Good morning.

Today is May the 4th.

This is a budget public employees committee.

It is 9 42.

Madam Clerk, please call the row.

Alder Woman Sanyer.

Present.

Vice Chair Browning.

Present.

Alder Woman Velazquez.

Alderman Devotee.

Chair Aldrich.

Present.

Five present.

We have quorum.

Thank you.

With that, we have established a quorum.

The next order of business will be the approval of minutes.

I'll take a motion to approve minutes from Wednesday, May 25th, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

This is moved by the Alder Woman from the seventh.

Second by the Alder Woman from the sixth.

Madam Clerk, please call the row.

Alder Woman Sanyer.

Aye.

Vice Chair Browning.

Aye.

Alder Woman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alderman Devotee.

Chair Aldrich.

Aye.

Five I votes.

With that, we have approved the minutes from Wednesday, March 25th, 2026.

Next order of business will be board bills for review.

We have in front of us board bill number one, which we will hold as we go through those department by department.

Board bill number nine, we will take up today.

So I will turn the chairmanship over to Vice Chair Browning as I present board bill number nine.

Thank you.

Alderman Aldrich, you are recognized on board bill number nine at this time.

Thank you, Mr.

Vice Chair, members of the budget and public committee.

Board bill number nine that is in front of us is uh a one-time uh payment to our city employees of a thousand dollars.

Um what we're doing with this uh legislation.

Also have the director here is we are trying to move very quick on this because this payout will come from the 2026 budget fiscal year, as we are now working to the 2027.

Uh if I'm not mistaken, I believe there was leftover funds in the 2026 budget year.

So uh we want to get this passed as quick as possible so that we can make sure our civil service employees who work extremely hard um is kind of a way to incentivize them to just say uh thank you uh for all the great work that they do.

Eventually there will be a future pay bill that goes uh to the three percent for all employees.

But again, what we're trying to do is uh get this done so that uh city employees can get a one-time uh lump sum, or I would say appreciation for all the hard work, which we can't uh the a thousand dollars probably not enough to appreciate them, but um it's a start I would say from uh the city of St.

Louis that just tried to show to our employees that we are thankful for all the great work they do.

I do have the director of personnel here if he wants to say a few words unless that was digits for the record, Brian Light, uh director of personnel for the city of St.

Louis.

Uh that was a great sum-up, and that's exactly what we want to do.

The the only other thing that the bill does is increases the uh pay rates uh for employees in the probationary fire private, fire private and probationary fire equipment dispatcher and fire equipment dispatcher job classification by seven percent in order to provide parity with the St.

Louis uh police department.

We're required by charter to provide that parity, and so that that piece is in this bill as well, so we can get that done as quickly as possible in addition to the thousand dollar lump sum payment.

All right, thank you.

Um we'll go through the committee to see if anyone has any questions, uh starting with auto woman.

Uh thank you, uh Vice Chair Browning.

Um, I don't really have any questions.

I'm grateful.

I think this is great for our workers.

Um, I think it obviously does raise uh a flag that I'm sure is on all of our minds.

Um the parity between the fire department and the police department with all of the ongoing conversations that we have in that budget, you know, that is something that's um, you know, I think just a flag that I would definitely want to note for anyone who's watching at home and I know is on many folks' minds, but I think uh, you know, this legislation in general to show appreciation to our workforce is a is a good move and something I'm in support of and I would like to be added as co-sponsor.

Thank you.

Uh Alder Woman Velasquez.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Similarly to Alderwoman Sunye, uh, want to say thank you to Director Light and uh Alderman Aldrich for doing something like this.

Obviously, we know that uh long-term goal is to increase everyone's wages to to at least get closer to market rate than we are now, but also um I don't want to say it's a creative use, it is a creative use, but it also is a really good use of that money that we have to say thank you to our workers.

So thank you for your creativity in this short time and getting it done, and thank you to Alderman Alderman to create the spill.

And I would also like to be added as a co-sponsor, Madam Clerk.

Have no question.

So note it.

Alderman Devotee.

No questions.

Uh thank you.

Uh I also have no questions.

Uh appreciate this being brought.

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

So noted.

Back to you, Alderman, for uh closing.

Thank you.

Uh, I do again uh I do want to thank Director Light.

Alderman.

Uh uh one second.

I I forgot to ask.

Does it is there any public testimony on board bill nine public testimony on board bill nine.

Good catcher.

I sure I didn't see any written testimonies in the drive.

And no, I do not have any on nine.

All right, thank you, Madam Clerk.

All right, Alderman.

Now you're recognized to close.

Uh thank you to Director Light.

Uh, I'm sure some way somehow he's a money guy.

I'm sure Paul had something to do with it.

If he did, give him his flowers now.

Because he is this has been his super bowl uh with working on the budget.

Uh thank you to uh both of them for like the Alderman from the sixth ed, creating uh a creative way to just show appreciation that will be later down the line uh pace study that will uh increase the wages of city employees.

Um but we wanted to make sure that this gets done first as this would be coming out of the 26th budget.

With that, I would ask for a do pass recommendation on board bill number nine.

Thank you.

At this time, I'll accept the motion for a due pass recommendation for board bill number nine.

So moved second.

Moved by the alder woman from the sixth, seconded by the alder woman from the seventh.

Uh Madam Cork, please call roll.

Alderwoman Sonye.

Aye.

Vice Chair Browning.

Aye.

Alderwoman Velasquez.

Hi.

Alderman Devotee.

Hi.

Chair Aldrake.

Aye.

Five I votes.

With that, Board Bill Nine has passed.

And we'll send it back to you, Alderman Aldrich.

I could stretch it.

If somebody else on our show.

All right.

With that, uh, we will move to the next item of business since board bill number one is being held.

And we will have committee discussion on board bill number one, which is the city general operating budget.

Um, just to give kind of a little bit of uh process of how the budget works in the city of St.

Louis.

So each year, uh the city of St.

Louis fiscal year is a little different.

So our fiscal year actually begins on July 1 and it ends on the third.

Um the budget process begins typically in the fall with the budget division issuing requests for department revenue estimates.

At the same time, department heads are asked to identify any new initiatives or programs so that may be included in the budget process.

In January, uh there's a preliminary revenue estimate uh that comes from the fiscal year and incorporated any new initiatives.

Uh the budget department respond by submitting their budget or departments respond by submitting their budget requests uh to our budget director.

Roughly in February, the budget division hold budget meetings with those departments and administrations to discuss their proposed budget.

In April, uh the board uh prepares the budget and then it goes in front of ENA.

ENA is made up of the comproller, the president, and the mayor.

Uh typically the budget director, our all-star Mr.

Paul Payne will present the budget uh to ENA.

Then the ENA will have a one-time public hearing to hear from the community.

I do want to thank everybody that came out a few weeks ago.

I think the mayor and the president said that was most community people they had seen in their time.

And then after the community input, a week later, it is voted out.

Once it is voted out, the budget comes in front of us, the board of Alderman, where I always say we do the kind of best job by going through the full budget, department by department uh from various departments from refuse to fire uh to pretty much every major department of the city of St.

Louis to actually go line by line to hear their budget.

We at the Board of Alderman are required to actually get a budget done and sent back to uh ENA for their approval uh by again July 1st.

If there's any changes made to the budget, which this committee has made changes in the last year, if it's been uh for uh impacted tenants fund or building division and refuse workers, uh those changes then have to go back to ENA and they have to approve them and then they have to come back to the budget committee before we send it to the full floor and then voted out.

Uh first we will have director uh Paul Payne come up and give an overview of the city's budget.

Um bless you all the woman.

This year is a little different.

One of probably the most critical departments in the city of St.

Louis that uh it makes up a large chunk of the budget is the police department, which this year they have decided not to present their budget.

Uh, after the budget is the overview budget is presented by Paul Payne.

Um, if there are any like high-level questions that members may have over the police budget, uh you can ask them.

Mr.

Paul Payne is limited to some of those questions because we do not work for the department, so uh tricky situation this year, but we'll try to high-level go over the police department outside of the general operating budget for the whole city of St.

Louis.

So with that, Mr.

Payne, you can come on up.

Madam Clerk, do we have the presentation ready?

And then after uh Mr.

Payne presented his budget, we will have questions for the committee.

If you are in the room or if you're online, uh if you're in the room, make sure you sign up.

There's a sign-up sheet over to the right where we would take public testimony, and then if you're online when we get to the public testimony part, we will have you raise your hand so that uh we can make sure that you're recognized.

Whenever you're ready, Director Payne, you may present the FY27 fiscal year budget.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman, and good morning, members of the committee.

The proposed FY27 annual operating plan totals 1.41 billion dollars.

It's a modest 0.5% increase over the prior fiscal year.

And then this first graphic you'll see on the presentation, it breaks up the budget within a number of fund categories, the largest of which is the general fund, which is our main operating fund.

It stands at a proposed $637.1 million dollars.

That's a 4.9% increase.

If you remember last year when I stood before you, we were addressing uh a reduction in the general fund due to the um refunds that were uh coming from earnings and payroll tax receipts.

So we weathered that storm somewhat, and so uh much of the the increase this year is uh because that was that that's series is over now.

And we've seen revenues sort of leveling off.

Uh and I'll get to that a little bit, but talking about the refund levels, it's slightly higher than what it was before, but it's not uh uh as much as certainly not as much as what we experienced last year.

The overall growth in revenue I've got about 1.7%.

In the special revenue categories, uh 257.6 million dollars, that's a 3.9% increase.

Uh the use tax, we've appropriated some uh available balances there of $5.9 million dollars.

Um we also have some miscellaneous uh funds that are increasing $3.7 million, and uh the gaming fund is up by about a million dollars.

In the grant fund categories at 71.9 million dollars, that's a 18.3% decrease.

A big chunk of that is if you remember last year, we appropriated 20 million dollars in interest uh monies.

Uh that's that was a one-time.

We do have 5 million of our interest appropriated.

It's not particularly a grant, but it's in that fund.

And so that's why you see that decline there.

Um in the debt service fund, that's 13.1 million dollars.

That fund is utilized to pay property tax debt, uh property tax levied supported debt.

Um, and there's that's basically flat in the current fiscal year.

Capital improvement funds, 50.4 million dollars.

That's a 17.9% decline.

Uh, as you know, in the capital fund, there has a there are a number of sources, the half cent sales tax, there are park sales taxes and other uh miscellaneous funds.

But then the biggest driver in the variability from year to year has been how much of a prior year surplus we had.

Now, in the last couple of years, we've had uh significant surplus so that we were able to use that.

Last year it was not so much.

And so what you're seeing is uh decline uh in those available funds, so you'll see a smaller capital improvement fund uh coming up this year.

In the enterprise fund categories, which is water and airport division, uh $335.2 million dollars, basically flat is about 0.9% decrease.

Uh water division is down by $5 million, and you'll see airport budget is up by $2.2 million.

And then in the internal service funds categories of $49.9 million, that is down 5.7%.

The internal service funds are those funds where departments are charging each other for various services.

The largest one uh last year that we implemented was the one where we had four departments charged or are uh providing services to the police department as a way of accounting for those services.

During the fiscal year, the police department have absorbed both the the personnel department personnel's police unit as well as the legal unit, and so those two have gone away.

So what remains is the equipment services piece as well as facilities management.

So you see a uh decline there in from about 16 million dollars to 10 million dollars.

And as the graphic shows, the general fund is 45 percent of the budget.

Next slide, please.

And these uh several next pages of going over some of our major uh revenue sources.

Uh in the first page, earning some payroll taxes, as I mentioned last year, we had a significant decline because of the refunds, and so this year you see the the big jump.

The fiscal year today to 46.6 percent.

Of course, that's skewed by the re uh refunds we did last year.

Umholdings, so I when you want to say, well, how much is it actually growing if you extract out of the noise?

Uh the withholdings are up 3.7 percent.

So we are still still seeing some growth through the third quarter of the current fiscal year.

In the payroll tax, it was the same phenomenon.

Uh it was up 14.2 percent, but it's it but it was not as dramatic as the early tax.

Uh results uh were again skewed by the refunds.

Underlying receipts up a little bit more modestly at 1.7 percent through the fiscal third quarter.

This next slide.

Uh in the sales tax, um, if you recall last year, we actually had a decline of 4.6 percent in the sales tax.

Uh so in this year it put a modest increase, and we actually are it actually has bounced back a little bit.

It's up 3.6 percent through the third quarter.

Again, the the sales tax is not a strong growth uh grower uh on the on revenues.

Uh its tenure growth rates are about 1.2 percent.

Uh but it has in more recent years when with inflation rising, it has gone up a bit.

Um, but uh it usually trails that of the other taxes.

The local use tax, on the other hand, also is up 2.8 percent, and it was down last year.

Uh it is becoming more and more taking on more and more characteristics of the sales tax, and that is more consumer-driven as opposed to business driven.

Um last year it was down 5.3 percent, and uh and last year it was down 5.3 percent, but it's 10-year growth rate is over.

And the next slide.

In restaurant and hotel tax receipts, we've had a divergence of trends, and the restaurant gross receipts are up about uh 7.6 percent through the fiscal third quarter, uh, and then it has a growth rate of about 2.7 percent.

And contrast contrast that with the hotel tax receipts, which were down 5.8 percent.

So this year our receipts have declined.

And uh, but their growth rate is 4.6 percent over the last 10 years.

And so this is just a snapshot of both the general fund and some of their major special revenue funds.

If if you remember last year when I was before you, there was a lot of red ink on this page because of the earnings and payroll taxes and sales tax declines.

Uh if you look, um, the FY26 estimate of all these funds was 777 million through the third quarter, we're tracking about 804, so that would be 26 over that estimate.

Um so the uh general fund is about 18.7 tracking through the third quarter overestimate.

Uh the FY27 estimate, which we'll get into uh shortly, um we've got about a 1.7 percent overall uh estimated growth.

Now, before I get into the actual general fund details, I just wanted to this page sort of hot gives you overall highlights regardless of fund.

Um in employee pay and benefits, as as the chair discussed earlier, we have a proposed uh $18 million allocated for pay increases for various uh city employee groups.

Uh one of them is entry level salaries are being brought up to within 5% of market with the help with the to help with some of the recruiting are our vacant positions.

Other in other individuals who are not affected by that adjustment, we'll get a 3% across the board increase.

And of course, it incorporates the 7% pay increases, which were approved for uniform police and firefighters.

There is a 3.8% $3.8 million increase in health insurance, which is up about 5.3%.

And that includes a $1.6 million increase for the police retiree health benefit, which is in their police department budget.

And overall pension costs went down by $6.5 million, reflecting the approved market uh returns from the last year across all four systems.

In emergency housing and neighborhood stabilization, we've got two million dollars special initiative for the forestry division, you'll be hearing from for their weed and debris cleanup.

Mostly it's for catching up those things.

They have contractors who do weed and mowing and things like that, but oftentimes you're going to have some overgrown areas that they need to address that can't be typically reached by those efforts.

And so this hopefully we'll uh address those.

There's two million dollars to continue the code blue emergency housing program through the local use tax, uh four million dollar increase for building uh derelict building demolition, uh again local use tax funds as well as Prop P use tax funds, a million dollar increase for the right to council housing initiative, and a million dollar increase for continuing support of the tiny homes program.

And public safety, as I mentioned, there's an $8.6 million increase to the police department, including a 4.3% uh which is a 4.3% overall increase, including pay increase.

That excluded grant funds.

Uh a five million dollar reappropriation of ARPA interest to fund the completion of the PSAP.

As you know, the PSAP uh we're bringing to conclusion, uh at least construction conclusion with the uh funds from ARPA as well as capital funds and proposed GOB general obligation bond funds.

Uh $2 million increase to the department division of corrections for overtime and inmate medical costs, and a $300,000 plus increase to SEMA for additional staff and contract for emergency planning.

Other services, we've got $5 million increase to meet the rising cost of police related judgments.

You'll see a significant increase in the city counselor's office.

Uh 1.3 million million dollar increase of the street department, 600,000 of that is for uh salt uh replenishing the salt supply to bring their total up to a million dollars, and contract snow removal.

Half a million dollars are for the traffic division to conduct a study of street signage and striping inventory, and a two million uh two hundred thousand dollar increase in refuse for its abandoned uh for its picking up and uh removing abandoned tires.

Two six two point six million dollar increase for equipment services and facilities management related to the their uh maintenance and uh efforts of facilities as well as equipment.

Uh the million dollars for a board of election commissioners because it's an election year next year, and we have four scheduled elections, and then a half million dollar general fund subsidy, the communications division.

That's our first time we'll be doing that as opposed uh because their revenue source, which is the uh table franchise fee, is declining.

Total overall workforce changes, it's a net reduction of 22 positions in the general fund and a reduction of 82 positions across all funds.

Okay, um, the next slide uh go into details with the general funds specifically.

So in the uh original estimates for FY26 at 607.4 million dollars.

As I mentioned, through the third quarter, we're tracking about 18.7 million dollars.

If you add in the net growth assumptions for next year of 1.7 percent, that adds another 10.9 million.

That gives you a revenue base to work with of about 637.1 million dollars.

So if you take the beginning base budget for FY26, which is 607.4, uh what I've identified below are some of the increases and decreases uh in the various departments.

And I won't go through all of them, but I'll I'll highlight some of the larger ones.

As I mentioned, the the in general government uh the biggest ones there you'll see are under city counselor.

Uh the increased judgment accounts uh of about eight million dollars.

Typically, we have we budget about six million dollars per year for judgments, four million through the police department and two million for everyone else.

Um this year we're proposing eleven million dollars, of which 10 million will be in the city counselor's office and one million those be in the police department.

That's just to reflect the ongoing activity and increase activity related to judgments.

ones there you'll see are under city counselor uh the increased judgment accounts uh of about eight million dollars typically we have we budget about six million dollars per year for judgments four million through the police department and two million for everyone else um this year we're proposing eleven million dollars of which ten million will be in the city counselor's office and one million those be in the police department that's just to reflect the ongoing activity and increase activity related to judgments in the department uh well and they also have some uh additional contract contractual services to address some of those uh costs of cases in the finance uh some miscellaneous reductions within other increases within department uh the comptroller's office the next slide uh in the citywide accounts citywide accounts is that department we call is with with the number 190 and we call it citywide accounts because it's not specific to any one department is sort of a collect all for things that uh uh we we uh pay for uh uh regardless of department or it's it's sort of a holding account for those uh items and the biggest change there is if you remember last year we had that 10 million dollars for salary adjustment well that has been just now distributed across the departments so you're not gonna see that in the 1900 that's why you see a decline there other items uh we've got a refuse fee uh collection fee service there the collector of revenue that's 2000 dollar increase and I mentioned that subsidy to the communications division you'll see that in the again and that's in 190's department or or cost center in in and then we have some decline in the courthouse capital debt uh to the capital fund of $800,000 in the Department of Parks Recreation and Forestry there are some increases uh forestry particularly the forestry division adds five positions for weed and debris and a decrease in per performance and contract services offsetting that uh somewhat um in the county offices as I mentioned the biggest increase you're gonna see there is the million dollars for the Board of Elections because we have four elections next year and then that it goes up and down based on how our election schedules work in judicial offices uh the count uh the the circuit court actually submitted their budget requests and they incorporated within their request a 4.5% increase so uh uh and of course we're required to appropriate with the recourts uh request and so those two increases between the circuit court as well as the juvenile division uh as well as some other contract uh increases in contractual services are 1.2 million and 1.7 million dollars respectively the circuit attorney uh is up at 0.9 million uh next year but it also has some reductions in the special fund category which offset part of that increase and the sheriff is net increase of two positions of about 300 thousand dollars uh net uh offsetting with some miscellaneous cuts I'm in the next slide I mentioned some of the street division uh changes uh some of those incorporate uh the director of streets is actually just moving some positions from uh their five ten cost center to towing uh the telecom positions the traffic uh the traffic divisions and cutting vacate five vacant positions with limited increases in supporting accounts I'm gonna I'm gonna mention you're gonna uh as we go through this I I forgot to mention that there are a number of uh departments where we cut some vacant positions and reduce the salary savings you're gonna see that more so in corrections but we're trying to shrink the TO to reflect what's actually occurring and sort of right sizing that there's a long long way to go on that but there are some reductions of vacant position pattern throughout this budget.

In the street uh towing I mentioned uh with the new uh the telecom positions moved to that in the street division uh they're adding 235k for salt uh replenishment that's brings that account to about a million dollars and uh 400,000 item for contract snow removal uh they also have a number of uh vacant positions cut as well and the refuse division one vacant position uh the debt service for their facility is actually expired now so that item went away and but then we got an increase of uh 200,000 dollars for tires and throughout this budget as well you're gonna see some increases in the in the gas fuel accounts and refuse is one of the larger users of those in the police department uniform salaries increased about seven percent and we've got uh overtime and uh civilian salaries are up by 2.2 million overtime is up 400,000 uh it includes some items in there that were not actually uh within the original request but we have to budget for and that's namely retiree medical as one of the largest uh it's about a 16 million dollar item and it's 1.6 million dollar increase over the current fiscal year the legal services contractual and judgment accounts 2.7 million dollar increase and then um the uh the internal services account uh I wanted to point that out that was where I was talking about it before where we had four departments that were being that were in a special fund the special internal services account fund the to charge uh the police department now again two of those have gone away uh the as they were incorporated or absorbed within the the police department that was plea that was in personnel and legal and so that 16 point 2 million dollar item that was in uh their budget this year is down to 10 million dollars or it was 16 plus I'll say that and and so it's down to 10.

Now, again, two of those have gone away as they were incorporated or absorbed within the police department.

That was poly that was in personnel and legal.

And so that $16.2 million item that was in their budget this year is down to $10 million.

Or it was $16 plus, I'll say that.

And so it's down to $10.

So that's why you see that decline of $6.2 million.

But overall in the general fund, they are up $12.9 million.

And police pension, as I mentioned, uh all the four systems were down, uh had declined by $3.1 million.

In the fire department, uh the largest increase is related to uh pay, and as you familiar with the fire uh fighters get the pay parity revision.

Uh so when the police uh uniforms get an increase, they get the same increase, and it's up seven percent.

That is the largest increase, uh the largest uh uh increase within their budget, uh, which also contributes to an increase in overtime.

So that uh department itself is up by six point one million dollars.

Fire pension, both FRS and FRP declined one point.

In other areas uh public safety, uh the director of public safety is up a couple hundred thousand dollars.

It includes a hundred and seven thousand dollar line item and cons and contractual services for PSAP consultant.

Uh CEMA, as I mentioned earlier, includes a couple of new positions as well as about 50 grand in in uh contractual planning for its office.

Excise commissioner, one new liquor control officer.

Uh they cite uh increased workload in working with the state uh to force their video gaming uh issue.

The building division, that reduction of three vacant positions, but includes a hundred and 160K in contractual services.

Uh neighborhood stabilizations, pretty flat.

City Justice Center, as I mentioned, we've cut 25 vacant uh positions and reduced the salary savings, but their big increase is over overtime, uh 450,000, and then in their meetle meals and medical contracts, so that the total budget for them is up two million dollars.

Um let me see, the director of human services.

Uh it includes 70K for decommissioning tiny homes, but we had have a million dollars in their use tax fund to fund uh continuation of the tiny homes.

Um in Board of Public Service, the largest increases I mentioned were facilities management.

You'll see increases in the utility uh lines and contractual maintenance increases as well as equipment services, which includes contractual maintenance increases as well.

So the total increase in the general funds just under 30 million dollars, 29.7 million dollars, bringing the total budget to 637.1, and that's a balanced budget.

The next slide.

On the uh next slide, we we're we're discussing uh general fund revenue outlook.

So this uh illustration shows the various components of the major sources of revenue to the general fund.

In the earnings tax, as I mentioned, the estimated receipts are 255.1 million dollars.

It's a two percent increase over the current fiscal year.

Um as I mentioned, uh again uh the trends have been there is still underlying growth there.

Uh the refunds that we're encountering now, though slightly higher than before the pandemic, are not as high as we had anticipated coming into this current fiscal year.

So that's a good thing.

And um, so as long as there's continued growth, we haven't seen any decline there.

The property tax, however, we do uh anticipate some uh reduction in the under growth in uh property tax values, mostly related to the uh tornado, because that's gonna have an impact on our valuations.

We typically have something like a uh two percent growth through new construction, but something close to approaching four percent reduction astimated through the tornado receipts, which means you'd have something like on the order of a two million two percent decrease.

So uh uh in adjusting for the rate that's available uh uh that we are authorized to charge the it would result in something close to flat in in the in the real property tax category, a slight increase in the personal property.

In the sales taxes, $63.8 million dollars, again, reflecting the growth we had this year, but actually somewhat conservative in the next year of a one percent growth rate, closer to the 10-year uh growth rate we've experienced.

Now I know this is a small item, but I I I bring it up because it's uh it's it's relatively new and people are interested in this.

On the marijuana sales tax, uh we had uh estimated $1.7 million.

It is coming in at $1.4 million.

And I've got a $1.4 million estimate for next year.

I understand there's a lot of things going on at Jeff City to address some of that.

Uh I I suspect that there's a big part of the market that we're not capturing in some of these receipts.

Um so hopefully that will it'll be interesting to see whether we start beginning to see that return to um on the revenue side.

Payroll tax receipts at estimated at $47.7 million.

Again, that's uh up from last year of $47.2 revised estimate and one point one percent increase uh over the current fiscal year.

And franchise utility taxes, $62.7 million.

That's a $12.7% increase.

The big uh increases here are that this year we're falling short simply because water division has lagged behind in paying its uh share of the gross receipts.

We do expect that those to resume next year, and that would be about a five million dollar difference uh from where they're at to this year.

And then the airport also has submitted a gross receipts estimate of about $9 million, which is almost $2 million higher than the current fiscal year.

Intergovernmental receipts at $21.6%, $21.6 million, that's a 4.5% increase.

Uh licenses primarily flat at $13.1 million.

Uh departmental receipts of $59.5 million, the slight decrease or a modesty increase of $4.8%.

And then the other category uh $29.5 million, including a 2.3% decline.

Um a lot of those revenues include uh miscellaneous transfer, but one of those is the telecom tax receipts, which we've seen uh over the years has been on a downward trajectory.

On the next slide, it's the general fund expenditure outlook.

Uh and I won't repeat uh what I've gone through through the highlights, but in general government, you can see up 47.2 million or up to 47.2 million, which is 27.2 percent increase, that reflects the increase in that judgment account, uh, which is in the city counselor's office.

The decline in nondepartmental receipts, that 22.3% decline to 33.6 million, that reflects the $10 million that we had budgeted in this year for pay, which has been distributed across the departments.

Um circuit court reflects their pay increases and election board at $13 million, that's a $10.5% increase.

Again, that's their million dollar increase for scheduled elections.

And um facilities management is up and ESD up by 8%.

That's $37.6 million in Board of Public Service.

Again, the total general fund budget at $637.1 million dollars.

Public safety is $51.8% of that.

Next slide.

In the special fund categories, the local use tax fund is probably the largest, and it's budgeted at $73.3 million.

The use tax fund uh was up 2.8% year to date.

It's revised estimate of $60.2 million, plus raw uh appropriating balances that had accrued within a number of these accounts as one-time uh efforts to address some certain initiatives.

Uh I've got the affordable housing commission at uh which receives five million dollars per year, but its budget is six point seven million dollars as it's appropriate in 1.7 million dollars available to that account.

Healthcare trust fund uh is receives five million dollars per year also, and we're appropriating six million dollars uh again, a million dollars from that account, and then building demo uh is three million dollars per year, and we're budgeting at $2.5 million, which is remains unspent from prior years, uh so it's a $5.5 million uh total.

And then the excess use tax account, we have various departments that are funded that from that source.

The city counselor's affirmative litigation unit at uh $700,000.

And then I've got that forestry division weed and debris initiative.

That's the one-time initiative utilizing existing uh use tax funds of two million dollars.

Refuge division's bulky pickup at $1.1 million, building division housing conservation at uh $3 million, uh Office of Violence Prevention, that's where that is that's where that program is funded in the local use tax fund at $8.8 million.

Uh fire retirement and police retirement are also a portion of that is in there.

Uh police department and police pension, that's $20.3 million, that's down $3.8 million from that source.

Um the health department, this is the primary funding source, local funding source for the health department at $13.7 million.

And then the human services uh, as I mentioned, uh the code blue program is funded within that department, as well as the uh $1 million right to council initiative is also funded within the human services department in the local use tax fund.

In the economic development sales tax fund, the uh this again is uh allocated by ordinance.

60% of the economic development sales tax is uh goes to transit.

And at the end of the current fiscal year, it's projected to be have 101 million dollars in an account.

And next year would be 14.3 in addition.

Uh 10% goes to neighborhood stabilization of which uh PDA and CDA uh divvy up those funds, 1.9 million dollars for PDA, including half a million dollars to SLDC, and CDA includes 1.2 million for neighborhood uh revitalization.

Now of the 10% that goes to workforce uh development, slate is the primary recipient of three and a half million dollars, and director of human services also receives a million and a half for a total of five million dollar budget.

10% goes to public safety infrastructure.

The Comptroller's Office supports the 911 increment uh of half a million dollars.

CEMA also has their mass uh notification system funded there of 100,000, but the largest uh allocation of that piece is for the PSAP of 1.8 million dollars.

And then another the remaining 10 percent is budgeted within the capital fund of 2.4 million dollars.

In the next slide, the uh half cent public safety sales tax use tax known as Prop P it's another allocation uh determined by ordinance.

66 percent goes to the police department of the 23.8 million dollar sales tax uh with a budget of 15.5 million dollars.

28 percent is allocated to the fire department, and six percent is allocated to the circuit attorney, uh, and there are some various balances there uh with a total of 24.9 million dollars budgeted.

And the there is a along with Prop P, which was a half cent sales tax, there was an increase in the use tax.

And the use tax also was allocated in a proportionally by ordinance with these percentages.

25 percent is allocated to after school and summer jobs programs of that amount.

Director of public safety has uh 0.5 million dollars, the police cadet program is 0.7 million, and a one-time slate summer jobs program was added at $1 million, bringing that share up to $2.2 million.

The circuit attorney is 7.7 percent, so that's in addition to their 6% of the sales tax itself, and that's half a million dollars.

The recreation division gets 25%, and they they use that for recreational programming, about $2 million.

Building demolition, uh, they get $17.3%.

Um, but this also incorporates, as I mentioned, uh, we're allocating funds that have not been spent in prior years of $2.7 million, bringing that total appropriation to $3.8 million.

And $25% is allocated as a social work and mental health to the Department of Human Services for $2.4 million.

So that portion, the use tax portion of the Prop P sales tax is $10.9 million.

On the next slide, I discuss the capital fund.

The capital fund is budgeted at $50.4 million dollars.

As I mentioned, that's a decrease of $11 million from the previous fiscal year.

And as and is also, as I mentioned, the reason for that decrease is the smaller operating surplus for the prior fiscal year.

Uh there have been years where we don't have a surplus.

So anytime we do, uh, that's a good thing.

We are able to allocate it's a one-time source, one-time use that we allocate to the capital fund.

Um but this year uh it was of the surplus, it was $9.35 million, $4.1 million, as you recall, maybe uh it was allocated to the flood wall uh program, which left the capital fund with $5.3 million.

And so you can see the allocations.

Uh the half cent sales tax is the largest source, uh, and those are allocated by ordinance.

Of course, you as a older people get $10.7 million for projects within your wards, uh and then various uh accounts 20% goes to citywide projects, $17% goes to uh major parks, 3% goes to recreation, and 10% of that uh half cent sales tax goes to police.

And also in the box uh next to the graphic, there I've just identified those projects that got the uh surplus funds, uh, everything from ADA transition planning to uh parks and public safety, EMS vehicles and and uh other municipal building improvements.

The next slide highlights some of the changes in personnel totals, as I mentioned.

Uh the total uh general fund $4,696 positions went down by 22 positions, special funds at 642 positions went down by 59.

Uh grant funds at 179 positions went down by 10, and the enterprise funds at 898 went up by nine.

That's a total uh for all funds at 600 6,415 positions down by 82.

And the next slide just puts that in a historical perspective.

The last 10 years, uh the general fund is down by 349 positions, special funds are up by 185, grant funds are down by 120, and the enterprise funds are holding at about a 15 position increase.

So the overall decrease over the last 10 years is about 26 positions.

Moving on to pension costs, as I mentioned, the budgeted contributions for pensions is down by 6.5 million dollars, uh reflecting the improved market performance in the past year.

This graphic shows uh each of the well combined the four systems we have.

Uh we have uh the public uh the police retirement system, we also have the the fire retirement system, which is frozen, and then the active fire retirement plan, which are both uh managed by the uh FRS board.

Then we have the employee retirement system, uh and so that's our four systems we talk about.

And the total uh the total cost of all those contributions and costs associated with the pension systems is 101.4 million dollars.

In terms of the next in the next slide, it shows what the funding status is.

Um lot of uh numbers on this page, but I think it's important to go over them.

Um the systems fairly well systems are fairly well funded, they're close to around 80 percent or plus or 80 percent or more, which is what you want to see.

However, they are very expensive to maintain, as I mentioned, it's over 104 million dollars in the budget to maintain them.

Um in ERS, the uh funded status was is on an actual basis is 76.1 percent, but you also see uh market in with markets uh there's two numbers there.

One is for the actuarial estimate, uh smoothed over a period of years, and then the actual market uh what it was at the end of last uh September.

And the market is 79 percent.

So there are some gains that haven't been recognized yet.

Of course, this can be affected by every year.

Um the plan each plan year ends at the end of September.

In the fire uh retirement area, the uh FRS is uh funded at 91.7 percent, and the market uh funding is 96.3 percent.

In FRP, it's funded at 80.6 percent with the market at 84 percent, and police at 83.2 percent uh with market at 87.8 percent.

And again, the the cost while with the funding status has never really been an issue with the city, as you might other cities, uh the cost itself is very high.

And as a percentage of payroll, it's significant.

So that's one area where we always want to look for ways that we can uh offset uh increases to help address salaries.

And uh as I mentioned in the in the comment opt to the side, uh our unfunded liabilities of 534 point million uh 534 million dollars.

Now I should point out that it does not include the OPEB of the retiree health provided to the police department, which is another liability of 379.2 million dollars.

The next slide uh we discussed general fund balances, uh and this is we've done well in the last number of years on this score.

The general fund reserves on a cash basis stood at 154.1 million or 24.2 percent of the FY27 budget.

That's slightly lower than last year, simply because you remember we uh in addition to one half of the surplus that goes to capital, we budgeted the nine other nine million to uh surplus to tornado relief.

So the the surplus did not the fund balance did not go up over the last.

And GFOA's best practice is to maintain at least two months of general fund expenditures, and we're at which is at 16.6 percent.

And of course, this year is uh and you end of year is pending.

And the final slide uh just to recap the FY27 budget at 1.41 billion, essentially flat at 0.5 percent from the prior fiscal year.

Uh general fund budget 637.1, it's up 4.9 percent.

The revenues have been stabilizing with the refunds uh with the tax refunds, earnings and payroll uh leveling off, and modest overall growth going forward.

General special fund budgets include uh funds for addressing employee pay and benefit increases, emergency housing and neighborhood stabilization initiatives, funding needs for public safety and other city services, capital budgets at 15.4 million, a decline of a million 11 million dollars, reflecting smaller prior year surplus funds.

And $5 million in ARPA interest is being reappropriated to help fund the PSAP to be combined with capital funds and planned general obligation bond funds to complete funding of that project.

And that is the conclusion of my presentation.

I'll open it up to questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Uh budget director.

Also for folks in the audience, we had a little error with the paperwork, so we do have updated presentations.

There were some slides missing.

So if you want those updated ones, uh so that you can have them for the future.

Um are now over there.

Uh before we go into questions, is there like any, I guess, with the police department like high level things that uh just looking at the budget I see it looks like mainly a change of this year's there's incorporation of 7% uh increase for uniform officers for a 4.3 increase over the fiscal year, their iD like major things that's like I guess different from this year's budget.

I I I would I wouldn't I don't think so.

I mean, other than the ones that I highlighted with the internal service funds uh declining because they incorporated two of those departments into their budget themselves.

Um obviously the the the big item uh big question is the the funding status and and uh is the city's position that we're meeting our statutory obligations, but uh uh that's that's sort of where we are with the funding status.

Um the 4.3% increase, it was I I think is a significant increase for uh uh the department that large, and I believe it meets what they uh proposed to be their needs in coming fiscal year.

Okay.

I'll start in order of uh seniority with questions from the committee.

Starting with uh Vice Chair Browning.

Thank you.

Um so there's not gonna be a separate presentation on the police budget.

Not no.

I just I have a lot of questions about it.

I I I might be able to address some high level type things, but if it's operational, I I wouldn't I would be uh I I fully expect that you can't answer operational questions, but I think there's a lot of concern on the city side of things that I sure definitely want to get into.

But um, so I'll just start with my general budget questions and then I'll get into that.

Um so I saw that department fees and fines are down by 4.8 percent.

Uh why is that?

I know that we've increased fees recently, we've done some things to try to make sure that they can collect more as well as incentivize uh negligent property owners to do things and some other fees and fines.

Uh some of this is new, but and probably just went into effect in the last year.

But I'm a little surprised to see uh fines and fees are down.

Um is that a is that a collection issue?

Is that uh why or why aren't we collecting as many fines and fees this year?

Let's see here.

Go into the estimate.

I think it's page 12.

Yeah, that's right.

Um, I think the biggest decline there is uh uh pulled back on the interest earnings for next year, that which would not which would not affect uh is not the it's not the categories that you're you're addressing.

Uh we've been getting significant amounts of uh interest earnings uh that are not related to fee activity from building divisions.

I I think if you look at the building divisions uh estimate, it's somewhat uh comparable to what it was this year.

So you're not gonna see declines in those categories.

And we'll we'll get into that when when we have them in front of us.

Um the uh capital half cent sales tax.

Uh you said a small portion of that goes to the police department.

What is that for?

Primarily, it is utilized for paying off an existing debt service obligation, about 1.6 million dollars for uh that was issued a number of years ago for improvements to their uh area command stations as well as some headquarter improvements.

Um the remainder of that is allocated just their own capital needs.

Okay, that's helpful.

Um and then pensions.

Uh I'm I'm quite alarmed by the unfunded liabilities.

Uh $534 million, that's not including the retiree health liability.

And and just to be clear, that retiree health liability is because we're now required to pay lifetime health insurance under the state law.

Is that correct?

Well, let me let me give you a little history of that.

Okay.

So prior to local control, there you we operated under that state statute where it provided that the city shall provide retiree health insurance for all retirees of the police department, both uniform and civilian.

And that was included within their budget all the way up to we when we got local control.

When we assumed local control, it was uh determined that we would continue to provide as uh those who were on the payroll at that time, grandfathered in uh those people, but anyone hired after the time we assumed uh uh the department would not be eligible.

They would they would be just like the rest of us in city government.

So that they were the only ones that got that benefit, and that would no longer be provided.

When the department was reassumed, or or when the department took the police department under its wing again, um the argument was the statute then applies that all department, all department employees would be covered by health insurance by the retiree health insurance program.

But so what that meant was that not only were those grandfathered employees again uh who were always covered, but it meant that anyone hired since going back to 2013 is now eligible.

So that added a significant uh increase in the liabilities.

So in order to calculate that they have an actuary, and an actuary looks at those, and this was done last year, and they estimated that of the people uh who were not eligible, and they estimated the total of about 600, and they also made the cost, accrued cost over that time was about 29 million dollars, or more than 29 million.

And they estimated that it'll continue to go up.

Um this year's as cost was estimated at 6.6 million.

So that was a cost that was anticipated to go down over time and just be eliminated, just sort of gradually fade away.

But now it is increased and will continue to go up over time.

The interesting thing about OPEB, and that's all other other than pension employee benefits, is that in a pension system, you pay for the current year benefits, plus you pay for unfunded liabilities.

Unfunded liabilities can happen if you have um uh returns that are below market estimate, or something changes in the demographics and they change assumptions.

And you pay that off, like a mortgage on a house.

You you pay the current cost plus you pay the mortgage.

The OPEB, what's unique about the OPEB is this is strictly pay as you go.

There is no there is no 80 percent funding, it's just it's whatever the health insurance premium bills are estimated at 16 point 16 million dollars next year, and you just pay it.

And so that's that's what's a little uh uh uh alarming from that standpoint, and that uh from a balance sheet standpoint, that's going that's went up and it's gonna continue to go up.

That's very concerning.

Uh so there's not really a plan to address that long term.

No.

There basically uh OPED is OPEB has been a uh sort of an unusual animal.

Uh that is the only that particular benefit, that department is the only one that has that benefit.

And in other cities, uh there have been debates about whether or not we it should be funded as a pension system.

I mean, you start you start contributing towards the amortization of an unfunded liability as such.

But no movement has been made to that point.

It is a is it unusual for cities to have four different pension systems?

Um I don't I don't know if the number is unusual, but it you you'll typically see multiple pension systems based on a certain groups of employees.

I it would be unusual, I think.

I think what we did with fire was unusual in that we actually froze and created a new one.

Um you don't see that that often.

Um, but you also don't see it often that the state, for instance, in the issue in the on the instance of police retired, there is no ordinance here, it's all state statute.

So it's uh the state governing that.

You don't see that very often in other cities as well.

Yeah, well, obviously that we only have um two, we have the only two cities in the entire country where the state has taken over the the police department and its operations.

Uh and that is very interesting, and I'll get into that in a little bit.

Um, but first I just want to thank you, Mr.

Pay, and I'm always impressed by your presentations, your knowledge of our budget.

We're very lucky to have you here in St.

Louis.

Uh and previous years, you know, uh I think we've uh we've we we've done this budget many times, and I I think every time you come with just everything we need to hear and everything, all the answers that we ask uh so I really appreciate that.

Um I did have some questions about the police budget prepared today uh because I think it's really I describe it as an existential threat to St.

Louis, this state takeover.

Um I I want to start off by saying I do have a lot of respect for our policemen and women.

Uh I work uh with districts two and five, uh, the ninth war is split between the two, and whether it's major marks, Captain Ziff, uh Captain Obichon, Captain McClowski, uh all of the police I've had the opportunity to work with have been uh doing a great job, and both my constituents and I value the work that they do.

But I'm disappointed that the Board of Police Commissioners wasn't able to be here today or any of police leadership to answer questions that we have about their budget request for fiscal year 27.

I'm I I think it's difficult to review a budget when we don't have them to answer questions about their department's needs.

And these are the people who are using that budget.

So I I don't want to ask you any questions that you can't answer today.

Uh but I have a lot of questions, and I'm a little frustrated because I feel like it doesn't matter since we don't have the people, the subject experts here to answer them.

Uh I want to talk a little bit about what the police are doing to recruit.

Uh we constantly hear about how they don't have enough officers on the street.

And yet year after year, their recruiting line item budget has a hundred thousand dollars budgeted and zero dollars is spent.

In fact, the last time that they spent any money from that was I think FY23.

Uh so as you were putting together the budget this year, were you in close communication with the police department as you put together uh the budget for them?

No.

I I I I can't really speak to those individual items.

We uh uh it's been an unusual year in that regard.

Uh they uh they put together their request in a way that uh that they submitted to their board and they then submitted it.

Now typically I'd be working with someone uh like Dave Daniels, and we have a conversations and all that that was somewhat uh wasn't available.

He he was not uh well, he submitted some uh more detailed uh she uh uh information and sheets, he was um he wasn't available for uh any discussion about the details and how we got it.

So in lacking that, uh all was able to do was to make ensure that the request matched what the actual board voted on.

And so you can see the actual request is in your book, and that's what matched the the what was there.

Uh and that's sort of what I use as my guide for uh making sure the request was presented accurately.

But I don't have any insights into the thinking behind uh particular uh line items, other than the detail of the line items themselves.

So and you had to prepare this budget to meet a certain threshold of spending as required by state law.

What was that percentage that of general revenue?

I believe it was.

Yes.

And I'll have to say, as I've said before, uh the statute was um wasn't clearly written.

Uh the way it's written today is that it said uh the percent of general revenue would be 23% this year, this calendar year, and 24% next calendar year.

Well, the city doesn't operate on a calendar year.

So what is it?

And uh so I I I guess that's anyone's guess.

Um but uh I do believe that in and I've I've looked at, and again, the the term general revenue is a little bit more expansive than what we would call general fund revenue.

Um, but it but I do believe that we're in excess of uh what uh I I what of that amount, whatever it is that that 23, 24, whatever that percentage is, I believe do believe this budget is another.

I'm glad you mentioned the fiscal year versus the calendar year, because that's just one example how this state law, and I'll be I can be a little more liberal with my words.

It's sloppy, right?

It was clearly written by someone who has no familiarity with how the city operates because he doesn't live here.

And it's really frustrating to me that we have to then try to take what is a really confusingly written law and try to apply it to a very serious matter.

Last year when we had the police in front of us, I asked them questions in terms in in the context of I want to make sure you have what you need to go do your job, just like I ask every department that comes in front of us.

But this year, I can't really ask them that.

And we have costs that we now have to meet up to a certain percentage of our budget.

Do we budget any other city department that way?

No.

So it's a weird way to do a budget because regardless of whether they spend the money that they have or not, uh, we still have to meet a certain threshold.

What happens to money that they don't spend?

If say we budget 24% or 25%, what happens if they don't spend all that?

Does it still get in my understanding is excess funds right now, they get split between the reserve fund and the capital fund.

Is that right?

Well, under the city charter, uh the uh funds that aren't spent reverts to the general fund uh general fund balance or a general fund reserves.

But under the ordinance, half of that goes to capital, and then half of that was stay in reserves.

Now, if you remember last year, what we ended up doing was half went to capital, but the other half was appropriated tornado effort.

So we actually spent it all at the end.

I I uh it's too early to tell where that's gonna go uh with them.

I I um I would I wouldn't be surprised to see a similar result this year uh simply because the tornado effort's still going on and and of course we still have uh the capital fund, which needs appropriations.

Um, but I I can't, I don't think I can answer that question clearly.

Okay, yeah, I'm just trying to get an understanding of you know this new method we have to work under uh because uh to me we have a lot of departmental needs across our city.

And when I see that they can leave funds unspent, uh especially in in like a category like recruiting, which we're always hearing we need more officers, and they just don't spend any money out of the recruiting fund.

When I asked about it last year, they just said, oh, we didn't do some of the things we had planned, but they haven't done the things that they planned for years now.

And so I, like a lot of my constituents, care about making sure we have enough police out on the street to do the job.

But it's hard for me to think about this when they're not here to answer questions about it.

Um I'm not gonna harp on that too much because I I know we're all frustrated by it.

Uh but uh a couple more points I want to hit that I think you probably can answer is um let's see.

Uh so last year, I rewatched the budget hearing from last year, and uh their budget guy whose name I'm forgetting right now, but uh he said uh in terms of transfers in the department, he said nothing's changed under state control and nothing will change.

That's distinctly different from what the police board's lawyer, Chris Greville said just last week in um one of the meetings of the Board of Police Commissioners.

But my understanding, and I think this is in the charter as well, those transfers still have to be approved by the Board of ENA.

Is that your understanding?

That's correct.

So another conflict with the state law as it's written, and I think we're gonna keep coming across this.

Um, like I said, I had a lot of questions prepared here.

Suffice to say that the common theme in it all is that if you actually take a close look at the police budget, they routinely do not spend down certain funds.

And so it's weird to me that they have excess money this year to re-budget to build a sound wall for their shooting range in South City, which they should have built in the first place, but they were able to move some funds around and allocate extra money, but then we're being told they don't have enough money, and they're actually requesting a huge amount more.

Uh again, I feel like this is an existential threat to our city.

I hope that this can be worked out in court.

I'm not gonna belabor the point with you, Mr.

Payne, because I again I really appreciate the work you do.

Uh, but I think that ultimately it creates distrust between the people and the police who are supposed to be serving the people when we do things this way.

I don't think anyone wants that.

I hope that the city council and the mayor are successful in their lawsuit because this is a hard thing for us to consider the budget when we have a completely unaccountable uh non-transparent police force.

And and again, I I work well with the police in my ward.

I work well with the people.

I'm not upset with the officers out on the street.

I'm upset with one entity and one entity only, and that is the Board of Police Commissioners and their state bosses who think that this is a good way to do things.

Uh, because it's clearly not.

And now we cannot even figure out what they need to do their job because we don't have this transparent process happening.

I'm sure you're as frustrated as I am, but I just wanted to say that because I think it's important to note that this year's budget process is extremely different than past years uh because we don't have that uh transparency and that accountability, like we're gonna have with every other department.

So it's gonna be a long month.

Uh they still have time, they can still come and talk to us.

Uh but for now, you know, I'm gonna focus on the rest of the budget.

And the other departments that we need to fund, because we know there's a lot of good things that our city does.

Uh I just think it's a shame that the police think that those other things aren't as important.

Uh and so, you know, again, asking for money in far access of even what they spend every year, even as we struggle to fund things like our building division, our streets department, you know, our forestry division, the things that affect our citizens' data wives, and also have other aspects of public safety, uh, including our our uh city emergency management agency.

Uh last year I was able to get uh money from the police because they were here to talk to us.

I was able to work with them, and we were able to re-budget some of their supply money to create an extra position in CEMA.

Uh unfortunately, it was about two weeks too late, uh, is that it occurred about a couple weeks after the May 16th tornado.

But the idea being, as we've already experienced this year, there's a lot more threats coming our way.

I can't count the number of times I'm already had to take shelter this year.

Uh and it's it's just again, there's all sorts of aspects of public safety that I think are going unaddressed because we have this state law that has been so poorly written and is frankly unconstitutional.

Um so thank you again.

Um I'll reserve any other questions I have, but I really appreciate Hold on Yeah.

Thank you, Chairman.

Um hello, Director Payne.

Um, you know, I'm really appreciative of your of your work.

I feel like I've seen your name more than I ever have since having these discussions, and I'm sure you're not a fan of that because you are a man who likes to do his work and stay out the way.

And um I know that your name is in a lot of places that it's not commonly.

So I just first want to thank you for um, you know, your work in this process.

I'm sure that as long how long have you been a part of our budget process?

How long?

38.

Of all 38 years, I'm sure this has been the most um kind of hectic and and chaotic and unprecedented year.

And so I really appreciate you for um the institutional knowledge that you have for um just a consistent, stable hand.

And I know that prior to this budget getting to us, you worked um with ENA for a while on some of these uh difficulties, and I know you've been a part of conversations with the police board of commissioners and um all of the things that are happening.

So I just really want to thank you for your steady hand um during these unprecedented times.

I think everything about this process feels so unfamiliar, but you do feel familiar to me, so I'm very grateful for that.

Um, you know, I know that we have members of the public here and there are folks online, so I really don't want to um do too many points.

I think Alderman Brown and hit on some points.

I don't want to be too redundant.

I've been very clear to my opposition of state control uh from the beginning.

I think it's important to highlight that there are two places in the entire United States of America that do not have control of their police department, and we are one of the two.

And I think it's also really important to be honest about the historical context that um the original motivation of the state taking over the police department came from slavery and came from a desire for folks to get more arsenal or weapons for that.

Um, and I think that that correlates very well to today because I think we are having very real relevant conversations about uh policing is for um who should have a say in it and what it means.

And it is so um interesting having conversations with any other elected official in any other place of the country, and they really don't have you know much site or much things to offer because they all live in cities and places where those who are elected by those people, those folks get leadership roles and get to have key roles in shaping how governance um works.

And so I'm extremely um frustrated.

I think frustrated is probably the nicest word I could find.

Angry might be a better word.

I feel that if the state wants to control the police department, they should at least pay for it.

And then I would love for us to be able to put all of these dollars to other things and other needs.

Our city has a plethora of needs, and I would love to be able to put that there.

I think what is ridiculous is not just saying that you want to control it, which is ridiculous, and I think is an attack on autonomy.

But I think to say that you want to control it, but you want us to pay for it.

Um, I think that is unconstitutional, although it seems like the constitution matter much these days, that you didn't know it's unconstitutional.

And so um, I think for you as far as questions, I am just very curious about whatever you can share, you know, in the process of the public so far.

I do just want to be appreciative and make sure on the note that I'm very glad that the budget that is in front of us does not, you know, it aims to comply with the state statute measure and it's trying to find a balance with the many other things.

I know that you were present at the ENA budget committee where there were hours of testimony and there were residents who were very clear about their desires.

I know that there were some changes uh from the budget from the public comment that put things into this budget that I think are critical, such as the rights of council, such as Cold Blue, um, you know, such as many things um that I know we're not in the original budget.

So I just appreciate the work you've done before.

I guess the only point of kind of question on the record is um getting back to that half cent sales tax that is there, um, that 66% of that has to go to the police department, which equates to about 15.5 million dollars.

Um, this amount, does that amount count?

Is that included or excluded in the percentage that gets us toward meeting our statutory uh minimum?

I know that's a special tax, so I just want to clarify how that works.

That would be included.

Okay.

Um, and is there any points in the in this budget um in regards to are there any non-revenue sources that are being allocated to to the police department outside of that special tax?

Outside of that special tax.

Oh, sorry, you said that was included, but is there any money money that isn't, you know, that we were obligated?

I know taxes and grant, not grants, not state and federal grants, but is there anything else in our budget?

Yeah, I can't think of any.

Uh there are special funds for that to go to the police department.

For instance, part of the gaming fund, part of the uh uh the public safety.

There's another public safety sales tax as well.

Um is allocated to the police uh portion of the use tax fund as well.

Uh but all of those are taken into account when we say how much what how much of our local revenue are being out of the police department.

Okay.

Um I think I'm gonna hold my questions for other departments.

We do have members of the public here, and we'll be at this for the next few weeks for um, you know, well, I'll just say um just kind of my final thing on the record here is just uh I think there's a lot of concerns, and we're gonna hear today a lot of the concerns from the public.

Um and I'm gonna say this to you because the police department is not in front of us, um, but I've had this conversation with folks behind the scene.

You know, I think this conversation happening at the same time as the city is having so many other conversations, uh, other things that are quite controversial.

And then also like following um what I would say is one of the most um brutal protests that I've witnessed in a while that happened at the state of the city um with the police department there is really not good, you know, and horrible for public trust.

I think not only do I have a concern about us having control of our police department for obviously just fiscal responsibility, basic common sense needs.

Um, but I think it's really important as we enter this time kind of as a city where there are a lot of things happening, whether it's at the local, state, federal level, we know that they're gonna continue to be protesting or should, honestly.

I think that that is a sign of a democracy that is not sleep.

Um, and so I'm very concerned at just some of the things that I was able to see very close up myself.

I'm not speaking based off of what I read.

I'm not speaking based off what I saw.

I'm speaking as somebody who was present and who was there.

Um I heard language from um officers that were um insults and were profanities at protesters.

I just saw a level of escalation and aggravation that was not necessary.

I engaged in a conversation with the officer myself where I'm like, why are you going back and forth with them?

You know, why are we escalating this situation and we're already at a tense situation?

And so um I just wanted to make sure that I kind of addressed that and you know, spoke to that on the record.

And I think especially for folks who are watching this at home, we're gonna hear public comment.

And I just want to encourage us not to bury our heads in the sand and look at this from one perspective, and that there are going to be a lot of residents that have a lot of hesitancies and questions about a police department that is doing, you know, things that are not happening anywhere in the country that are unusual attacks on autonomy.

And then at the same time, the city is considering another other issues that are very new a part of this time.

And then at the same time, um, again, we've had protests here, had protests many times since I've been altered.

We've had protests, and I've not seen anything aggravate to that level.

Um, honestly, since things were very, very intense in the Michael Brown time.

Um, and so there are a lot of um just concerns that I would encourage just as we get into this, you know, public comment and get into the section that we, you know, keep in mind and definitely want, you know, members of the public, I think to Altaman Brown's point and what we'll hear from other colleagues.

It's like there's a desire from us to make sure that the full city is taken care of and that we continue to at the end of the day represent people and not make decisions on our own.

And I think that all these things happen together create a very tense situation.

But my hope would be that the people of St.

Louis that we don't become enemies of each other, that we do remember that we are in this together, that we never celebrate experience brutality, that we never celebrate when we see other departments being defunded because of massive acts that are unprecedented from an area.

Um, and so I just wanted to make sure that I put that on record and thank you again for the work that you've done.

Haldora Velasquez.

Thank you, Chairman.

Uh, and thank you, uh Mr.

Payne for being here.

I'm glad my colleague asked how long you've been working in the department.

You said 38 years.

And out of those 38 years, how I think I think it's good context for people, right?

And these conversations because it has been a very unusual budget year.

Of those 38 years, how long have you been budget director?

20.

Okay.

So in the 20 years you've been here, this is um very unusual.

And I think, you know, for all of the folks watching out there, I think there's no doubt that all of us here on budget and I think at the board are very concerned about what's happening with the police department and the lack of transparency.

And I think I also just to say for the record, they chose not to be here.

They were invited, the police commission, the commissioners were invited, they made a decision, not your decision, of course, but they made a decision not to be here.

And they can still change their minds, but they made a decision.

And I think that is something uh worthy of us noting.

Um I know you can't specifically talk about the operations piece, but obviously the police budget is a big portion of our of our conversation this year.

And we've seen increases in both the amount of judgments and the amount budgeted for judgments, and of course, the cost of the department.

So just from a budgeting perspective, are there can you just talk about are the ways to limit our liability?

Are there ways to limit the risk?

Are there things that we can do or I mean or that you're considering and how to balance this because obviously those costs keep rising and um yeah, that that that's a that's a good question, but it's a complicated question.

I I sort of want to defer to the city counselor on that one.

Um I don't think there's any magic solution there, uh, other than uh just being aware uh that it's uh that litigation costs uh and it has an impact.

Uh and um how how we I mean if you think about the amount of money we're spending on that, what we could do otherwise with those funds.

Um I I would hope that uh it it gives everyone pause to think that um it doesn't have to be this way and that we could avoid that.

Now I I don't know I I I from a history standpoint, yeah.

I I think uh the awards are are going up, and I don't know whether that's uh a result of the actual cases themselves or whether a different environment we're in or or what, but I I I think it whatever whatever it is is that we are it's unfortunate in that as you know as a member of this committee, and I know as a budget director, when you struggling to balance things, and oh, how do we find money for this program or that program?

And then you say, Oh, we have to set aside money for judgments.

Uh that's uh I mean it it it doesn't benefit anyone uh by doing that simply because you're not you've got limited resources and you're trying to provide services, and that's just another thing that you have to budget for, and it takes away from everyone else.

So uh yeah, I I don't really know what that answer is.

Um but um I I yeah, I I hate to see uh that continue to go to increase.

And this might be a question better director for the city counselor's office, but in the instance, so say we we budgeted 10 dollars for a judgment this year, right?

And we had a 57 million dollar judgment that just came out this year that was one.

How does how do we pay for when there's a difference in what we what we've set aside and what the awards are?

Well, historically, again, and I'm thinking history is that we've managed to you know, we pay as you go, and we've we've paid them uh as they come up, and uh if we have available uh funds to pay, then we do, and and and that we haven't had a I I and I know like you've mentioned this year we allocated the one-time monies from ARPA interest, and I think at the end of the last fiscal year we also allocated some unspent funds.

Uh it's sort of been um grabbing funds as they become available to address to address it.

It hasn't been uh just a regular other than our as I mentioned, our we usually appropriate about six million a year um uh two for general obligations and four for uh police cases.

Um and we've managed for some somehow.

I just think it's getting more difficult uh given the sizes of some of the judgments and some of the activity uh the number of the cases.

So um up to this point we have, although it's getting more difficult, as I said, and so that's that's why when you see us Evan up the number in the budget uh just shows that um it's something to be concerned about because it's obviously rising to the point where it's gonna be as big as uh one of our smaller departments if we could keep it that that rate.

Thank you.

And I just I want to say obviously we we would at least in my mind, and I I we want to get to a point where that we don't have incidents that require you know people's rights being violated that we have to that the incidents happen.

Um just a couple of uh broader questions.

Uh you mentioned that revenue growth is projected at seven percent.

Uh, if that doesn't happen, what are the biggest things?

What are the risks that would materialize if we hit that uh growth projection?

Well, actually that that's a that's a good question.

say obviously we we would at least in my mind and I I we want to get to a point where that we don't have incidents that require right you know people's rights being violated that we have to that the incidents happen um just a couple of uh broader questions uh you mentioned that revenue growth is projected at seven percent uh if that doesn't happen what are the biggest things what are the risks that would materialize if we hit that uh growth projection actually that that's a that's a good question I I've been through four recessions since uh uh over my time here and um it's interesting when you when you go through that uh it's usually that first quarter report I I I was reminiscing uh about the 0809 recession recently typically when you go through the first quarter you see some revenues go up some revenues down but you're sort of there's nothing alarming but I remember 0809 the recession I think it may have been FY9 FY2 you immediately knew by looking at the numbers they were all pointing down is that we got to do some typically if it's something like that drastic that those are kind of things where um you all may be involved where we're reallocating funds or or reducing allocations that we've already made um typically if it's not but that was a very unusual it was a deep recession and survived it but um in a typical scenario what we would do is we'd be looking toward things that um uh discretionary spending that we could uh that we could hold on to um uh in year this hasn't been pertinent recently simply because we have so many vacancies but in years past when we had that we'd we sort of do a hiring freeze where you wouldn't be hiring people if that kind of I again we haven't seen that in a while but we've got those tools to utilize if it if it ever comes to pass and then there will I mean it's been a while since we've had uh a big recession COVID was significant but it was a steep drop and a steep recovery uh but the 0809 one was very pronounced and it was very drawn out and that was in you start identifying what your tools are to address it and those are some of them.

And it looks like too that our reserves are much higher than even the best practice I mean the Yeah I'm glad you mentioned that because that is a major improvement where we've been before in 0809 I think we actually had uh we started and on cash it was like on a cash base 18 million dollars and over two fiscal years it went down by 12.

So now you're talking six uh uh and that's why the rating agencies get nervous and we all in finance get nervous uh when you have that but it that's why it's very important to maintain those results um it it does a number of things that it it gets you through those times when you we don't have to make drastic decisions it also um actually it it we've been able to avoid having to borrow and we used to borrow what they call trans which is tax revenue anticipation notes we used to have to borrow cash and because of the the the to manage the cash flow during the year well that was a cost we don't have to do that anymore and then we also get interest earnings that we didn't used to get so all those and in adding that to our credit stability that those are all positives based on our reserves uh being able to build up a reserves and I want to ask one question about negatives and decreasing budget and on back to page 12 on the the general revenue outlook the minus 2.3 percent for other you may have described what the other is but the yes yeah uh what I that the other is mostly transfers into the fund um one of those happens to be telecom tax receipts and that's been declining over time um uh particularly no one has a landline anymore and those type of things where revenues sort of been declining and and I've got a that to continue and that's one of the ones that we got uh marked down.

Thank you and just one more question uh well it's probably serious questions but just about pension I know that uh Alderman Browning mentioned it as a concern I think you voiced it as concerns over just since I've been here um so can you just talk about uh uh it sounds like eighty percent even though it seems uh just from what I've read that's actually a healthy number I mean but can you talk about what you would assess the risk number for or the risk percentage the unfunded liability part the unfunded liability yeah I like I said um from a if you look at a system most of them say if you're over 80 percent funded you're relatively well funded um but the there's a cost associated with that and then the other the the the critical uh those who criticize that level basically say oh well you've got but your assumptions are too generous and oftentimes they are in terms of two things um what's your rate of return and what's ours what it what seven percent in in ERS of most of them are using seven I think uh FRP no FRS which is frozen I think is six point seven five so they should be more conservative because that one's gonna come to an end at some point um but what uh others don't realize is that not only you basing your returns on that reserve on that that level but it's also discounting your liabilities so the higher that discount number the more it understates what your liabilities are and if you you see uh critical uh those who are criticized criticize pension systems say they're overstating their returns but they're also understating the liabilities based on the rate they assume um and and you can argue that uh a bit i i know the rating agencies take that into account they'll they'll use they're you they'll use their own uh in order to get apples to apples among cities and all the their they use their own rates um but I've looked at uh when you look at

And if you you see uh critical uh those who are criticized criticize pension systems say they're overstating their returns, but they're also understating the liabilities based on the rate they assume.

Um and and you can argue that uh a bit.

I I know the rating agencies take that into account.

They'll they'll use they're they'll use their own uh in order to get apples to apples among cities and all the there, they use their own.

Um but I've looked at uh when you look at other cities that thank God we're not Chicago, where you you're in the 20s and and that kind of thing.

Um but the I think the bigger challenge has been that it's very expensive.

Uh uh if you look at that other graphic, we're spending 104 million dollars out of this budget on pension cost.

And uh particularly where you have difficulty in hiring folks, this is across the board uh in salaries, and I know we're uh trying to address some of that.

I often ask, uh you know, I I I had a conversation a number of years ago with uh personnel and then uh saying, well, how do we how can we address pensions?

Uh if we could address pensions, we could address salaries and uh because we're spending all these things on all these other benefits, and most people say, well, when you're recruiting, they don't care about the other benefits.

Well, why are we spending all these millions of dollars on them?

Uh if if it's if the focus is going to be on starting pay and everyone's focused on salaries, really need to address it from a holistic approach where you're looking at your total compensations, all right.

Well, maybe, for instance, maybe ERS could be a contributory system, maybe uh other changes that we can make, and that would free up funds to address the salary issue as more people uh put more importance on the salary piece as opposed to the benefit piece, and that's something that could be looked at.

But yeah, I I I from a funding standpoint, I I think we are uh it's not I I wouldn't say it's a dire situation from a pension system because we are 80 percent or so, but the cost is extremely high, and it precludes us from addressing some of those salary issues that uh you hear about all the time.

Would you are there any cities that you are models for what you've just described?

That maybe looking at a not I mean having those conversations conversations about adjusting the total compensation package to increase salaries.

You know, it it's funny.

Uh I I looked at a number uh like I I've seen Kansas cities, um they uh I from a pension standpoint I it's funny because I I've I've got some illustrations.

Actually, I posted it on our website, total compensation costs, uh not just pensions, but everything.

And I haven't seen something like that similar from cities.

I might be able to go into an actuario report and say how much they're spending on their pensions, but I haven't been able to see in any one spot where they're spending on holiday pay or vacation pay or sick leave or all those all in one spot.

It's difficult to get a uniform.

Actually, I asked that of the uh the Evergreen people who are doing the pay study, they got a little bit of information, uh, particularly with pensions, because pensions are one of the largest ones.

But the other ones were more elusive and they didn't uh provide any uh sort of comprehensive look.

Thank you.

No, it's a complicated, I mean it's a complicated issue, and you don't want to, you know, you you want to make the city attractive to work for, and and part of it is uh the benefits.

Right but how do you balance it as we try and you know grow and modernize and all those things?

So I have no other questions for you, Mr.

Payne.

Thank you for uh being here today, and thank you for answering all our questions.

Sure.

Hold them in devotee.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Payne.

Uh every time I listen to you, uh I learned something new.

And it's uh it's always an experience, so thank you.

Uh the older woman uh asked some fascinating questions.

Um is the dad of two young adults who have recently entered the workforce tell you my observation is they're most interested in what are you gonna pay me today versus what a retirement or a pension benefit might be in 25 or 30 years.

Show me the money now.

That's my observation.

Um she also asked an interesting question with respect to forecasting uh and what if things don't turn out as well as we hope.

You talked in terms of how important first quarter observations tend to be.

Do you have uh information back for first quarter 2026?

And how does the how does the forecast look for the remainder of the calendar year?

Actually, yeah, uh we uh post that uh first quarter as well as the second quarter on the website.

So that report's there.

Um the first quarter uh was that was I mean, it looked within budget, it looked like a little over budget, perhaps.

I I think uh uh and the second quarter was a little uh more so.

Um usually when you look at your taxes, you'll get reports earnings.

I usually usually get some information from the earnings and payroll tax from the collector of revenues office, sales tax comes from their state reports, um, and those are on a monthly basis.

And so they're pretty consistent, and it's good.

I have, I I will caution that I do remember a number where you get a good report in the third quarter, and things looking good.

So, and that the third quarter is actually a crucial one because that's the final one before presenting the budget and doing that.

And then the fourth quarter goes, you shoot craps on, and you end up with a base that's lower than lower than what you're you're estimating for next year.

And then it's the other way around, too.

I've also seen weak third quarters where you're cutting back and then all of a sudden the fourth quarter outperforms, and and your and your base is your projected revenue is actually less than what uh you ended the prior year.

So I I think it's important.

I I also think uh it's important to have those tools that I mentioned, uh, Alderwoman Velasquez uh uh uh in in the ready in case that happens.

Again, they haven't used many of those recently, but I I I don't um uh when we did co when we went through the COVID uh process, that was severe, but again, as I said short.

But we if if you don't remember uh when I did the budget that time, we had a whole big page of contingencies that said if this goes south further, here's what we can pull.

Now, none of them, I guarantee you no one in this room would like that.

I mean would have liked to have seen some of that stuff, but it's the kind of thing you have to identify as as potential uh tools you use when things go south.

Uh I appreciate that.

The uh I guess the fact that we've had your proposed budget in front of us, uh, that tells us what you think of the current forecast and how confident we should or should not be.

Is that fair?

Uh yes, yes.

Um I I do want to make a comment.

Uh I I have the impression that our discussions over the next two and a half weeks will be dominated by this uh request from the Board of Police Commissioners with respect to their budget.

Um I just want to make a couple of observations as someone who has had a litigation practice, trial practice for the last 28 years, uh, in which uh I have brought a number of cases against various municipal police departments, including the City of St.

Louis.

Um, as disappointed as we might be that nobody is here today, nor will they be here over the next two and a half weeks.

No matter what we think of the job that Chris Greville is doing as a lawyer, there is not a lawyer worth his salt who would ever let uh the chief of police uh or any member of the Board of Co Police Commissioners appear in front of this committee, be sworn in while that litigation is going on.

So for uh the sake of having fruitful discussions over the next two and a half weeks.

I know we've all said what we have to say, but um let's move on because the man wouldn't be doing his job if any of those folks would be appearing here.

So we're wasting our breath and we're merely playing to the public when we go on those those diatribes.

That's my two cents.

Um I would also, though, and and for those who have talked to me about the state statute, I actually think that Alderman Browning was being kind when he called the legislation sloppy.

Uh it is sloppy, without a doubt.

It was haphazard.

It was pushed way too quickly.

Very few people asked the questions that they should have asked, and we have seen the result of that uh on a number of different fronts over the last three or four months.

Uh I would point out, and I think he made reference to the bill sponsor in the House, uh Brad Chris, uh representative Chris, doesn't represent a soul who resides in the City of St.

Louis.

Uh more specifically, he represents folks in Southwest St.

Louis County.

Uh the sponsor of the legislation on the Senate side doesn't represent a soul who lives in the City of St.

Louis, which then gets to the problematic aspect underlying the meaning behind the the uh uh the the the position that we're in here today.

I agree.

It's very, very problematic.

But for the sake of our discussion, our budget discussion, let's talk about what the State statute requires.

And I understand it's being challenged.

I get that.

But right now we're functioning under it.

And you made reference to the statute, the requirement to spend in this calendar year, 23 percent general revenue.

I know, Director, we have talked today, or you have talked today about general fund revenue.

From your perspective as a as a finance guy, can you explain to us how you have tried to mesh those two terms?

Because to be clear, the State statute does not defined general revenue, correct?

Correct.

Yes.

So can from your perspective, can you educate us on how you have best tried to think in terms of general revenue when we talk in terms of general fund revenue?

No, I'm sorry, you confuse me.

So but the you're talking about general fund as we know it in this budget?

Correct.

Okay.

The general fund as we know it in this budget is that one slide where uh we talk about uh those revenues specifically that are not allocated for a specific purpose.

So earnings tax, for instance, our largest individual source of revenue.

There is no ordinance that says thou shalt spend the earnings tax on this service or that service, it's just for uh municipal operations in general.

Uh let's contrast that to the use tax, which has a ordinance, number of ordinances, I believe, that have say you shall allocate five million for human uh for health care services, five million for uh uh affordable housing, three million for building demo, and the rest is excess use tax for So the difference, the distinction there is how we uh or how the city uh uh sets aside these funds.

And it may be State statute, and there could there's statutory uh for instance the the half-cent capital sales tax authorized by State Statute has to be spent on capital, so that's part of the capital fund.

And that and there are specific all of various funds usually have some statutory ordinance authority behind it.

The general fund as we know it, and fund 1000 specifically in this budget book, is it does our revenues that don't have that designation?

It's mostly for general operations.

And is it fair to say that the general fund as we know it is essentially consistent with how the Missouri budget office describes general revenue uh in that general revenue is that revenue that is not allocated for a specific purpose?

Yeah, I I can't.

I'm asking you to go outside.

Yeah.

I get it.

Um in any event, when we look at our 1.4 billion dollar budget, and I'm looking at page two of your presentation, um, those items that you have listed, starting with general fund through internal service funds, is it fair to say that the I that that the number connected with general fund is the only portion not allocated for specific purposes?

Yes.

In other words, when we talk about specific revenue, grant funds, debt service funds, capital improvement funds, enterprise funds.

That's correct.

Internal service funds.

Those are all items that are specifically dedicated for a specific purpose, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um then when we talk about numbers, and I'm looking at page 30, my eyes aren't that good.

305 of our booklet that we got this morning.

Um if we look at the last column under fiscal year 27 budget proposal, the number proposed for the police department is just at just over 159 million.

Is that correct?

Right.

And that would amount, if we're just doing simple math, 26 percent of our general fund.

Is that fair?

I I I I'd have to do the calculation, but I assume you I did it.

I'm not trying to mislead you, but I mean, while you were talking here today.

Uh in it and in any event, again, when we talk in and I think you meant or you mentioned earlier, it is your belief that we have met the statutory obligation set forth by Missouri statute, right?

Correct.

And and would it be fair to say that if the budget proposed by this body uh that the would be approved by ENA and signed by the mayor if it came back at 26% of general fund, that would in fact comply with mean that we met our statutory obligations?

Well, uh I I think it's a little more complicated than that, uh, based on those items which they're trying to exclude in this the statute and all of that.

I I don't really want to get into the statutory discussion, but I can tell you from their perspective, they they take the statute and say, but you can't count retirement costs and you can't count this.

And uh it gets a it gets a lot more complicated than that.

Well, I won't I won't ask you the money question then, but I will ask you this.

Is it fair to say that if a a budget allocating 159 million dollars is approved, that that would amount to 26 percent of general the general fund for fiscal year 27.

Well, I mean, yeah, I again without me doing the actual calculation, I'm saying you've done it if that's just a that's just the percentage of our six hundred and thirty-seven million dollars that that's the simple math question.

Thank you.

No, nothing else.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Director, uh, for being here.

A couple questions, and we'll jump into public comment.

Going back to your presentation.

So can you talk a little bit of what the problem with the marijuana sales tax of, you know, we thought we was gonna have this big boom uh with uh the the sales tax I know we passed or legislation that I sponsored to kind of extend the hours like oh, we extended them competing with St.

County.

That means more money is gonna come in.

What has been that slow growth to that?

Yeah, I I'm it's sort of been a head scratcher because I I remember when we first estimated, and I believe I we knew what the state market would be, and we're thinking, oh, well, maybe we capture 8% of that.

And our estimate uh that year was 2.2 million dollars.

And then in actuality it came in at 1.7.

So I said, all right.

Well, it came in at 1.7, so it was short.

So let's assume that we're gonna repeat that performance in the current fiscal year.

So that was the estimate for this fiscal year, and now it's coming in at 1.4.

So uh the only thing I I and again, this is collected by the state and it's remitted to the city from this uh state uh collector of revenue.

Um so the only thing I can surmise from that and just from reading the stories on it, is that there's a portion of the market that's not getting captured in the sales.

I I I it just doesn't make sense that you would uh uh that would be that small of a market.

Um and uh I know there's been talk, at least at the state level, that they're cracking down on unregulated sales, sales that are uh in effect, you're selling uh marijuana in a different form to what that's not subject to the three percent that we're supposed to be collecting.

And I can only uh again, I don't have you know numbers and details behind that, but I can only surmise that a portion of the market's being lost there.

So uh if that's addressed, and I think they are addressing it, and it'll be interesting to see how our revenues perform next fiscal year.

Gotcha.

A couple questions on the uh police budget.

I have a comment after, but I want to get to the questions far as I do know there's a big difference between the capital asset of what the department acts for compared to what we proposed.

Is there are those numbers they look to be very inflated from previous years?

Um you know, I think this year they're asking for 21, or they were asking for 21 million uh 431,000.

In previous years, they only received roughly 2.1 million, 4.4 million, and uh 3.1 million, and then a huge jump of what they're asking for of this year of 21.4.

And it looked like we, you know, uh gave them about 3.1 in the same amount from previous years.

I know you can't necessarily think for the board, but was there conversations of thought behind that amount?

Other than the fact that the request was higher than we could actually fit into the budget.

I I I think it was trying to uh continue to appropriate what they had received on the same level previously.

Uh uh.

But previously it looked like they received 3.2.

Yeah, three point three point two.

Which is what we recommended for next year.

And then they uh asked or at least this year 21.4.

I mean that's a pretty that's a pretty hefty increase uh in order to accommodate that, you'd have to cut something significant out of somewhere else.

Gotcha.

Um also I noticed because in the police department budget, I think is important, it's just not uh police that they are over.

The police department's over also the marshals here at City Hall, they're over the park rangers.

And in their budget, it looks like they tried to zero out the park rangers.

Yeah, that's an interesting one too.

Um they didn't request uh they didn't request it.

Um I don't um there was some talk where they said, oh, we're gonna put that in an internal service fund and charge you.

That I I that but that was not in the official request.

Um but if under the statute, those are their police department employees, so um we budgeted them where they have been and where they continue to be today.

And so we wanted to make sure the budget reflected that as well as the uh funding for the city marshals.

Correct.

So you're not uh, you know, I think we've at least had the privilege uh of serving on this committee for the last few years to kind of understand it a little bit more.

So when you say they didn't make the request, um ideally, you know, we're like salaries overtime, none of that being in there, there would not be um I guess they have requests for FTEs for that position or those positions.

So it looked like no FTEs, no money, you would be scrapping the park rangers of what they were looking to potentially do.

I know you can't speak for them, but just off what we're yeah, I I I can I can say that I there was this concept on them uh I I believe where there was, oh, we'll create our own internal service fund and charge the city for these services, which doesn't particularly make sense because they are their own employees.

Um, but they didn't actually request that in their request.

I mean if you look to what was actually submitted in the request, it was uh specifically what you see before you in the book.

So um there was uh no funding than general revenue from the for the park rangers and only a portion of the marshals.

And we uh the the budget, what the budget does is proposes that those be funded in full, both units.

And that was gonna be my other question going to the marshals.

I see there was a huge significant cut to salaries, therefore, meaning that half of the marshals will be laid off.

Um, you know, uh I have my opinion on some of the actions that took place during the mayor's state of the city where the marshals are involved, and I think that over aggression that the police also was part of, but at the same time, the marshals do serve a service to make sure that you know people are checked at the front and side and make sure that you know go through the metal detectors and the climate that we're living in where people may not like the decisions of even just saying certain stuff about either the police department or certain policies pass.

It looks as if the police department was going to significantly cut, I would say a safety element that not only keeps citizens safe, but elected officials, uh building commissioners, just staff at City Hall.

It wasn't the same amount requested historically than they requested in the past.

And would you say that that means that there would have been a salary cut from the Trevor Burrus, yeah, I I can't, because their their official request doesn't reflect what they were talking about in terms of uh setting up some special internal service fund.

I I don't know exactly how they thought that was going to work, but we just when I saw it evaluated to say, look, this is not how it's supposed to work.

It's supposed to be full fully.

And which is the same approach it took to some of those retirement accounts that they didn't include in their budget as well.

I mean, those are things that we need to appropriate one regardless of whether or not they're part of the equation or not.

Gotcha.

Um I would say like most of my colleagues, I would uh end with this.

Like most of my colleagues, I'm also very uh disappointed not to have uh members of the police commission board here or uh the department itself.

Uh I personally reached out to uh try to have them in front of this committee.

Uh at the end of the day, the public safety budget alone, I think makes up over like 51% of the budget.

Within that public safety, police make up 46% of that budget.

Uh and while hear my colleague from the fifth that pending litigation is probably not smart for them to come.

I think also you're named in kind of that pending litigation and you're standing right here in front of us talking about uh things that the police department do not want or believe that the decisions you made after doing this for 30 years, 38 years of the city, 20 years of being on the uh budget director, you still came in front of this board and uh disagree that we should not be asking questions or or not be upset because uh majority of our constituents are also uh not only concerned, uh they're also frustrated.

Uh and when you have a department that decides not to show up and not be transparent uh and not be held accountable, the conversations that I had with the commissioner was even if you didn't want to present what the city presented to you, you could have still presented your budget so that people can get an understanding of why going back to the capital uh some of the capital needs, you know, why you asking for uh almost a hundred percent increase in that uh department.

Um I echo everything that the alderman from the ninth said about the state takeover bill being sloppy.

I'm not, you know, shocked that you have in my opinion, MAGA extreme Republicans.

Uh this isn't anything new trying to dictate the way that the city of St.

Louis not only governed, but the way that we have input on uh policies here.

Uh if it was shooting back minimum wage when people in the city of St.

Louis said they want it, or pushing back uh state control when we said it very clear that we want local control.

And now we're in this limbo of what the actual policy means.

Our fiscal year is not the same as the state.

Their fiscal year runs from January to May.

Ours run from July to June.

Um it's not clear what you know.

I think it's clear to us what general revenue is, but when you have uh Jefferson City also saying that Rams money is part of the general revenue and all these other funds, uh is just ludicrous.

So I'm glad that people will be here talking about it.

I'm also uh applaud my colleagues that did raise their concerns about what the police commission is doing by not being in front of us, uh, regardless of any pending lawsuit.

I think we also have a role and obligation to represent our constituents and majority of those are just as concerned as the Alderman from the night said, not because uh they don't work with law enforcement, but because we're talking about a a commission, uh a group of people who do not have the 38 years of experience like yourself and know how to govern and balance a budget, uh which will, if we took their budget, would be a huge impact on other things that public safety is not just police.

Public safety is our building division.

Public safety is our health department, public safety is making sure our streets are safe.

So uh ultimately, thank you for being here, uh Director Payne.

Thank you for stepping in the in kind of a gap with the police department.

As the old woman from the sixth said, you know, the invitation still stands.

Like she said, this was a choice they made, regardless of litigation or not, this is a choice that they made not to show up.

Uh I continue to have an open door policy from this budget committee.

I will be following backup with them to request that they at least present their budget, because again, you're part of litigation and you're here presenting the city budget.

Um so it's critical to make sure that the largest department that's asking for city money, that's tax air taxpayer dollars money at least uh can show up and explain why they believe their budget is better than the one you presented.

Uh so with that, I have no further questions.

Thank you for being here and uh we can jump into public testimony.

If you are here to speak, uh make sure you sign up.

There's also coffee and donuts here for folks if you're getting a little hungry, such as the the baby over here who probably uh wanted the most.

If you are online, do we have any people online, Madam Clerk?

I do, I do not see any hands raised at the time.

If you're online, you can raise your hand so that we can move you over to speak.

And we'll take a little second to get as many people over, and then the folks that are online, we will all have you raise your hand and come off screen, and then the people in the room that's speaking will raise your hand swear everybody in at one time.

So far online, I have two.

Did you want to begin?

Yep.

If you're online, um I see one person camera is on.

If you can just raise your hand for the person that's on, just be careful as you as you're driving.

We always encourage like pulling over, but that's only for board members, but just for safety.

For the folks online, if you could raise your right hand and for the people in the room, if you could raise your hand.

And do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Okay.

All right, we will start in the room and then we will go online.

First we have Mark Orahula.

And for everybody in the room, you have uh three minutes if you just say your first and last name.

The ward you reside in, and then you may proceed after that.

Uh good morning.

My name is Mark Oriwella, and I live in Ward 9, and I'm here to urge the budget and public employees committee to reject the proposed police budget.

First, I want to acknowledge that this is not the original proposal from the Board of Police Commission.

The Board of ENA has worked to reduce the budget to 208.6 million, and I appreciate that effort.

But even at that level, the city is still allocating tens of millions more than what it has said in its own lawsuit is legally required.

About 100 184.2 million.

At a time when critical programs are underfunded, that gap matters.

As someone who works in the drug treatment court, which is a diversion program.

Housing, treatment, and prevention, not just enforcement after the fact.

Last winter, Code Blue saved the lives of hundreds of unhoused St.

Louisans during the freezing temperatures.

Yet the current budget only allocates less than 60% of what that program received.

Take the Office of Violence Prevention as another example.

Police don't prevent crime.

They respond to it after it's already happened.

The Office of Violent Prevention does critical work in addressing the underlying reasons behind crime.

Yet their allocation for fiscal year 27 is only 8.8 of the 12.9 million that they requested, despite doing the work that actually reduces violence and makes our community safer.

And right to counsel, which provides legal representation to tenants facing eviction and keeps families housed, is only receiving about 40% of what it requested.

These programs reduce harm before it happens, and they make our community safer in ways policing alone cannot.

Finally, as the son of immigrants, I'm deeply concerned about how increased police funding will impact the immigrant community.

In our region, 82% of people detained by ICE were detained after an interaction with police, and 90% of those stops were traffic related.

Although SLMPD denies collaboration with ICE, two weeks ago, an officer called a community rapid response line, mistakenly thinking it was an ICE hotline.

More funding for the police means more stops, more surveillance, and more harm to vulnerable communities.

Please do right by St.

Louis and reject this budget.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have online Nate.

Um, I'm sorry, Alice and I'm sorry, in opposite.

Are you in opposition or not determined?

Mr.

Nate Landsey.

We're gonna go online.

He's in the room.

One he's in person.

Chairman wants you to go to some money online.

Okay.

Online, we have Alicia Hernandez.

Thank you.

Can you hear me okay?

Okay.

Um yeah, good afternoon, committee members.

My name is Alicia Hernandez.

I am the advocacy director for the migrant and immigrant community action project.

Uh our office is located in Ward 7.

I'm also a ward two resident in the Bivo neighborhood.

Um we are asking the budget public employees committee and the full board of Alderman um to add no additional funding over what is legally required for SLMPD and to give that money to the people, to the people of St.

Louis City.

Uh and that looks like funding fully funding right to council, allocating the full full request um toward the Office of Violence Prevention.

You know, right now uh in our country, we are experiencing unprecedented expansion of the immigration detention system.

And in our region, you all continue to hear that what it looks like here is that uh the what the the main way that people are put into ice custody and into detention and deportation is through interaction with police.

That looks like racial profiling, police making unnecessary traffic stops um that escalate to arrest.

Uh, and as you heard Mark just say, I'm going to say it one more time 82% of people in our region are detained after an interaction with police.

Um, and again, that is racial profiling.

And you also have heard several times that while SLMPD states that there is no collaboration with ICE, um, last month an SLMPD officer called our community rapid response line to report someone, mistaking it for the ICE hotline through DHS.

Um, this simple mistake made it very clear that there is in fact police cooperation with ICE through SLMPD.

With the massive influx of funding to the police, there will be more unnecessary patrols and surveillance that will lead to the detention and deportation of our neighbors.

Um, you know, authoritarianism is rapidly reshaping our country and has been creeping um for a very long time.

And as folks have said, the state takeover of our police department is a direct impact of that.

So thank you to Alderwoman Sunier for raising the unnecessary violence at the hands of SLMPD at City Hall last month.

Uh SLMPD has a clear history of violence and brutality, and their actions become more and more violent the harder that we, the people of St.

Sue City, fight for a city that prioritizes people over policing and people over profit.

And thank you to the Alders who have noted that it is egregious that the St.

Louis Metropolitan Police Department will not present their budget request before the board, regardless of if you think the reason for it or not is uh a legal tactic.

Um, you are not wasting your breath.

You are instead voicing a shared concern of those you were elected to represent.

You've heard from countless community members, uh, and we'll continue to hear from community members and organizations where we need and where we want city funding.

Tornado recovery, code blue, right to counsel, office of violence prevention.

The Mica project adds our support to these calls because these same services and offices benefits immigrants and mixed status residents of St.

Louis.

And we reject any additional funding to the policing in our city.

And my personal question for you all is why do we continue to give SLMPD so much power, so much money?

There is a better way forward.

You know, police and ICE are not separate.

Um, they are similar.

Um, yeah, we need a way that prioritizes building community, not cages, keeps our families together.

We want a St.

Louis city that prioritizes language needs, other needs of immigrant residents through all of these services and offices.

Um, yeah, we want a St.

Louis city where immigrant families feel safe and our neighbors can thrive.

And that means no more money for police.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Nate Lindsay.

Uh thank you, Chair Aldridge, members of the committee.

My name is Nate Lindsay.

I serve as council in Dutchtown, which operates one of the city's most effective neighborhood-led vacancy abatement program.

In Dutchtown, one of the city's few uh majority minority neighborhoods on the south side, we've closed over 40 targeted vacancy cases to new occupancy or pinning.

We have a pipeline of over 150 affordable housing units active production with our mission-driven partners.

That work is only possible because Dutch town has stitched together a partnership focused on vacancy housing production.

This is something the city has failed to do at scale.

This budget continues that failure by taking no recommended steps forward on the vacancy collaboratives from policy to progress report funded by the city.

The report makes the building division structural failures impossible to ignore.

The division has zero full-time inspectors dedicated to vacant property enforcement and zero full-time staff dedicated to recovering the city's uncollected vacancy fees, estimated now at over 20 million dollars.

This vacancy problem doesn't touch the building division's demonstrative failure to oversee the quality of rental housing in our city, which result with results ranging from lead and mold exposure to the exploitation of new Americans in St.

Louis.

Do the tools to fix these problems exist?

Yes.

Has the city dedicated the resource capacity to use them?

No.

The building division budget is flat at best.

Which comes no surprise that the building division that has been in front of this body to tell you it cannot perform its basic functions.

Fraud is a symptom of our failures cannot be an excuse for taking action.

This year in Dutchtown, we targeted three vacancy cases that burned to the ground prior to being resolved because the building division couldn't timely secure.

The city will not collect a dollar in fees from those absentee property owners, as those lots likely fall to the LRA and the city ends up paying for the demolition cost.

This is the normal pattern across St.

Louis, both North and South, repeated for decades, paying twice for lack of enforcement.

The tornado proved this at scale.

Total cleanup falling on the city and state is now estimated at 180 million dollars because 80% of privately held properties would not qualify for FEMA money because they were previously condemned by the city.

Critically, failing real estate markets are more susceptible to racialized housing displacement than one balancing on a knife's edge like Dutchtown.

In 2024, black buyers represented nearly one in five mortgages generated in Dutch town.

That's more than double their share citywide.

This is a direct result of deliberate vacancy abatement and housing strategies that pulled properties out of speculation and positioned them for equitable wealth building.

But that opportunity is fragile.

Concentrated vacancy turns an accessible market into an uninvestable one.

When buildings sit, decay, burn, lenders pull back, comparable sales collapse, and the homes that families tried to build wealth in no longer create wealth.

When the market hits rock bottom, capitalism will act against low and moderate income homeowners who do not have the means to compete in a buyer's market.

This is the threat the north side faces today.

Every building division decision this city funds or fails to fund, either protects equitable wealth building in those neighborhoods or accelerates their destruction.

Your current budget staffing cuts in this very division, which I is identified as the bottleneck for growth in the city of St.

Louis, demonstrate that you are not prioritizing this issue.

The current city plan is fund for demolition and fail to fund for growth.

That's where we are at.

Fund full-time vacancy inspectors, fund full-time collection staff, and please fund the building division.

Thank you.

Next we have online Donnie Khan.

I'll be there in a few minutes.

Next we have Julian Holt.

Excuse me, my voice is a bit gone.

I was at the May Day rally.

Um, but I'm a resident of Ward 12, and I just been listening to everything that everybody's been saying and trying to compartmentalize everything.

And honestly, after everything I've heard, I'm pretty disheartened.

I'm pretty saddened.

This is even if it's in suits, this is violence.

This is what I'm hearing.

Um none of the budget addresses public safety accurately, because if we actually really cared about the people's safety, we wouldn't be funding the police.

We would be funding more social things that can help people on the ground level, things like cold blue.

You want to keep people out of crime.

You need to keep people out of poverty.

You need to keep people off of the street.

And the cold blue is something that helps keep people off of the street.

You need to fund things like the rights of counsel, which helps people who have evictions who keep them off the street as well.

Poverty is always the number one reason there is crime.

Period point blank.

And the police are not designed to address that.

That's the thing that gets lost in meetings like this and in conversations like this.

The police's job is not to protect us, period.

Their job is to protect capital.

That has always been their job since the very beginning, and it will never change.

So when I hear things like the police board isn't here because of litigation, that's not weird, like you said, or unusual, like you said, it makes sense to me because they're not here for us.

They don't care about us.

They're not worried about the police budget getting cut because they know they're going to get what they want.

They don't really care about whether or not they're here and hearing the things that people have to say, the concerns, they don't care because that's not their job.

Their job is to protect money, which is why you said they are in litigation.

They only care about the capital they can lose.

Um, if we really wanted to curtail any things that can happen with the police, we would talk more about the civilian oversight board that's been routinely routinely neglected.

They can't even look at cases that were already completed, let alone cases that are underway in prisons on the streets.

If we really wanted to address the issues, it goes far beyond the police budget.

And so when I hear that the police is taking over from the state, and we're one of the only two cities, it's not confusing to me.

It's not astounding or befuddling to me.

It makes sense because in St.

Louis, we've been putting in work.

A lot of activists, a lot of orgs, a lot of volunteers, a lot of laborers, working class.

We've been talking, we've been working, we've been moving, and they notice that.

They're scared of that.

So, yeah, of course the police board isn't here.

That makes sense.

Why would they want to be here?

They don't want to be with the people that they're made to oppress.

They don't want to be here and listen to us.

Um I would also say too, hold on, I took a lot of notes.

I'm sorry, a lot of this is a bit just jumbled and all over the place.

But honestly, I think that the thing that really needs to be understood is that this whole budget is just one of the most violent things I've ever witnessed, period, like in person, because the police inflating their budget while people are still on their front lawns in North City.

I'm in Ward 12, I'm in Penrose.

I see this firsthand.

I saw the tornado, I was there.

I got lifted off the ground and thrown into a tree.

I know.

But seeing that the response to that only came from the volunteers.

Seeing that while people were trying to administer food and supplies and all types of different things to people across the region that were having issues.

The police were over there and all these protecting the mayor and any other politics that were over there.

They don't really care about the people on the ground level.

And that's gonna never change.

And so when I hear this budget, I'm here, and I'm pretty sure there are gonna be other people who follow me that understand that none of this stuff means absolutely anything until the money is funded for the people's needs, and to the money is administered to the people who help fund all of the police.

You mentioned litigation.

If I get a lawsuit, I can't call my boss and say, Well, I ain't coming in and work, they're gonna fire me.

If I am their boss, they my taxes pay for them.

So they need to be here.

They have to be here.

And even if they aren't here, again, that doesn't matter because their job is never gonna change.

They're violent, they're gonna always remain violent, and it is up to the people to save ourselves.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Helen Bailey.

Helen Bailey, third precinct, 11th ward.

Uh in 2021, the Board of Alderman was reduced by 50%.

50%.

This was based on the 2020 census, and due to significant population decline, and we went from 28 representatives to 14.

Yet we've continued to staff and fund the St.

Louis Metropolitan Police Department as though the city still boasts 800,000 residents.

What additional benefit could 300 additional officers bring to the most murderous police department in the charity of the United States?

Our tax dollars fund this city.

65% of the general budget comes from our income taxes.

Our taxes fund the murder of civilians on the street and in the city Miss Justice Center.

With our taxes, we fund the real-time crime center, the citywide audio surveillance, extended overtime, flock cameras, tanks, Humvees.

The citizens of this city deserve a study of the effectiveness of the police department in each of our 79 neighborhoods and an audit to provide the taxpayers with transparency and knowledge of where their money is going.

Between 108 and 110 parks grace the landscape of our beautiful city.

At the last opportunity for testimony, many testify that the preventative programs funded during this current fiscal year and defunded for the next fiscal year could be funded for pennies on the dollar compared to the unwarranted, unmerited additional 30 plus million dollars the budget has allocated for policing for this upcoming fiscal year.

So I'm adding the Board of Public Service to the rallying cry, especially since we learned today that the police department has planned to zero out the funding for marshals in our parks.

Section 14B of the city charter gives the BPS purview over the parks and recreation division.

When the city was running well, the city rec staff went out into communities.

They work with seniors, they provide a service learning and literacy training, as well as introductions to Olympic sports like swimming, basketball, and boxing.

There's a reason Jason Tatum comes back to this city to highlight wool recreation, wool recreation center.

And it's because the recreation center was pivotal to his success as an individual and an athlete.

Well-funded recreation center, get well-funded recreation centers, give youth opportunities to stay active, build confidence, and build skills that lead to scholarships and improve life expectancies.

Free those enslaved at the CJC, fund a resident-led redevelopment in North St.

Louis.

Thank you.

Next we have Caitlin.

Is it Kilgull?

Hello, my name is Caitlin Kilgo.

I'm a very proud resident of the 7th board.

Um I'm grateful to live in this beautiful city.

Um and I just I'm not an expert on budgets, I'm not an accountant.

I did not have time to read the full lay mess size document.

Um it would probably take me a lot longer to get through it.

So I wanted to focus on one small part that I could understand.

A 7% raise for the police is just what a chunk of this insane budget.

Um we know that the police cause violence and they cause harm.

I just I just want to say, like a 7% raise for the men who bruised me, who sprained my wrist, who sent me the hospital, uh 7% raise when children in our city, one and three children in St.

Louis goes to bed hungry every night.

Um one of my heroes taught me that budgets are moral documents.

And I think you'll have an opportunity here.

Well, first holding backtrack.

I heard from a lot of you saying this is unusual, this is unprecedented, uh, this is a violation of our constitution for the pol for the police board of commissioners to be asking for this money, and then they're not here, and they don't talk about why they even need this money.

So it's very obvious they have zero respect for any of us at all.

Not the citizens, not our elected officials, not the law, not the city charter.

So why do y'all?

Why is there still 208 million dollars going to the police?

Fund what works.

We know that the police do not keep us safe.

We know this.

The the stats, the everything is there, all of the information is there.

The police do not respect us.

We should not have respect for them.

We should not be giving them any money.

So I challenge you, go to the extreme.

If if they're not respecting our city charter and our constitution and the United States Constitution, do not respect their laws, do not respect their requests, zero out their budget, make them come and defend why they need money when they are the most murderous police department in the nation.

Stop giving them raises for murdering our neighbors.

Zero out the budget, be revolutionary, do something different.

Thank you.

Miss Keogal, thank you.

What ward are you from, Miss Kilgold?

Thank you.

Next, we have Torin Taylor.

Is it Taylor or Taylon?

Torin Taylor.

And I just have a lot of questions.

Uh I hate to see that the guy that runs the budget left out of here, but I just wanted to know why.

Like the last person just said, you cannot zero out the budget.

Challenge them.

You know, I feel like they the police do so many things to not only me, but a lot of people that I know, including pulling people over for unnecessary traffic stops.

Uh just the whole culmination of things that you already know about.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is uh beyond Dero on out the budget, also telling them, you know, since you can't show up to these board meetings, how about we take away some of the things that you already have?

Like the uh new buildings that they have all throughout the city, all their new vehicles, all their new armory, all those are things that the city can confiscate, right?

Those are things that you, the city government control, essentially.

The people say that we don't want them to have any more money, and we also don't want them to keep being armed to keep terrorizing us, right?

Just a few weeks ago, we had a alleged bomb threat at a building across the street from us where police blocked off Jefferson from Cherokee and Utah and had bomb squat right outside my house, and along with that, they had officers with AR-15s.

What are you doing at a alleged bomb threat with military hardware?

Right?

Like that is sickening and disheartening, and the fact that the mayor and the board of AE are not here to also partake in these conversations with the people is very disgusting.

So I would not only like to see you all challenge the police, but challenge the board of police commissioners and the board of AE in saying enough is enough.

The people run this city, y'all just y'all just sit there and look cute at the top of the food chain.

It's time that we knock them down a couple notches and show them who really runs this city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Etta Taylor.

Hi.

Um, I'm Eda Taylor.

I live in Ward 7.

Um, I'm opposed to this budget.

A lot of it is being opposed to this giant police budget that we don't know where the money's going because they won't tell us, they won't talk to us.

Basically, all the reasons everyone stated.

Um, I'm gonna keep trying to keep this brief brief because my nerves are kind of shaky, but uh yeah, the police aren't helping us.

We don't need to budget for them not telling us what they're gonna do that's probably gonna ultimately harm the citizens of the city.

I also think that we really need to fully fund right to counsel.

Um I know that last year it had about 400,000, then I heard today that they said they increased it by one million dollars that had only been um allocated to one million, though it had passed at 2.5 million, so I think that we should pass it because uh I know personally that good landlords make good tenants, and bad landlords make you know, not only more crime and all sorts of issues, but they also make it harder for good landlords.

Um, if a good landlord moves in after a bad landlord, I was a handy person for most of the last 20 years.

I had my own business for the last five.

So much of it is just watching, you know, a good landlord finally gets a building, but because the last landlord just did quick fix, quick fix, quick fix.

What was supposed to be a turnkey opportunity ends up being hundreds of thousands of dollars of repairs that need to be made that were never fully addressed, and the tenants and the landlords and everybody gets stuck in a bad position.

So I think that like, you know, we really need to help support tenants because that is supporting good landlords, and it's supporting not needing so much money for police because again, it's the not having money on the street, or not money on the street, not having people on the street, um, making sure that people have secure housing, secure housing means everything to everyone.

Uh, and I'm gonna stop because I forgot all my points.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Sarah Watkin.

Hello, committee.

My name is Sarah Watkins.

I live in the seventh ward.

Um, I'm a mother and a renter, and I organize tenants with tenants transforming Greater St.

Louis in transparency.

In transparency, I usually have something more polished and prepared, but I'm honestly kind of pissed off, so I don't have that today.

Um I'm here to testify in opposition of the proposed budget.

Um there are programs that people have expressed at the last opportunity to speak.

The only opportunity to speak.

Code Blue was requested 3.5 million dollars.

This budget has 2 million allocated, which leaves a 1.5 million dollar gap.

The Office of Violence Prevention requested 12.9 million, 8.8 was allocated, which leaves a $4 million gap.

Uh I also want to talk about right to counsel because I and my community spent a lot of time, spent a lot of time um advocating for this program.

And I want to actually address some of my comments to the board at ENA because this is where this this budget came from.

So Donna Comptroller Donna Baringer earlier this year, she agreed to meet with housing advocates about fully funding the program, the right to counsel program, and she said she wasn't familiar with it actually.

I found that disrespectful and dismissive of the needs of the most marginalized and vulnerable constituents in this city.

It showed to me that she was disconnected from renters, the almost 60% of the city's population that she was elected to represent.

While landlords and corporations extracted wealth during the pandemic, families, black women, children, and our elders were being thrown out of their homes at alarming rates.

The tenants' right to counsel program was the result of many uh renters and advocates organizing to disrupt the mass displacement of St.

Louis's.

To me, um her vote to her to abstain was out of touch and revealing to voters where her true interests lie with her donors like Enterprise who cooperate with ICE and St.

Louis Realtors Association who spends time and money lobbying against tenant protections.

Mayor Kerr Spencer, as Alder Woman, you voted in favor of right to counsel and you supported stronger enforcement around negligent landlords.

During candidate forums and debates, you aligned yourself as an ally and you used broad talking points, claiming you have a long track record of fighting slum lords.

And I listened closely because I lived in the 20th war for years under a slum lord, like many of my neighbors in Dutchtown.

So I know that you're friends with Southside Slim Lords like Jason Goldkamp and Joel Rutherford, and we know your billionaire developer Bob Clark made the largest donation to your campaign.

And I'll make sure people remember that you sent a mailer out during your campaign letting voters know you consider right to counsel a waste of taxpayer dollars.

We also know you believe investing in more policing will increase public safety.

How the most murdering lying ass police department in the nation can achieve this is beyond me.

I have a metal plate and six screws in my arm after a group of SLMPD officers slammed me to the ground, fracturing my arm while I was detained.

We saw at the state of the city how the police department targeted and terrorized protesters, black women at City Hall, dragging them like cattle, seriously injuring civilians, while Mayor Kara Springer watched from her podium.

I echo all of the community-led solutions that have been lifted up by speakers today and always that truly confront cycles of interpersonal and state violence.

Lastly, present uh president Megan Green, congratulations on your new edition.

But I have to remind you that Action St.

Louis organized an email and a petition um protesting the police budget.

And you replied, and you said that you would vote no on any budget that allocated funding over the state requirement.

I don't think that's happened, and I just want to remind you of the commitment that you made.

Lastly, I believe that housing is a human right and that our land belongs to the people, not greedy developers and landowners like Bob Parp, Bob Clark and Paul McKee.

And this budget belongs to the people of St.

Louis, not a state-controlled police department.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Carrie McCullum.

Is it McCullin or McKracken?

Hi, it's Carrie McCullin.

Um, I live in Ward 2.

Hello, committee.

Um I'm just here to add my name to the list of all the folks who are opposed to police budget.

We shouldn't give the police a single cent over what they are legally entitled to, not a single cent.

The proposed budget for the police makes no sense.

In the winter, unhoused people like Marlowe Blinks live outside.

They are forced to live outside through frostbite and amputations, and they are discharged back into the freezing cold weather, many without even a cult.

He called 211 for shelter this past winter and was on hold for hours.

It makes no sense.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have Donnie Kahn.

He is our last speaker.

She hello, I'm Danny Kahn.

I'm from Ward 2.

I advocate for the city to stop treating the symptoms of poverty and address the root cause with creative solutions.

Lucky for all of us, we have an opportunity to do that thanks to the tireless work of community members who are leading initiatives that address the root causes of what the police are used, what they are used to supposedly treat.

Right to counsel needs another 1.5 million dollars.

Office of Violence Prevention needs another 4.1 million dollars.

Code Blue needs another 1.5 million dollars.

I'm not sure about the Office of New Americans, but I believe they need more money as well, especially with the ICE onslaught that we're seeing terrorizing our communities lately.

And the police collaboration with them, frankly.

Um, each of these programs has shown the ability to create public safety at the route, whereas the Missouri Board of Police Commissioners have only shown corruption and violence.

I would even chalk up their budget request as extortion, and I reiterate Alderman Browning and Alderwoman Sonniers' view that it represents an existential threat to the city.

They tried to bankrupt us.

At least more than legally necessary.

If it were up to me, I would not be awarding even the legal minimum and encourage the city to fight for our autonomy from Jefferson City takeover in court.

It disgusts me that any more money is given to the police department, we don't have control of.

And as we saw at the state of the city, the mayor doesn't have control of them either.

So take more money away from the police to fully fund right to counsel, the Office of Violence Prevention, Code Blue.

Collect taxes from deadbeat developers.

I know Green Street owes upwards of three million in unpaid taxes.

And this is the least of the reasons Green Street is a parasite on our city, but some of that would still need to go to uh St.

Louis public schools, but the rest could be funding right to counsel, for example.

Finally, and I know this isn't uh pertaining to the general fund, but we need to be direct we need to be directing the bulk, if not all of the Rams Settlement Fund to the North Side.

There is no better investment we can make than directly into the people of North St.

Louis.

Thank you.

Next, we have Connard Williams.

Hello, good morning, members of the committee.

My name is Kennard Williams.

I'm a resident of the ninth ward, and I am a senior organizer at Action St.

Louis.

Um heard the phrase, uh, closed mouths don't get fed.

And what we've seen uh repeatedly is members of the community uh being absolutely required to speak and to show up in both ENA uh meetings, these meetings, in order to be heard by their elected officials in order to tell you what we need to see money going towards.

Dozens of people turned out to provide four hours of testimony for that last ENA meeting.

What message does it send to the people of this city when not only representatives of the department nor the state appointed police board will show up and explain to the public why they are intent on bankrubbing and robbing robbing the city?

Even worse, what message does it send to the people of this city when they don't show up and they still get what they asked for?

We are in the middle of the fight for the spirit of St.

Louis, and working class people are struggling every day to make ends meet.

When we are underfunding things such as the uh tenant relocation fund when we're not funding the Office of Violence Prevention, what are we doing?

We saw the police ask for five million dollars alone just to account for lawsuits that they expect to rack up.

People expect to kill, people expect to maim, people that expect to injure, people whose constitutional rights that they are going to infringe upon.

That five million dollars can fund right to council all the way.

That can fund the Office of Violence Prevention all the way.

What does it look like when we have a hungry beast and we continue to feed it and it continues to eat everything at the expense of the people in this city?

I am urging you to invest in the people to reject this budget and do not give them a cent more than what they are owed.

Thank you.

That will be all.

As over the next few weeks, our meeting is public.

We will be hearing from various departments just this week for the public education.

We will hear tomorrow from the mayor's office.

Uh, we will hear from the present board of aldermen, the comptroller office, recorder deeds, planning and urban design, department, director of public safety, Wednesday, Office of Violent Prevention, uh, Fire Department, Parks, Recreation, and the Treasurer's Office, and then we'll wrap up the week Thursday from here from the building division, corrections, civilian oversight, and the license collector office.

So please, if you can't make it to hear those uh budgets, ones that may be important.

Uh I know OVP was mentioned several times, they'll be here uh Wednesday at 9:30.

But if you can't make it in person, all our meetings are on YouTube where you can always uh watch them as well.

Any following comments from any committee members?

Seeing none, uh again, board bill one will be held uh as we'll be going through it.

Do we have any acknowledgement of rent testimony, madam clerk?

We have none.

Any announcements from committee members?

All members was present, so I'll take a motion to adjourn.

Move by the all one from the sixth, seconded by the all to one aldermen from the ninth.

All in favor, aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

We are adjourned.