweitzer's question, it was I won't mark it as page five, line 12, but it might be different.

Um, it it says that prior to the adoption of the scorecard, the SLDC shall provide the draft documents committee for approval or modifications.

So is that a requirement that whenever the scorecard's being changed, it has to come through the board of Alderman.

Great.

I think that's what feels like bureaucratic overreach to me.

Uh the board already reviews every development proposal, and none of us are experts on the current market or the prices of materials and labor.

Uh again, like incentives are there to help bridge the gap between the cost of the project and what the market can provide, and introducing another chaotic element like the 14 of us plus the president feels like we're going to be hurting the predictability.

The whole point of the scorecard is to lend that predictability developers so they can understand the numbers and then prove to their lenders that the project is feasible.

I think that people really miss how projects are actually financed.

Developers are taking the most risk often, and they are usually looking to people to finance the project, and they have to show them how the numbers come together and then why it's going to be a good investment for them.

And those people don't typically care about what neighborhood it's being built in or what it's doing so much as they're looking at that return on investment, and that's how we get things like housing built.

Uh, but when we when we have situations where the developer gets enough points on the scorecard and then they're told they need to do extra things behind closed doors, it undermines that predictability and it gets political.

And my concern is that by bringing this in front of the board, we're just making it more political every time we have to update the scorecard.

Um making up scenarios.

You asked for specific examples.

I I want to give you specific examples.

So this happened already with Board Bill 197 in the 2020-2024 session.

That was the bill for the Minus Hotel at uh Jefferson and Market.

That piece of land is still empty right now after uh the bill failed in committee, and then the developer and the president met behind closed doors and worked at a deal that wasn't reflected in the board bill language, and then it was reconsidered in committee and passed.

Since then, I think the pipeline has been drying up.

After that, I experienced it myself with a project in my neighborhood on a piece of land that's been vacant for a long time.

It was a hundred million dollar project.

Again, demands were made behind closed doors, even though it scored on the scorecard, demands were made additional beyond the scorecard, and that killed the deal.

So my question is why should we put more definitions and more requirements around incentives if we aren't following that scorecard anyway?

And after we add that, and after we approve the scorecard when it comes in front of us, does that mean that we're all going to vote yes if a project scores on the scorecard?

Can we even say that every member of this committee can commit to that or every member of this board?

So, Alderman, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, you know, the state statute has a very low threshold in terms of the requirement for a city offering incentives, which is essentially this board of aldermen passes them and you know, in coordination with SLDC and various entities.

That being said, you know, I I can't, you know, mandate what my colleagues and or the president of the board of aldermen say to people behind closed doors.

You know, I wouldn't do that to you, I wouldn't do that to the alder woman from the first, I wouldn't do it to the alder woman from the tenth, I wouldn't do it to the alder woman from the seventh, I would do it to the alderman from the 14th.

So uh, and I certainly hope that people would not put that same expectation on myself.

Um I hear you and your concerns, but it does sound from those concerns that there is one particular individual or office holder that you have an issue with that you need to have a conversation about that.

This particular process, um, and you know, in your comments just now, you you know said that developers don't care about neighborhoods, and as someone who represents an underdeveloped and uh it's not quite what I said.

I said the lent I said the financers don't.

Well, tell that to folks who have been in historically red line neighborhoods and disinvested communities for decades now.

So the lenders might not care what neighborhood it is until they look at the neighborhood and make decisions based off of it, which happens each and every day as someone who represents you know a neighborhood that's seen significant best investment since 1960s.

So uh, you know, I hear you, but part of that EGI scorecard was implemented to ensure that areas that have seen that level of disinvestment have equal access to the incentives that are provided by this city.

So, in addition to many other factors, including access to transportation, which overwhelmingly supports development in the central corridor because that's where a lot of the transportation infrastructure in this town is located, um, until we get a north-south route somewhere.

Um, but I would, you know, I I share your concerns with the you know level of development that happens in the city, and I do share your concerns with respect to you know those one-off conversations taking place.

I'm not the one having them, so I don't think that that question is necessarily you know for me either.

But you know, I I would support uh you know conversations that you have around addressing those concerns.

Yeah, and I'm not trying to say that you are that, and just to be clear, I I was saying that there are people who look at the the return on investment and are making their decisions on whether to finance a project, and so it yes, of course, there are decisions being made about the viability of a project, but usually that is being done by the person actually building the project.

There are different levels to this, and the developer is often taking the most risk when they're making that decision.

It is the people who don't live in our city or are financing a product from elsewhere that are looking at that return on investment and trying to make that decision.

And I definitely understand the concern about making sure that development happens in all neighborhoods and making sure that we are building housing of that it really benefits the whole city.

But I also think that the city's in a place right now where if we're not building housing in the city anywhere in the city, uh, then we're losing out.

Uh and I think we've got municipalities around us who will throw incentives at uh developers to build out downtown St.

Charles or you know, down uh you know, entertainment districts outside the city.

Uh, and so it's not necessarily that if a uh developer wants to do a project and can't get it done in the central west end, that they're gonna then go do it in Hyde Park or Dutchtown or you know uh the ville, it's that they're just not gonna do it in the city at all.

And I really think that we need to get as much investment in the city where we can.

And if there's a vacant lot, we know, like this example that I I've talked about, and I understand my I have a bone to pick elsewhere, but it is still a vacant lot now, and vacant lots don't pay many taxes, so that hurts the whole city.

And and I I'm sorry if I get past I just I care about this because we need more housing in our city, and I really want to make sure that we are building that housing for people so that they have a place to land if they want to live here or if they lose their housing.

I just lost an apartment building in the central west end to a fire.

Uh and it's gonna be hard for us to keep all of those residents because we're not really providing uh new housing at the rate that we need to be at, especially when we're losing so much.

Um you mentioned there was a companion bill that might be coming.

Uh an earlier conversations that I had with the president's office, and I'm talking this was a couple months ago.

Um, and partially potentially the reason why there was a uh copied bill that was filed um was that there was potentially additional legislation.

I don't know the particulars of it.

I'm not part of those conversations.

But also, as I mentioned, uh, you know, based off of the reaction earlier, I don't think that that's in the works at the moment.

So but I don't have any specific details that I could share with you with regard to that.

I'm not the one engaged in those conversations.

I I think if there is I'd like some clarity around what we're trying to do here, because I think if this is a vehicle that's going to be used to then put other requirements in or other things, I want to consider that all at once instead of you know building the bus first and then just not caring who gets on it.

Uh so I want to see if we can make sure that we're passing all this regulations once.

Uh I I can add some additional color based off of the experience that I've had with Board Bill 66.

Yeah.

Which was uh the conversations I initially had with the president's office were that uh we would be essentially codifying the EJL, um, working with SLDC and partners on that.

There were uh some conversations at the time around updating the stakeholder engagement process as it pertained to the original legislation that we're currently using.

And you know, as you're probably aware, part of the uh bill as it's currently written that we use the scorecard, part of that is reaching out to labor organizations, the school district, etc., to advise them that these incentives are you know being offered or that the a certain project is coming before them and offers them the opportunity to engage and speak to those particular projects.

It's not a veto, it's not a vote, it's not ranked on any assessment.

However, you know, they do, which is more than what we did in the past.

You know, we didn't have to provide an advisory that a development was happening to the school board or to union organizations or minority contractors previously.

We now do the original version of this bill could have been misconstrued to say that we are now requiring them to take votes or actions on that, which I was very clear that I'm not opening that Pandora's box at this point in time, as one, it could be viewed as in conflict with the state statutes that govern incentives in general.

Um, and two, you know, our initial conversation was around the codifying of the EJI, which is what I felt comfortable with in that moment um without having to go through a whole process of you know engaging with various groups and special interests on you know particular matters that may or may not have been legal, in my opinion.

So that is just some additional color and you know why we're here now and with the committee substitute that we have.

Yeah, to be fair, I I mean, and to be clear, I I think that the incentive reform that we've done and that you've sponsored in the past has been good steps towards transparency and predictability.

You know, there's two sides to that coin.

We want to make sure that the public and affected parties can have a voice and hear from it, but we also want to make sure that people who are looking to invest in our city also feel like they're getting a fair deal so that we can get that housing built since the city doesn't build housing.

So there's this balance that we have to meet, and I think that we did devise a mechanism to meet that balance, but but I've been frustrated that we haven't been following it.

And I I fear that we are falling behind other markets when it comes to desirability to invest in our city.

Uh I I don't have any more questions at this time.

And I I'm happy to continue the conversation, Baldwin.

Alderman Aldrich.

Thank you, Alderman Cone for being here.

And also SLDC.

On, you know, I want to be very clear when comments are made that this body is the one holding up development.

I haven't seen a tax incentive that this HUDS committee hasn't passed in the last, you know, three, four years that I've been on.

Maybe there's some personal situations that it sounds like happened with the Alderman from the 9th and the president, but that isn't necessarily the election of the full board.

And I've seen bills die on the floor and come back.

I don't necessarily think like backroom deals are made, but sometimes bills die and you have conversations.

I've seen it twice happen on the floor.

They both came back after dying.

Um and a bill died in HUDs and you know, worked it out to try to figure out how to make development happen.

So I just want to when things are said, it is I want it to be a broad uh brush that it's a full board of Alderman.

There's some personal feelings with the Alderman and uh it sounds like the president, but that does not represent the full board of uh Alderman with uh when people say backroom deals, that's uh no, don't put my name on that.

Um secondly, I do want to bring up because we also love to say we appreciate experts since we aren't developers and we aren't experts in the room.

So I if I didn't uh if I heard it right, I think Zach, I do have a question for you.

Is it that you said the scorecard is not the reason and maybe this is also a question for SLDC, and then I do have a question for I guess Ms.

Hayden from the president office.

The scorecard is not the reason of the lack of development, correct?

Correct.

Could maybe you or Mr.

Uh Otis talk about our CEO, director, president, talk about what is the lack of as an expert that does this every single day to try to attract businesses uh within the St.

Louis region.

What is kind of those high-level concerns of why development's not coming?

I believe Otis is going to be.

And if you could speak more into the mic, that'd be helpful.

I believe Otis will be speaking on that in the U.S.

And if you could speak to it and if I'm speak to that, but also is one of those concerns that and I think I've heard from developers that you have to go not only to SLDC, you got to go to buildings permit, you gotta go to all these different offices to try to figure out how to get development done.

So St.

Charles kind of did a one-stop shop to make sure if somebody wants to do development, you you know where to go and you're not going from 1520, you're not going to City Hall and back and forth.

Do you speak of the struggles outside of this scorecard of what may be the struggles of development in our area?

Uh I'd be happy to.

Uh, but actually I was going to follow this board bill and speak a little to that.

And I brought a couple of uh my friends, if you will, with me to help uh speak on the topic of some of the difficulties that developers uh will are seeing and getting things done.

And so if you would like to No, yeah, I'd love to hear from the experts because we just sit on committee and take votes.

So the for the people who do the work.

Um a little out of order here, but uh uh I'll I'll go first and then I will turn to them.

I don't want to hijack uh the Alderman just for informational purposes.

We do have an item on the agenda.

Yeah, I don't want to Oh, okay, cool.

I just know we divvied off in the last inquiry, so I thought I was also able to do the same.

But if we go and talk about and no disrespect, Madam Chair, I I just I would prefer that we allow that to have its opportunity.

At the request Alderman, I will save those development questions uh to the end.

Uh I guess for Ms.

Hayden, do you just have any input since you uh from the president office and speak on the legislation as well?

How do we kind of get here and what's the uh purpose of it?

Good afternoon.

I'm Janica Hayden with the president's office.

Uh yes.

So to answer the question, did SLDC ask for this bill?

No, they did not.

Um, but they do support the legislation.

Um, President Green, to be frank, uh really wanted to make sure the scorecard and these practices were codified.

So we're not let me get my words right.

EJI is in the definitions, but what we're doing is codifying the practices that SLDC already does, which is the scorecard.

EJI is listed in the in the definitions as a criteria to be added to the scorecard.

Um, but right now only thing we're only thing we're doing is codifying what they already do in practice.

So I want to make that clear.

We're amending Board Bill 64 from two years ago that already has the impact assessment in scorecard language in that ordinance, and we're just expanding on it to say, hey, at the very minimum, this is what has to be included on the scorecard.

While still providing the flexibility to SLDC to amend said scorecard.

If you can speak into the mic, uh all the time, I can hear my voice echoing through the room, but uh while also still providing SLDC the flexibility to amend that scorecard, um, but any amendments to that scorecard would just come back here uh for review as well.

And Otter Woman Sweitz are had that question specifically um and Alderman Brown as well.

The reason we thought it was important to have any changes uh come back through the HUDS committee for modifications of the scorecard, a change in administration, Mr.

Williams is no longer there, Zach is no longer there.

If they were to make amendments to the scorecard to say, you know, we want to gut, I don't know, community benefits, environmental remediation, environmental impact, affordable housing contribution, transportation.

If they wanted to gut any of those things without coming back to the board of autumn, we just thought it was important for the board of all the oversight to make sure that the base level of things that we want in the scorecard shall remain.

If they make any changes to that, y'all have you know input on that whenever they would come back through the HUDS committee.

So Gotcha.

Well, I know Miss the present CEO is interim, so that may be happening soon.

But hopefully Zach stick around for a while.

With that, I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor.

Thank you.

So noted.

Vice Chair Sainier.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee.

I just first wanted to second to commend Ottoman.

Um I think we all know it's the legislative process, the complicated nuances, balancing all the stakeholders, desire changes, trying to figure out what lines to have.

Um, and I'll speak specifically as a member of SLDC's board that I know that it's been a long conversation for a while about what it would look like to codify this scorecard.

And I can say specifically that it's something that even um Mr.

Richardson spoke to.

Um, and and it was a specific ask of his at the time of his departure to see this uh codified, and I was able to have conversations with our new director and president where it was the same positive affirming energy of like we want to do this.

I just want to make sure for the public at home that this is not a situation of the Board of Alderman telling SLDC what to do.

They already do these things as authors who navigate these processes.

I really appreciate this scorecard.

It actually helps me to level set with my residents because they have questions, they have concerns, they want to know how does it impact if it's near transit.

They have lots of questions in his score card, is something that you know I know someone said you go behind closed stores and have conversations.

Personally, in my development process is very public.

Uh Mr.

Wilson has come to many.

We've come to coffee shops in the seventh ward.

We've had developers bring their layouts to explain things to people.

And this scorecard has been a tool that has helped me to a resident that may not understand the language of development that can be communicated nuance to really simplify it and explain it to them.

And they know that when we're making these decisions, we are thinking about some of the things that they're iterating that they want in their communities.

And I don't think that that is just, you know, I think it's a uh honestly, I think it's a sad reduction to call that just like kind of political processes or political bureaucracies at the end of the day.

We're the ones who are elected to represent our communities.

So I've appreciated the pipeline of as the elected representative of these 20 something thousand people in this ward, I can go to SLDC and say, hey, these are some of the things they brought to me, these are some of their concerns.

And honestly, I've had most positive conversations with developers and with SODC and with residents where we've been able to figure it out.

Um so I'm glad that this is going to be codified today.

I know that I can speak on behalf of the seventh ward to say that we appreciate uh the scorecard.

Um, it makes my heart happy that the administration as well as um director Williams wants to continue this practice.

I think at this time, um, if you're talking about just whether you're talking about disinvestment, whether you're talking about tornado, there are a lot of people who feel have a real fear that the city will be for sale and when it's done, they won't be in their community anymore.

And I think tools like this help to show that there's at least a desire for us to again balance these desires between both developers and communities to be people that can do the public engagement, public education for that to happen.

Um so that's really my only remarks.

Um I was able to have conversations with Alderman Cone about some things kind of in the bill that were a little bit um different from the score card.

Again, another example of a working relationship that's collaborative.

Um Mr.

Wilson, I know I told you I would be asking you questions.

So I am gonna um just I know one of the things that kind of shifted is we um the quality jobs requirement um is just not specified as much on the legislation in front of us.

We were able to have our own conversation, but I think it's especially important to ask that now, just so that the public can see like these are not things we're putting on SODC, these are things that you guys actually already have in place and are currently practicing.

Correct.

Uh with quality jobs, we're 80% have to hit a certain amount of dollar uh pay our wage, and that's where we were concerned in the board bill, we got too detailed we could not make those corrections in the future of increases of dollar wages and those type of things.

Thank you.

Um it was just similar things.

I just want to highlight that for the record because I know it was a similar uh question around the contribution line item, right?

So I just want to make sure that we're being factual speak that this is not a case of us telling them what to do.

It seems to me like the automated has engaged in those conversations and work with them hand in hand to make sure that what's in front of us aligns, and if anything, SODC may be adding some additional criteria, which is not us the one behind closed doors.

That's them as the professionals who make these decisions and have those conversations, deciding what criteria makes sense for where.

So noted.

All right.

Are there any speakers online or in a room signed up for Board Bill 66?

Well, it looks like Auto Woman Keys has her name up.

Okay.

Thank you, uh, madam chair.

Um for stratus, let me say I am a fan of SLDC and I thank them for all of the work that they do.

But you know, for the public, and this is public knowledge is it's record, you know, on the record, they can go and look it up.

My bill was the bill that without any conversation with me.

Yeah, some conversations went on about my bill that literally cut me out of the deal all together.

And and that happened.

That's a fact.

And so it is upsetting to see anyone make this situation sound as if there's a personal problem.

Uh, because another alder raises an issue that actually occurred, you know.

And so I just want to make sure that I am sounding off on this.

And and um, like I said, it's it is upsetting uh to hear I I respect Alderman uh Browning and and my fellow alders tremendously, but let's tell the truth about a situation.

Um, because in if we don't do that, then we are also practicing and not giving full information to the public that we do serve.

Thank you.

Are there any uh you said there were no speakers for Board Bill 66?

No speakers.

Other man Browning.

Uh thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to uh add one last uh point of clarity that there's nothing personal about any of this.

It's just when we talking about our communities, which I know we all fight hard for.

Um, you know, I've lived in my neighborhood since 2012, and for as long as I can remember, we've had problem properties in that neighborhood that um you know didn't see progress until one day an opportunity arises, and opportunity does not come along for St.

Louis readily, right?

It's not a city that is just a superstar city that gets development proposals left and right.

And so when we have these opportunities to change these long-time problem properties and something, it's not necessarily personal, so as much as it's care for the community, that we want to make sure that we're building something there that is a benefit to the residents, but it's always about what people we have in these conversations and making sure that conversations are public.

And so I want to make sure that this board and this body is not engaging in further political uh influence or interference, and that we're not opening the door to that when we add ourselves into the process even more.

Uh so that is my concern, and um I don't want it to be categorized any differently.

Yeah, uh thank you, madam chair.

I I really appreciate the committee's uh due diligence and uh thoughtfulness in terms of the questions and concerns that have been brought forward uh this afternoon.

I uh, you know, just as someone who has served down here for a long time, uh I do want to make sure that we uh remain open, accessible, um transparent and accountable for uh you know the the business of the city and you know, certainly when we talk about incentives, um, you know, I think I've been pretty clear during my tenure down here.

I'm not opposed to incentive.

Uh I very much support incentives in a manner that's consistent with the values that we continue to espouse as a city, but I want to make sure that we are living up to those virtues as well.

Um, you know, I recall when I first got down here, um, Sam Moore was representing the bill, and there was a school that was readily uh you know coming before this committee.

It was the uh I actually might have been neighborhood development at the time, um, which this committee is a successor of, but uh SLDC had only recommended 10 years of tax abatement for a school in the middle of a uh neighborhood that had been completely disinvested and was almost entirely vacant.

Um the developer came before this body and said that SLDC had recommended 10 years, and on that you know, uh 10-year schedule, they weren't going to be profitable, period, even with the development going through, and they were still planning to do the development, even though they weren't going to make money off of it.

Uh and we had to have conversations then to go back to SLDC, LCRA, and others to revisit how many years tax incentives are going to offer to the school.

Meanwhile, a single family house in Shaw was getting 10 years of tax abate.

So a affordable renovation of a historic school structure in the bill was getting recommended for the exact same amount of tax incentive, a single family house and a well-established.

These are the stark contrasts that we had just 15 years ago.

And I think we're trying to get to a point where we're more equitable in terms of how we're handling not just trans, but equitable and handling that.

And I know Alderman, that there have been uh well, I'm in closing remarks, so I won't address individuals specifically, but I know that there has been a narrative in particular.

I think I've even had to correct uh CEO Williams that the city has always been open for business.

We never closed down.

Um, you know, uh during any period or any administration.

But uh, you know, I know that we want to come out swinging in saying that we're open for business.

The third ward has seen you know, a lot of investment in terms of redevelopment, renovations, and new housing.

Uh, we have hundreds of units of new housing.

Um, but that has taken me you know a decade and a half to be able to see that come to materialization at this point.

You know, uh it's not something that was ever knocking down my door.

The my very first term, there was an entire city block, 4700 South Spring.

Uh, you know, at the time it was around 200 units, so we're all vacant.

I literally wrote a grant to the Department of Economic Development at the state level, got a three million dollar grant award, and still could not get a developer to come into my neighborhood and redevelop the property.

I literally had to go and beg on my hands and knees to get someone to even take a look at it with three million dollars unrestricted cash in hand.

So when we talk about you know the neighborhoods that we represent, there are differences, and there have been historic differences in terms of how this very legislative body has handled these incentives in the past.

So I just want to be clear like you know, I have always been for incentives, but I am also for the equitable distribution of those incentives to ensure that communities and other parts of the city outside the Central Corridor, Central Corridor competes with places like Clayton and Chesterfield and otherwise, and does also from time to time deserve those incentives.

Um I've been very vocal, even downtown.

There are massive opportunities downtown that are going to require a ton of incentive.

You know, the ATT Tower, I think we all know, you know, a million square feet of office space isn't going to get rebuilt or refurbished in the city of St.

Louis without assistance of some sort.

Uh the millennial, you know, uh hotel, you know, that is now being demolished.

That is going to require incentives.

Uh, the railway exchange building, I can go on and on and on.

There's, you know, specific targeted properties that we should be working on within that central corridor, in my opinion.

We can have differences in opinion and philosophy down here and continue those conversations.

But at the end of the day, this piece of legislation isn't about one particular development or project.

Um, and I'm always happy to have those conversations with my colleagues around what we can do to make those projects work.

This is simply codifying what SLDC is already doing with respect to that scorecard.

I think uh the scorecard itself, uh I'm trying to look at the committee and remember if any of you are here before the scorecard existed.

Um, but it it's night and day, and it's a much more professional process, a much more open process than what we had before.

I think SLDC would even acknowledge that.

Um, and so uh, you know, with that, I would ask for your favorable consideration on Board Bill 66 committee substitute.

I'll make a motion that we pass Board Bill 66 committee substitute with a do pass recommendation.

It was moved by Matt Aldridge and seconded by the Chair.

Say that we pass Board Bill 66 Committee Sub with the do pass recommendation.

Madam Clerk, please call Alder McCone.

Aye.

Audder Woman Keys.

Audder Woman Sonny.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

No.

Alderman Aldric.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alder Woman Keys.

Four I votes.

I'm sorry, five I votes, one abstain, and one no.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, we will move forward in the agenda to discussion item number one, a development update from SLDC.

Madam Chair and board members, uh, I'm Otis Williams, St.

Louis Development Corporation, and thank you for having us today.

I said us in the sense that I brought uh uh staff but also members of the development community to uh meet before you and to bring uh uh if not anecdotal uh but evidence of uh the climate here in St.

Louis for the for redevelopment and development and how and and also some of the problems that we have uh with uh getting redevelopment done here in the city.

Um so I do have a PowerPoint that I just flash through, but but for the sake of time, I'm gonna go through it pretty quick pretty quickly so that I can get uh the uh testimony from uh the two uh folks who are in the business uh that can give uh expert opinion as well about uh the issues surrounding redevelopment here.

So Madam Clerk, could you bring it up for me?

One of the things while that's coming up is that there's been a this is a perfect day in the sense that you've talked about uh entertainment district setting the stage, getting the uh that getting the feel set, uh getting the play field if you will uh set so that we can uh get uh economic development done, bringing more tools to the table to uh and financing opportunities to the table to be able to uh uh uh get things done.

So the the first thing I wanted to say here is that that we have in the city of St.

Louis uh an issue with uh the cost of getting things done.

I said a cost, a cost as it is similar to getting construction done in other parts of the region, just slightly higher here in the city.

But the real problem that we have is the rate of return or the rents that a developer can garner when they are doing redevelopment.

Uh, you know, both residential and office.

And so this slide basically shows the comparison.

If you look at the left uh side of it, you can see the cost per square foot that's there as compared to other locations.

The Central West End is the next to the left uh bar, West County and uh and Clayton.

Uh so our developers who are working in in this in the St.

Louis region have a choice, but they also have a choice nationally as to where they're going to go.

Next slide, please.

The other thing I wanted to point out is that you this slide reflects uh what I call the pipeline.

These are projects that are going before our committees.

Now, the thing I want to uh say though is that we have been fortunate that we are having now a lot more discussions about potential developments, but this slide just reflects those that have actually gone to a committee uh at SLDC.

Uh but that said, you know, the the uh climate is getting better, but that is because we're talking about doing things a little different than we have in the past, and we and being more receptive to getting things done, as you all mentioned, predictable uh predictability, transparency, all those things are important uh for us to be able to convey uh to the redevelopment uh community out there.

As you all mentioned, predictable, predictability, transparency, all those things are important for us to be able to convey to the redevelopment community out there.

Next slide, please.

This slide basically just shows you that when we have used the incentives in the past, you can see that the those that were active prior to 2015 are in the sort of a red, orange looking uh color here.

And that those have really impacted those neighborhoods where they have been.

The blue is also showing you where we've used it uh in the past uh uh after uh 2015.

Now the key here is that if listen to many, you would think that we have done this almost everywhere on every lot in the city of St.

Louis, but we haven't.

This is just the opportunity that we have been working with neighborhoods, but the successful ones, the Grove, Shaw, Tower Grove East, and West End have all benefited from those uh efforts in the past.

Can I have the next slide, please?

I wanted to share with the committee today uh the benefit of really solid uh redevelopment, and most often it's not a single building, but a uh community that has been developed using uh uh tax increment financing.

And so in this particular one, this is uh loft borough, but uh as you if you can raise it up just a little bit, ma'am.

Okay, you can see that uh I've highlighted the schools uh because it's always a concern uh with redevelopment.

And uh so the total revenue is in the first column, and the second column is actually the revenue that would be generated if we didn't do anything.

We didn't do anything, and then the last column is the net uh which is as a result of this effort or this to redevelopment and using the tool.

Uh this is the uh benefit to the city and to the taxing district.

Go to the next slide, please.

In this case, this is uh city foundry.

Um comment on you can see the numbers.

Next slide, please.

Uh this one is ballpark village.

And in each case, though, I need to point out that the school districts are the school district is benefiting greatly with a do something attitude here as opposed to do nothing.

Uh but also you can see that all of the taxing districts are are benefiting and important more importantly, the city.

Next slide, please.

Uh and this one a little higher, thanks.

Uh is uh Cortex, and uh you see the numbers here.

Uh and so just wanted to share those numbers as well.

Next slide, please.

And I'm not gonna go through this one because I think our our guest will uh highlight us some of these, but I wanted to bring up uh first Steve Smith, uh and Steve is uh the uh president CEO of the Lawrence Group, but also new and found.

I I think you're that for both, right?

Uh and has been before this board many times with many projects that have uh benefited the city, but I think uh uh having benefit of his wisdom would be good for the for the board to hear.

So, Steve.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Smith.

Can you raise your right hand?

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

Yes.

Please with the Steve Smith.

I'm uh sort of said uh founder and CEO of Lawrence Group Architects and New and Found Development.

I'm a city resident.

Uh just to give a little broad context, I grew up in the county by the airport.

Uh came to downtown St.

Louis when I graduated from college and have spent my entire professional career in the city of St.

Louis, first in the Cleeves Landing starting in 1979, then Lafayette Square, and then downtown St.

Louis since.

Um I've got a business that has been located in the city for 43 years on Fourth Street.

Uh obviously have developed a lot in the city of St.

Louis, uh, employ a lot of people in the city of St.

Louis.

I have the bulk of my personal wealth invested in the city of St.

Louis, and I love the city of St.

Louis and I love the people of St.

Louis.

So I'm not here to ask for anything.

Um I've been my career is almost a half a century, and in my life, the city of St.

Louis has lost population, lost tax base, lost jobs, and lost prestige.

And I think it's a wonderful city, and I think obviously it's taken a half a century to lose all that.

It's going to take a long time to get that back.

So what I wanted to do is just share my experience of 50 years of being a business owner, a resident, but definitely a developer, and also open to any kind of questions you might have.

The first thing I just wanted to say we we talk about development and attracting developers, and developers need to attract tenants, whether they be office tenants, condo buyers, office tenants and whatnot.

But a lot of what I deal with anymore is attracting investors.

And I wanted to make sure that the board here understood that what developers do, we don't show up with a wheelbarrow of money.

We have to go out and we have lenders, and you understand we have banks, but we need to attract investors in the city of St.

Louis.

And I'm going to put that in two categories local and national.

So our local investors, and I heard the earlier presentation.

I deal with a lot of investors.

I deal with investors almost every day of all types and all sizes, funds, individuals, and whatnot.

And they have choices.

I just heard this morning there's a property being proposed in Kirkwood, downtown Kirkwood.

That investment community is evaluating do I invest with Steve Smith or other developers in the city of St.

Where in the city of St.

Louis that might be, or do I invest in Kirkwood or Chesterfield or St.

Charles, or do I do a storage locker building in Wentzville, which I see built along the highway.

I know investors in those properties.

So I think it is really important for the city to understand and everyone associated with the city to understand is there's the incentive side, and I think that's critically important, and we'll continue to probably touch on that in a little bit.

But I think it's also equally important to have a perception that the city wants to partner and aggressively find solutions to help investment happen, whether it's housing or whatever it is, the city is a partner with the development community for mutual success, the success of the city and its residents, and at the end of the day, the success of the developer and their investors, because they will come back if they're successful.

On a national scale, um, we have three, my last projects were big projects, City Foundry, the apartment building of City Foundry House just four months ago.

Those were all huge equity investments, over $50 million each, and those are all people no one from St.

Louis is in those deals.

I think I have one investor for $250,000, and that's 150 million, over 150 million in equity in those three projects.

Uh one fund is based out of Salt Lake City, one fund is based out of um Washington, D.C., and the other the lead investors out of Florida.

They have the whole country that we're competing with for those dollars.

And St.

Louis is not at the top of anybody's list, I can tell you that.

So we have to find a way to attract those investors to come to St.

Louis, both in terms of the return, which we've talked about, but also the perception.

Is this a city that is partnering with not just the developers but the overall business community?

Is this a city that's on the rise and getting in early, if you will?

We have had some success with that, but we've also had some hurdles with that.

And I'll give one specific example of where the city was not our partner.

So when we created City Foundry, um I got approached by an investment fund of Washington, D.C., led by Steve Case of AOL.com, his family office, who likes to invest in cities that have redevelopment corporations like Cortex.

And they said, we will bring the equity if you'll develop the project and bring the debt.

And we're talking over 50 million dollars.

They committed, we got going.

The property is a TIFF district and had been approved for office, and we came to the city and said, we need to change our TIFF from office to residential.

It's all we want.

No money, just change that.

The city made us pay a million eight to make that change.

That investor said, we're done with St.

Louis.

Future phases of foundry, find somebody else.

We're out.

That's the that's the city, and those people talk to other people, and they have funds that have investors that learn this stuff.

So I know I've been here many, many times over the years, and I will say the cities have been very supportive of me, so thank you for that.

I really appreciate that.

And I know how tough your guy's job is, by the way.

I I don't think I can be on your side of the table for for the challenges you face.

But I do want you to understand that we do compete for that, and that is really a key to our long-term success.

Um we talked about the cost of capital, um, and I I don't want to belabor some of the previous presentations, but at the end of the day, obviously we have debt and equity.

Um interest rates have gone up and down.

We're right now trending in a pretty good direction at the moment.

But investors, when we compete for those investors, they're looking, what is my return in now?

Actually, my investor that that did City Foundry, that's done with St.

Louis's in Madison, Wisconsin, Huntsville, Alabama, Austin, Texas, and other markets.

So mid-tier markets, not New York and LA.

Um, and they're looking at what is their return based on risk.

So you have return.

I get a 10% return here and a 12% return here.

But what is that related to risk?

In St.

Louis is a riskier market, so you're gonna have to have a higher return as over time we become perceived as a less risky market because of basically the macroeconomic and the kind of I'll call it the trends of St.

Louis, our cost of capital can go down because investors will see it less risky and therefore will accept a lower rate of um we talked earlier about the cost of development versus value.

Um, and just again an apartment building in Chesterfield for all practical purposes costs the same as an apartment building in St.

Louis City, other than the cost of land, and a very slight difference.

I mean, at the end of the day, the architecture, the engineering, the legal fees, the construction costs, marketing costs, all the same.

Interest rate all the same.

So the gap then is the third wheel.

We have debt, we have equity, and then we have subsidy.

I do think that we have to be creative.

The projects I've done over the last 25 years are brutally difficult, and they're all in the city of St.

Louis.

Thankfully, we have tax credit equity and other sort of subsidy programs, but I do want you to appreciate that these are very complicated, difficult projects that are hard to raise money for and lots of unknowns, and the developer I will say takes on tons of risk.

I personally guarantee these loans on all these properties, so I have everything I own, betting on the success of what I get involved in.

And I know other developers do too.

So I know there's sometimes a perception these developers are taking advantage of the public trough.

But the vast majority of them, I can't say necessarily everybody, but the vast majority of them, I think are really trying to make a good thing happen, and they're taking on inordinate risk, and we spend huge amounts of dollars before the project even closes, and you can start construction.

In the case of City Foundry, it was three and a half years and millions and millions of millions of dollars before we actually were able to even start construction.

Another thing I think is important to know is the developer bench in St.

Louis is very lean.

We have to your point, we need more housing, we need more development, and there just are not that many uh developers that have a capability or track record that can attract investors and track lenders.

I do think when and I will say I my first project was flipping houses in Lafayette Square in the early 80s, and I think that is critically important because those are the people that 20 or 30 years from now can be doing big projects.

So I do think that we want to support young, ambitious people who want to start and building neighborhood house by house, I think is enormously important to create that foundation, both in terms of built rebuilding those neighborhoods, but developing the talent and the skill sets for those individuals to eventually be doing larger projects like I've been able to do over time.

I was developing actively in the early 2000s before the great recession.

Many of those developers went out of business.

John Stefan bankrupt, Greg Heller out of business, the McGowan's gone.

I mean, we can go through the list.

It's a tough, tough business.

And you look at the contractors and architects, then they're all still in business, but the developers, many of them fail.

Because when a business cycle changes, we will lose those.

So we need to support the development talent that we have and hopefully um create uh future ones.

And then the last thing I was just gonna say is um you know, we we we fight for capital to build projects, but the biggest headwind I think the city has right now, and that is demand.

And downtown where I've been for 43 years as a business.

There's tepid office demand at best.

There's oversupply of off uh uh hotel at the moment, in my opinion.

Uh hopefully that changes over time.

Residential, I do think there's a need for residential, thankfully.

Retail doesn't happen unless you have those office and and residential.

And so we want to do more downtown.

We do have a pipeline of things we want to do towntown.

I might be back before you in the future about some downtown stuff, but at the end of the day, where's the demand?

And the demand partially I think goes back to that narrative.

Um are we perceived as a place where people want to live, work, and visit?

Um, are we not?

And so I think that both is important for the private sector and the public sector to be arm in arm in terms of having that positive narrative.

So uh with that, um any questions.

Uh I get I guess we'll have both of them.

Yeah, and then we'll ask questions.

But thank you so much for being here, Mr.

Question?

Yeah, yeah.

Let me introduce uh Doug Rasmussen, who is the founder and CEO of Steph Fast City.

And Doug has been here many times to support other projects.

So I'll let him uh basically uh give his opinion as well.

Before Doug started us, I again thank you, Mr.

Smith for being here and for sharing uh your testimony today, the the wins and the challenges.

Um I do want you to know that that sharing wasn't for you if you battle it's for you know in the chairing that you heard was our very own now.

Uh Chief Clerk Sharita Rogers getting sworn in down in the Ratunda City Register.

So congratulations, madam now, madam, officially Madam Clerk Rogers of the uh St.

Louis City Port of Ottoman.

Mr.

Rasmer, please proceed.

All right.

Thank thanks everybody.

Great to thank you, Madam Chair Otis, thanks, Steve.

Great to see you.

Uh echo really every comment there that you mentioned.

So I'm I'm Doug Rasmussen.

I'm the founder and CEO of Steadfast City Economic and Community Partners.

We're a full service economic development and planning firm.

We're based in the Graveway Park area, uh, third floor of the Cherokee side and the old attic space if you're familiar with that.

That's our private office.

Uh we have 20 employees.

We're six here in Missouri in St.

Louis, and um some others across the country.

And then a proud um resident of the 14th wards.

I see my my alderman there uh lived in Old North St.

Louis since 2020.

We renovated a house and my family and two kids lived there.

Um so uh appreciate everybody's um work.

You know, I know you all have a very tough job, and I think I think a lot of the comments earlier on Walderman Cohn's bill were um I I really echoed a lot of what was said, and I think was a lot of great discussion on important work that you all do.

Um my own quick background personally, I've got a 25 year experience in this industry.

I have about 12 of those years actually in the public sector, so or quasi-public sector.

So I used to work for an organization called the Economic Council of St.

Louis County, which later became the SDL Partnership.

I actually worked for them twice.

The second time I was there, we we changed our name and did the partial merger with St.

Louis Development Corporation.

And then I worked with what was once called the St.

Louis RCGA, now Greater Single Sink.

And then for the last uh 12 years, I've been in private consulting uh about five years with Duffin Phelps, a large New York City based firm, and then the last seven with my own company.

Uh when I was thinking about today's conversation, I was thinking about really the word volatility.

I think I think this is more of a macro issue.

I'll start macro and kind of go micro, but from the macro side over the last seven years since since I formed my own company, and I actually lifted this from a presentation I was just at.

Um, there's actually been four once in a lifetime and once in a lifetime events over the past six years, deeply impacted the ability to effectuate successful real estate financing and real estate development.

So one was the COVID pandemic, which of course is you know about six years ago today.

Uh the next was the largest interest rate increase of all time in a 15-month period.

525 basis points or 5.25% over 15 months, bringing the rates to a 23-year high, which of course was designed to fight 40 years, uh, a 40-year high on inflation.

Um there was the second and third largest bank failure of all time, uh, First Republic and Silicon Valley Bank in March and May of 2023.

Each of those banks were over a 200 billion dollar bank.

And then the fourth, of course, was last year with all the tariff increases that occurred, uh tariffs being something that really wasn't in any lexicon or mindset or consideration, uh, raised from an effective rate of two and a half percent to over 30 percent.

Uh all done within a very short period of time, and the highest tariff since the 1930s.

So, so what does this mean for real estate development?

You know, I think real estate and Steve captured this very well.

Real estate development may be the only field where a developer has to go completely at risk, spending really frankly, most of their own money, finding tenants, finding a site, raising the equity capital, uh, contributing their own equity to even start formulating a project in terms of plans, uh, you know, development concepts, finding tenants, you know, building community support, engaging with the community, finding those investors, and then ultimately finding a tenant that uh can pay rent and and that rent, you know, being a rent that can make the numbers work.

And and then, of course, that all leads up to a bank that'll agree and realize that yeah, this is something that we want to get involved in, we want to make a loan on that project.

Um so assuming you get all that done, you find a bank to finance it, you then have about another 18 to 24 months while you're building the project, assuming a bunch of construction risk.

And then at the end of the 24 months, you open the project.

You hope that that tenant, that end user is still running a healthy business.

You hope that the market hasn't changed.

You hope that there's no none of these uncontrollable events or volatile changes just noted that affect the project or its pricing or its performance and do not derail it.

Um as Steve said, if projects go bad, any one deal can sink a developer.

Um even very successful developers with long track records or track records of success.

Uh they they literally put their entire livelihood on the line for every deal, right?

So there's just a ton of risk, and I think Steve mentioned a few groups that were you know long track record here that had had a failure and and then they went away.

Um St.

Louis, you know, I think look a lot of great things about the city, right?

We're all um I'm I'm a longtime city resident.

I'm originally from the Chicago area.

Um, you know, you all obviously are uh doing the great work of you know representing residents and businesses, and I'm a business owner here too.

Um the projects though themselves are are sometimes you know just challenging even setting aside that above volatility.

But but the role you all play is is a super critical role in achieving not only mutual you know community partnerships, public-private partnerships, community benefits, but really acting as a public partner to help de-risk the volatility and the financing challenges.

Um since COVID, construction costs are up over 35%.

Um St.

Louis projects are often more expensive because they may involve remediating environmental issues or ameliorating some kind of site challenge.

So, you know, at one time we all know that the city had over 800,000 people in it.

Every site, every parcel has been developed at least.

Okay, so if it's even a parcel with a building on it, it's becoming something different, you know, or it's vacant.

It's it's it's not the first time, more than likely, that it's been developed.

So that just brings on you know certain challenges that you can't underwrite by charging additional rents.

The rents are what they are.

Otis had them on in the slide.

Uh Steve mentioned you know, the rents being what they are, vacancy in downtown 25%.

Um I think outside of a few limited areas in the city, the lower rents combined with these higher construction costs create a financial gap that you know really the only the incentives can help overcome.

Um as Steve mentioned, additionally, you know, there's this notion of the market being slower and growth riskier.

Um developers have to pay a higher uh rate of return to equity capital in order to attract development, which lowers their profit and lower makes the project riskier, also creating a market rate of return issue for that lender.

So those are those are key considerations.

I think for um all of us as city residents and businesses and elected officials, you know, the most important thing, and this was said earlier in the in the bill with Alderman Cohn's bill, is you know, is is you know, the city having a structure to evaluate projects, uh being open and welcoming to investments while they evaluate the project, um, remaining a great steward, obviously, of city resources, which are you know we know are not unlimited, right?

And and then obviously taking in community input and developing a uh a win-win project, but then also you know, delivering, of course, on whatever it is that the city agrees to do with that developer and and having that certainty.

Um, we we do a lot of work not just in the city of St.

Louis, but all over the country, and I would say just generally what I've noticed with our developer clients is whenever a city is open to possibilities and welcoming of investment, especially in light of that underlying volatility and risk that's in the market, and who knows what this year with everything that started over the weekend.

Um that that's a big big part of it.

I think just being partner-oriented, customer service friendly to help collaboratively mitigate and problem solve development challenges, and frankly, many of them do arise even during construction.

I know we have a couple projects where um project costs you know, because of COVID and other things have gone up.

Projects have been going on a long time, frankly, and have you know have you know ongoing challenges.

Um we're trying to help our developers and work with Otis and his team to see those through, you know, but they they might have 30 to 40 percent increases over the original budget.

And then I think really too providing as much clarity and communication, regularity, predictability, um, not only at the incentives process on the front end, but this I think is an important piece, also on the activation and on the implementation on the back side.

Um I talked to a lot of developers in the market.

Uh I've I've heard recent comments where there are developers who are not even considering projects that they otherwise would do if they have to have incentives and they're not convinced that they'll get the the exit approval on the back side.

So uh so it's not just a front end issue, it's a back end approval issue and sign off.

So with that, um I'll pause there and then uh turn it over back to the uh Madam Chairwoman or Otis.

Thanks.

Yeah, just let me wrap for a moment and just highlight what Doug just said.

On the front end, it is just understanding the predictability and understanding what the requirements are.

Uh and that is uh understanding the prevailing wage, uh, whether it's union, uh the M and WBE.

But on the back end, those same issues are there.

And I think what he referred to is the challenge that we have, we being SLDC and then implementing the various ordinances that have been passed.

And so uh sometimes the requirement is such that we have to say no to a developer who says that they've done everything they can and we say no and then they lose their tax abatement.

That ta losing tax abatement is a significant hit.

Uh so I I bring this to your attention in the sense that we need to be very diligent and setting requirements, understanding the impact that they can have long term.

Uh that that leads me to say the one thing that I would encourage, as many of you know, uh someone reminded me that I'm in an interim role here.

But as I leave, I want to make sure that everybody understands that we don't have a climate where we have uh lots of developers.

Uh we can name and uh probably have two of the key ones to keep people who are in the development process here, but there aren't many.

And so in order for us to really get the city rolling, we need to be welcoming to multiple developers and understanding that the banks and investors who are looking to St.

Louis uh aren't looking through a favorable lens in the sense that they see too much risk and they don't see the certainty that they're going to get what was promised.

And so uh with that, I'm going to uh end and and maybe through the questions uh that you may have that we can get to more uh specifics.

Thank you, uh three of you um for this enlightening conversation.

But it's uh context uh that we need as we all try to navigate this moving forward.

I do want to before I open it up, just uh go back, Mr.

Resume, and just highlight a little more of the back end, backside where you say the activation and implementation.

Can you just elaborate a little bit on that or make it like in real time for us what here at the board of bottom?

Yeah, I think I think you know, generally the challenge there hasn't been so much that you know our developer clients aren't, you know, they're they're aware of the rules.

We work hard to make them make sure they're aware of the rules.

We partner with Otis and his team on the rules.

I think I think sometimes, you know, just sharing what their feedback has been or our experience is um you know, because of just things going on in the project or whatever, there may be um some some notion of you know, either uh rules being applied, you know, one way in one group versus a different way in another group, or um maybe uh maybe rules, you know, sort of standards being moved around.

So I think as much as we can kind of just make sure that it's locked and loaded at the beginning and then you know, and there's a constant feedback loop throughout, and um, I I think that's a big piece.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone or whatever.

I mean, we we sometimes get brought in, you know, late, you know, then we try to catch our developer clients up to the process, which is certainly never a great great uh spot to be in.

But um I think in general, um, you know, just making sure that you know there's a lot of focus here right on the front end, right?

In terms of how do we get through the process, what's the scorecard, and I and I would just submit that the compliance piece is as important as the front end piece, right?

Because as Otis said, you know, if you get through the pro the front end process, you go through year and a half, two years of construction, and there are things that happen in construction.

I mean, I've heard recently about a deal, not one that I'm working on, but where one of their major minority subs packed up and left town and didn't have the you know, is sort of leaving the market, right?

And so, and this was after they had done some bids and things.

And so anyway, I just think that um, you know the compliance piece is obviously really ultimately where the rubber hits the road.

And if you have a um project that you know works gets a market acceptable rate of return with that tax abatement, um, but something happens along the way in construction and and you know at the end they they get denied, then it it creates challenges for really not only the developer, but it creates challenges just in general.

I mean, I don't think anyone in the city or the developer or us as the consultants, you know, we want to try to land the plane, you know, in a good way, right?

And and you know, meet the meet the statutory obligations of the programs, and at the same time and and at the same time, you know, um don't upset, you know, the financing to a point where uh you know the project goes south, right?

So it's kind of a balance, I guess.

But yeah.

Well, I I'll give you a uh one specific one.

Uh and many of you have heard this one, it's the on prevailing wage where we have uh uh the uh ordinance that requires state uh uh prevailing wage uh state state wage orders as opposed to the federal, and sometimes the difference in cost could really sink a project on the back end because of the cost.

And uh but that that's one that's one example.

The other is uh when you're monitoring uh a project on uh prevailing wage, I mean there's really a requirement for some of the uh subs, not some, but for all of the subs and the general to load data into uh our systems.

And so uh that is an onerous task to be sure uh that we can get all the full accountability, and we are going off back and forth.

Uh it is a challenge.

Uh and it's not as easy as uh it's written on paper for it all to get done.

And so I just want everybody to understand that.

I I'll go back and just say that uh there's nothing wrong with the rules that we have, it is the implementation of it that we need to fix.

Interesting.

I know you all all three of you mentioned where risk, Mr.

Smith, when we met, and I got the uh chance to meet between talk to you and hear your very inspiring story of how your development record started with one house on the South side.

And look where we are now.

You talked about the biggest thing, and I'll never forget this, is that you have to sleep at night with the risk.

And so I understand the risk that we're mentioned here today, but are there any risks that we miss um here is the legislative body um that on the development side um would make a difference if we continue to work with this perception um of the partnerships that we want to welcome here in the city.

Well, so I've been doing it for a long time, and I I think because of our reputation, the city works very well with SLTC has been great, the Port of Alderman has been great.

I mean, we the TIFF commission, I think um we have a track record, and I think that helps.

I think what what I said earlier is important, and I've touched on it as well.

We have a we need to help cultivate a whole new group of developers to redevelop these neighborhoods house by house.

Starts with basically ambitious individuals, and so I do think that we want to find a way to both support them appropriately, uh perhaps find a mentorship program so they can learn and understand, maybe make introductions to other uh people in the industry that might help them.

I had lots of mentors for me over the years.

The city can be a connector to do that.

So that I mean I'm I've that most of my career is behind me, so I think we really need to create the future, the future developers that are going to bring the city to its to its uh to its what wealth that it really should get to, and I think the board could and this committee could play a role in that.

I I I I do think that the real key is as we talk about building that can that uh community, it is while we have the developer, uh we we really need to bring in the bankers and investors.

They are the missing piece.

Uh we don't locally we don't get a lot of investment.

Steve described uh all of the places that he has investment coming from, uh you know, very little of it is coming from St.

Louis.

And so the reason that the local market is not investing is because of that they don't like the risk that they think they may be.

And so the reason that the local market is not investing is because of that they don't like the risk that they think they may be to that point.

It's interesting that in those projects I've done over the last few years, the really big ones.

People from outside of St.

Louis believe in St.

Louis more so than people in St.

Louis do, which is sort of amazing in terms of betting with their dollars.

Why do you think that is?

They they buy into that misinformation.

Sorry.

The the local people uh read the newspapers and listen to the media and they buy into the misinformation is out there.

So that causes them to be uh they causes most of them to shy away.

Then some have had bad experience and they they exacerbate their experience and pass it on to others, and it just grows.

I'll move forward with the committee.

Adam and come uh I I don't have any questions.

I just want to thank everyone for that this afternoon.

Uh you know, this is obviously an ongoing conversation.

Um for many of us, it's a continuing conversation.

Um, and you know, I certainly have had conversations with you know all of you at this point in time.

Um and I look forward to continuing that work together to address that uh many of the concerns that we have and share um around these issues.

And um, you know, I I also thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for you know, having uh the forum uh to have this conversation or at least this update and kind of an open format um that doesn't happen too regularly, so I do appreciate you and and your leadership and and allowing this to take place.

Um I think that there is a lot of questions that'll you know come up that you know need to have some answers to them at some point in time.

But you know, Otis, I know you're one foot out the door uh respectfully at this point in time.

You and I talked about that yesterday afternoon.

Um I look forward to meeting uh whoever fills your shoes uh the second time around.

Uh so uh you know, I I certainly look forward to working with whoever that might be uh and um continuing this work together.

And you know, uh Doug and Steve, uh you know I can't tell you how many times I've seen you before this body uh discussing various incentives and projects over the years, and um certainly look forward to continuing, you know, those efforts in the future, even when we've disagreed on certain things.

I think we've always been fairly amicable and trying to understand where the other person is coming from.

So you know, I look forward to continuing that dialogue as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Adam Ms.

Weisser.

Thank you so much for being here today.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for having this conversation.

This has been really fascinating.

Uh the thing that uh has come up in with me and some of my constituents pretty regularly is the prevailing wage um administration on the back end and making sure that when we do have a prevailing wage um you know ordinance and effects where people have to be paid prevailing wage, whether or not that's happening, and then if it's not happening, making sure that the workers who aren't paid what they should be get the restitution that they need.

I know recently there were some incentives that were activated where the prevailing wage has not been paid and the restitution has not been received for sworn affidavits, and that's very concerning to me.

I think that is a huge problem for our workforce.

Um and I know also on the other side of that, as you spoke about here, there have been numerous, you know, uh there are numerous ways that that developers have to submit their or the contractors, the subs have to submit their paperwork, which does make it complicated and confusing, and I think that there would be a lot of um desire from all parties to make that less complicated and less confusing.

Um, but it is still crucial that that is paid.

And so I have uh some concerns with with that, and I just wanted to flag that I know you said it's difficult to administer, but it's you know, people who are depending on these paychecks, it's even more difficult for them when it doesn't come in.

So I would love to hear your comments on that.

Sure.

Uh unfortunately for us, we uh we have uh at least then the IBW world, uh couple of unions that are working and uh uh local one and local 57.

And most of the issues on prevailing wage uh resign around uh those uh particular unions for the most part.

Uh one pays at a certain level, uh the other, in this case 57 pays at a level and then counts their benefits for it.

So it complicates our system when it would be lovely if we just had uh one uh way to do it.

So we try to accommodate the two unions that are out there.

Uh that that's that's just one example of of it.

It's not the total total problem.

Uh but so we are trying to fix the input side of that from uh 57 so they their wages as they are putting them in also equals one.

Uh and when I say one, um in this case a whole uh in the case of uh local one, they basically are adhering to uh what the union standards are for the most part.

Uh so I'm when I respond to you on this one, I'm just saying that we're trying to work through those differences between those two unions to try and get uh the problem resolved.

And so uh we are having meetings with uh local 57 to make sure that uh they can input their data uh you know, so that uh they are made whole uh in the system.

Uh right now that's not that well, earlier it was not accommodating, so we got that fixed now.

So I hope that uh that problem is resolved.

But on the example that you mentioned that we uh provided uh in this case, we provided tax abatement to a company based on a uh legal agreement uh that was uh uh provided by our attorneys and uh the legal staff all agreed that this was a way that we could get this done and uh still require the payments that are going to be needed if in fact we found out that the uh data that was entered later was not correct.

Uh and this is one where we were trying to get the data entered.

Uh it did not uh go through correctly.

Uh so instead of uh causing uh the uh developer a problem in this case, denying the abatement, we said okay, if in fact this uh equals uh the correct amount when it is correctly loaded, then you you'll find if it doesn't, then you are required to pay the system amount.

That I think that may be one of the incidents that you're talking about.

All right.

And I I appreciate your your answer.

You know, the state um the prevailing wage is set by the state, it's not set by union.

So the the state would be saying which amount is considered prevailing wage, and that would not be different regardless of what the union pay is, and regardless of what they're inputting, there is a state standard consistent throughout the entire industry for various um jobs within that we're looking at in the construction world.

So there shouldn't be a I guess I would I would say all the women, I would think that maybe the better one for us to have as a standard would be the federal one as opposed to the state only because of the difference in in cost.

Just me.

Yeah, I I think that that's a that's a longer conversation, and I'm sure you know developers and workers may have different opinions on what would be better for them in that case.

Um but I am concerned, you know, we have you know one of the things that was said is that delivering on what the city agrees to do, and I think that it goes both ways.

Um there is an agreement made when tax incentives are uh are activated when abatements are activated that certain laws will be followed, certain ordinances will be followed, um, certain regulations will be followed.

And I think one of the reasons that we have such issues in St.

Louis is because of tr the erosion of trust over the many decades of things either not being followed or not being um done in a way that is satisfactory to everyone involved.

Uh and I do think there have been significant strides to improve that trust and to come together more.

Um, but I think on my end, uh that is where I came from when I became an older person four years ago, is you know, on the on the piece of that there's not a lot of trust there, there people are being taken advantage of, and now I've been learning a lot more and have it a lot better understanding of development and the needs for incentives and why this is so important and why we should use tests, why we should use abatements and all of the reasonings for that, and I've learned a ton um on that.

My concern is always just if there's an agreement made that it's followed and then it's clear for everyone uh that it's done above board and that people understand what the expectations are, which is why I asked similar questions in the in the last board bill.

Um because I have seen situations in which we have a scorecard, I vote yes based on the scorecard, others vote no, comes back, and there's a deal behind you know a deal that happens behind the door and closed doors, and then now people are voting yes.

So it has happened, it does happen.

Um and I just think for all involved, anyone involved, anyone who wants to do business in St.

Louis, the best thing to have happen is that it's clear, it's followed, it's the same for everyone, and uh it's the expectations are met.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

Is Ottawa McKee still online?

No, she's not.

Adam and Browning.

Uh thank you.

Alderman Keith uh said she's having internet problems, um, but didn't have any questions, uh, but appreciates your presentations.

Uh that's actually from me, but I'm sure she does too.

Um Mr.

Smith, I I think you've done some great work in our city.

Uh I think the foundry is uh one of those developments that I point to when I say, like, what could we can do with a site that people had no hope for?

I don't know if people remember there was a proposal for like a strip mall there before your before your proposal, and it would have been awful, I think, uh, and and just not productive for the city.

We already have an uh semi-abandoned strip mall down Manchester, and we don't need to be doing more of that type of development.

Uh but you took what used to be the largest polluter in the city and turned it into somewhere that people want to bring their families uh to get lunch and catch a show, or they go grocery shopping, or they go to any fun things to do, or there's a big game show place or the you know uh different shops that also benefit our entrepreneurs and our business owners who want to come in and do something.

I've seen uh businesses start in the the food hall and actually graduate to a brick and mortar, uh, which is I think a wonderful thing to see because then we get another new business filling another empty storefront somewhere else.

So it just uh pays dividends.

And um, you know, I'm glad you talked about the City Foundry deal and how it was changed.

It was something that my predecessor did, and uh it was one of those things that I brought up on the campaign trail because I thought it was important to talk about when we're when we have deals, we cannot change them midway.

Uh if if it shakes that confidence, and um Mr.

Rasmussen, I uh similarly I appreciate what you talked about about the need to both be predictable on the front and the back end.

Um, I've been uh on both sides of deals with you where I think we've disagreed, but again, as Alderman Cohen said, been able to disagree reasonably and talk through issues, and um, you know, it's always gonna be a back and forth when we're developing the city because we do want to make sure that we're developing according to our values.

Uh but uh Mr.

Williams, I I wanted to ask a question because you had a slide uh that showed you had a few slides that showed uh the projects that have been uh you that a TIFF has been used and where the taxes were versus where they would have been had we not utilized that incentive.

Um and it really showed a story that we are activating these sites to be much more productive uh and then give the city more taxes so that we can achieve so much more.

Uh when we struggle to pay our our forestry workers, our our building division, our you know, street workers, that's all tied to that because this is general revenue that we're failing to bring in when we don't activate these spaces.

But I wanted to ask you, because I've seen some discussion, I've seen a report cited uh by Good Jobs First that says that tax abatements have cost our city 300 million dollars.

Uh but the numbers that you show don't really tell that story, do they?

Well, I I you know I should have uh brought with me a slide that basically shows that when people are talking about tax abatement uh impacting schools.

This generally uh particularly here in the city of St.

Louis, we are the poster child for a place where incentives are needed in order to get things done.

When we do have investors uh our developers who come to the table, they are most often they are in need of uh of help to be able to get it, get the numbers to pencil.

But to speak specifically about uh the good jobs first report.

What many people fail to realize is that the real estate is generally paying some level of tax at the very beginning.

And so it's it's that level that we generally uh will uh uh grade against.

And if in fact a the project would happen without incentives, it would be the only way that that would be an argument against it as far as far as I'm concerned.

But I don't think we have that uh situation in many cases, except for maybe you know, I see whether the developer for the data center is saying he does not need it.

That's primarily because he's you know, he that particular industry can afford to do what he's doing.

But very seldom, if not uh particularly in St.

Louis, will we find a developer who will come to the city who can actually get that done without some assistance?

Indeed, I think that I think the report makes a fatal mistake at the very beginning in that it completely dismisses the bot four test out of hand and says we just don't believe that any of these projects wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the incentive.

And so you know, it it's hard to measure projects that don't happen, because you can't really point to a project that didn't happen other than the people who are involved in that conversation.

Uh and I agree.

Uh you know, um each of the ones that we showed that I showed you uh basically shows the uh impact on schools, uh the amount of additional tax revenue that is going to the, you know, that's what I'm trying to say when I say that most often if we have a LRA lot that is not earning any not paying any taxes, and we get someone that comes along who really wants to redevelop on it, I mean that is a boost.

I mean, that is different definitely a plus.

But even if it's not an LRA and it's private property, if it's not being redeveloped and is set and vacant uh or it's blighted and someone comes along that wants to get it done.

Generally we we should be uh you know excited that there is that particular person or entity is coming along to get it done.

And it always results in a plus to the city because we aren't going to give 100 tax 100 percent tax abatement to anybody uh any longer.

I mean, that has been the evolution of uh of our process.

We've gone from that to uh 90, 80 uh and below.

So there's always going to be some bump at the initially uh when we redevelop.

And what we realize after whatever the period is five years, ten years, fifteen years, uh then we get to realize the full benefit of that.

So uh so I think this narrative that like tax abatements and TIFFs in the city have hurt our city and our schools, it's not really borne out by the numbers.

And of course there are projects that didn't work out, we're never gonna get it 100% correct.

I mean, I could have a set of slides uh just like I brought the one the uh I call them the ones that I showed today, there probably is another set that can show that where uh a deal failed, but it only meant that it was not taking away it we didn't realize the benefit that we uh thought we were originally going to realize.

Uh but we still have probably that base that was going, so is that the project did not happen kind of thing, as opposed to a significant loss.

Because the abatement is on the improvement to the property, and so uh when it doesn't work out, it's not like we lost anything so much as we just lost the potential, but we're not lost it's not like they're getting an 80 percent or 90 percent abatement on a vacant piece of land, that doesn't happen.

That's exactly right.

Uh so I I appreciate uh both of both of the developers that we have here today are uh mentioned something about how when someone comes to the city, you know, it it's a matter of making them feel like we want to work with them, being a good partner.

I think it's important that you know, as long as they're a good partner, right?

As long as they're not some slum ward who wants to throw up a cheap building that doesn't meet building code, uh we should be saying, hey, you want to come invest here uh and you're a good developer, we want you to invest here.

What can we do to make this project happen and then work with them to do whatever it takes to make that happen?

Because as mentioned, we are down on housing units.

We have 25% vacancy rate downtown.

30 percent.

I mean, can you can any of us imagine if one out of every four houses on our block was empty?

I mean, there are neighborhoods, yes, I know there are neighborhoods that have that problem, and that is not not productive for the city, nor is it good for the residents of that neighborhood.

And it becomes very difficult to fix these neighborhoods once vacancy takes hold like that.

So whatever we can do to make that happen, uh I think is it's gotta be a conversation, not a a list of demands.

Um we we have put a lot of requirements on incentivized projects over the years.

And I think Alder One Schweitzer did a good job of digging into uh the prevailing wage, and I think that is a longer discussion that we'll have to get to.

Um but I do want to note that the benefits that get brought to a project uh from a project are also including like the housing that we get out of that project, the extra taxes we get out of that project.

So while we want to build our values into these deals, I think it's also important to notice note that part of what we get out of it is that um the population gain, the the businesses that open, the jobs that are created.

Uh there's all sorts of things that kind of come out of these deals when we can do them the correct way.

And um at the end of the day, I think we just need to make sure that we are working as a good partner.

Uh as we kind of progress, uh is there are there ongoing discussions about both MBE requirements and prevailing wage that SLDC is is having right now.

Um actually the we're having uh conversations with uh subcommittees of the board uh of Alden, particularly about M and WBE.

In fact, the board is actually leading uh that discussion uh with us in support, uh us being SLDC uh in support.

So I think there's a lively discussion and a good discussion that's ongoing uh between uh the board of Alderman uh the particularly the caucus uh black hawkus uh and uh our consultants and us about that.

Uh and I I think in the end, sometime later uh this spring uh summer that there will be uh some finality to that and something will be before the board here.

Okay, that's good.

That's good to hear.

I I know that we we need to constantly examine our programs and see if we're getting the results that we want out of them uh because it's not great to pass programs and then pat ourselves on the back and say, hey, we did we did the thing, but then we don't get the results that we were looking for, and we don't come back to really revise and make sure we're getting it.

Uh I don't have any more questions.

I just again I appreciate you all.

Um I think that the city uh like was said, I I love this city, I want to see it grow.

Uh I don't think that it's possible for us to grow without using uh some tools like incentives, and it's also worth noting that these are the tools the state has given us, and so we have to work with them.

I'm also open to any other in inventive or creative things that we can do to uh help projects happen.

And I think that if we take a more proactive approach to this, we can grow this city, we can turn around our population decline, uh, and we can do so by providing opportunities for people who already live here by benefiting people who are already living in our neighborhoods, and uh hopefully just moving this whole city forward.

So thank you again.

Thank you, Adam and Adrich.

Thank you, madam chair, members of the hoods committee, and thank you, Chairwoman, for bringing uh this discussion.

Thank both developers for being here.

Of course, I am a little biased with Doug, who's been a 14th World resident for uh for a very long time, and just appreciate some of the projects we've been able to work on and appreciate what you have done to the foundry.

Looking forward to bringing kind of a smaller version of that to Wash F working with Alex Oliver, another developer to bring a food court hall, hopefully, uh this uh summer or the spring summer.

Uh one of the questions that I had asked uh director, president CEO um uh Williams.

I was like, what's the last name?

I think was kind of answered of like what is the lag of of development, especially coming off of the previous board bill.

Clearly, there's a a multi-layer uh uh issues of why development, and I think uh one of the things you brought up is investment part, uh, which we don't hear about uh a lot since we're not in that world and knowing that investors aren't flocking to St.

Louis, so um maybe it's not always so much on the policy, but you know, changing, I think what uh Mr.

Williams said, that narrative, uh like what we do with the entertainment district and other stuff, changing the narrative that St.

Louis is continue to be open uh for business and um all the questions I had was answered during the presentation.

I think you guys brought from the experts that are doing this and that have been doing this for a very long time, over a generation, as you say it, or two centuries or whatever it was.

Um I bring a century along is that you know it's it's easier said than done.

Um and and this is it's a it's a a marathon, it's not just a one bill, it's not just a one conversation, it's not just a one project that's gonna uh kind of turn things around, but or turn things around or bring that momentum, but it's kind of a holistic thing.

So it's always good to hear from the people that you actually do the work and have been doing the work to um get educated and actually listen uh to what's going on.

So thank you.

We'd like to add one thing to that.

So I at City Foundry, we've brought a lot of um tenants that they're only locations in St.

Louis, like Animo, Huck and whatnot.

And I've had these investors from all over the country.

I will tell you when they come to St.

Louis, especially when we drive them around the area around City Foundry, they're like, wow, I had no idea.

And that's why I talked earlier about the narrative of St.

Louis versus the reality of it.

Our main investor in the phase two is out of Boston.

I took them to Art Hill.

They jumped out of their car to take a photo.

I mean, they had no idea about St.

Louis.

So I do think that we are misperceived in this country, and that's working against us with investors with potential national tenants, with attracting jobs here, a lot of that.

So um that's why we need I think a unified voice um and to counteract some of the press you mentioned about earlier, which is just picking on ourselves.

So um anyway, I it's it's reassuring when people come here, they get excited about what they see.

Yes, I echo that.

Uh I always say I got a lot of friends in the the media world being like, you know, you guys can talk a little bit more positive, and at least we can also do that uh on our end how to talk about stuff because we are being watched and media also picks up on some of the things.

And one thing at the foundry that I love is the VR.

I went there to do uh the squid game VR, and it was uh it was very fun.

So I think I came in second, but you know, I think I was cheated to watch the report.

Vice Chair Sange.

Thank you, uh Madam Chair.

Um I've as I'm part of SLDC's board, I feel like I've gotten to get a lot of insight on this conversation.

And um, you know, I feel like as you guys got to see today, a kind of a little bit more of a spicier conversation around this thing.

I think that um it's something that we hear about all the time as alders.

Um I think that this type of engagement is is good.

Um, you know, something that I basically decided upon myself to do in the community is sometimes invite developers themselves.

Because I think sometimes there's a bit of um dehumanization for developers and a lot of uh kind of monolithic categories of them.

And I think you know, rightfully so, people have a lot of fear and suspicion sometimes that arise when they hear about something.

And so whenever we can have conversations with each other, whenever we can hum humify, sorry, humanize um, you know, developers, whenever even for residents explaining to them the differences and the nuances of projects and really um explaining to them the financial process, I find to be you know really helpful.

I do represent a constituency that's very bold, um, and they're very clear about what they want and what they don't want, but they're also very open to conversation.

And if you can explain something to them and you have a logic, they're on board.

But you know, I think especially right now, even outside of my area, if you go over to like the tornado impacted areas, you know, distrust is runs rapid with government.

And I think some of that distrust seeps over to our development process.

So I'm just glad that this was on our agenda today that we could have this conversation.

Um I think it's really good.

I would welcome the opportunity to have this conversation.

I wish our room was a little bit fuller as some of our other conversations, but I think it should be something that should be you know ongoing.

And I think there's a real question, you know, as we talk about things that are alders responsibility.

I think some of us too, sometimes with our language and the words and the way that we talk about our city are not always the best.

And I know some of us have had conversations in this committee where we were, you know, telling folks in front of us, let's be mindful of our language and how we describe things.

And I just think we have to be intentional about making sure we're balancing our need to grow.

And I do understand there's a need to grow, that we have a declining population base with also residents, you know, the history of our city and the history of the country.

Um, and that sometimes communities have grown at other communities' expense.

Um, and so I just really appreciate you all for being here today for having this conversation.

I look forward to to having it more.

Um and I'm glad that you guys got to see a little bit more of a robust, spicier conversation so that you could at least know, even if we don't always agree all the time, you know, we do all share a passion for our city, and I think we do all want to see our passion uh to grow and represent the different mindsets that exist within our communities.

Thank you.

All right.

Um did we have any closing remarks or if not, do you all have any closing?

I just want to end by thanking you all for giving us this opportunity.

Uh I just wanted to be sure uh as I say that that while I was standing in this uh seat that or sitting in this seat that I did bring uh to you the attention to your attention the issues that we have here.

our city and I think we do all want to see our passion uh to grow and represent the different mindsets that exist within our communities thank you all right um did we have any closing remarks or if not do you all have any closure i just want to end by thanking you all for giving us this opportunity uh i just wanted to be sure uh as i say that that while i was standing in this uh seat that are sitting in this seat that i did bring uh to you the attention the to your attention the issues that we have here which is the i call it getting the confidence of the investor and finance community community and the perception rightly or wrongly that that group has uh on our ability to get things done and so um as you all are uh looking at things uh look at ways that and we will as well ways that we can uh change that narrative uh and if there are things that we have uh as rules or things that we are asking people to do that we think are inhibiting uh that process that we uh look at how we might change change it um i i always have this this thing about we are uh at a point where uh and i i said this to the to uh a couple of the uh folks that i were meeting with the other day where it says that we're down to where we are fighting uh particularly the uh folks who are trying to get jobs we're down to fighting over uh the i call it the scraps we don't have a good inventory of of jobs out there for people to uh work at and so uh as we uh looking at the few jobs that we have we are trying to everybody has a lot of time on their hands and they're looking at every little thing on each other's jobs it's like people are grading each other's papers to the nth degree uh we we need to allow the work to be done so that we can get other work uh in there thank you so much thank you all thank you all thank you very good madam clerk do we have any resolutions for review we have none uh acknowledgement of any written testimony we have one regarding uh pertaining to board bill 66 in the drive okay uh any announcements members other than I will announce that if anybody is still out there watching and you or your neighbor or someone you know um did not meet the February 28th deadline to apply for the personal property assistance program through STA Recovers they are still accepting applications and still request I'm still accepting submissions so please even if you don't know what you need but you know you do need some kind of help as you continue to navigate your recovery process from the May 16th tornado take advantage of the fact that that um application process is still open you can go to STA or recover is online uh our members were present this morning so with that I'll accept a motion to adjourn it was moved by Alderman Cohn and seconded by Ottawa Browning with a call for previous role by auto woman swisser with no objections we are adjourned everyone have a blessed day