St. Louis Legislation Rules Committee Meeting - July 15, 2026
St. Louis Legislation Rules Committee Meeting - July 15, 2026
The Legislation Rules Committee met at 10:16 a.m. on July 15, 2026, under Chair Velasquez with all six members present. The meeting included approval of previous minutes and attempts to engross three board bills, but procedural issues and documentation errors prevented any bills from advancing.
Consent Calendar
- The committee unanimously approved the minutes from the July 1, 2026, meeting (6 ayes).
Discussion Items
- Board Bill 50 (Floor Substitute): The clerk explained that the floor substitute restored a section mistakenly removed during committee amendment. During the engrossment checklist review, initial uncertainty about legal and fiscal sign-offs was resolved when the deputy clerk confirmed reviews had been completed. Alderman Cohn expressed strong concerns that such checks should be confirmed before the meeting. The motion to engross failed (only 3 ayes, insufficient for a majority). Subsequently, the committee unanimously reconsidered that vote (6 ayes) and then held the bill in committee by voice vote.
- Board Bill 41 (As Amended in Committee): The clerk described the amendments, but it became clear that Amendment 1 (changing "shall give priority" to "may give preference") had not been adopted yet remained in the bill. Alderman Cohn called it a significant clerical error and emphasized that the clerk should verify motions from meeting recordings. The committee held the bill in committee without a vote on engrossment by unanimous consent.
- Board Bill 34 (As Amended in Committee): Chair Velasquez, the sponsor, identified errors including an incorrect exhibit. She moved to send the bill back to the Public Infrastructure and Utilities Committee, which was done without objection.
Key Outcomes
- No bills were engrossed during the meeting.
- Board Bill 50 (Floor Substitute): Motion to engross failed (3 ayes). Later reconsidered unanimously and held in committee.
- Board Bill 41 (As Amended): Held in committee by unanimous consent.
- Board Bill 34 (As Amended): Returned to the Public Infrastructure and Utilities Committee for corrections.
- Members emphasized the need for better pre-meeting preparation and accuracy, with the chair acknowledging ongoing improvements to the review process.
Meeting Transcript
We will now call to order the legislation rules committee for Wednesday, July 15th. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll? I'm sorry, we're starting at uh 1016 a.m. Alderman Cole. Madam Clerk. Alderman Cole. Present. Alderman Norayan. Here. Alder Woman Keys. Here. Alder Woman Sonier. And then Vice Chair Devodi. Here. Chair Velasquez. Present. Six present. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Now I will entertain a motion for the approval of the minutes for the meeting on Wednesday, July 1st, 2026. So moved. Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll? Alderman Cole. Aye. Alderman. I alder woman keys. Aye. Alder Woman Sanyer. Aye. Vice Chair Devone. I. Chair Velasquez. Aye. Six I votes. Thank you, Madam Clerk. With that, we have approved the minutes from Wednesday, July 1st, 2026. Today we don't have any board bills for review. We have no resolutions for review, and we have three items uh on our we have three discussion items, uh three different board bills to engross uh 34 amended as amended in committee, 41 as amended in committee, and uh floor substitute uh 50. I'm going to go in reverse order because we are double checking some uh things. Uh so Mr. Clerk, can you please walk us through uh board bill 50 substitute or floor substitute? Oh clerk, you're on mute. You're still on mute. Okay, can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. So basically the substitute and board bill 50, the original language included in that section, um these committee markets or commercial markets, and the amendment to that removed one of them. And so then the um floor bill put that section back. So basically the it took it back to the original intent of the original bill. So it um replaced the the amendment replaced, took out sections that shouldn't have um by mistake, and so the full board the the floor substitute put it back in. So the your question about was the amendment language correct.
openpublica.com