Budget and Public Employees Committee Meeting - October 8, 2026

The Budget and Public Employees Committee met on October 8, 2026, to discuss Board Bill 59, which would place a ballot measure before voters in April 2027 to reallocate a portion of a half-cent sales tax (originally dedicated to North-South Metrolink) to allow for bus rapid transit (BRT) or other mass transit initiatives. The bill was held in committee after extensive discussion and public testimony raised concerns about vague language and lack of public trust. No vote was taken.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of minutes from September 30, 2026: The committee unanimously approved the minutes from the previous meeting.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Gwendolyn Cox (Ward 10) questioned the level of public engagement, stating that only about 52 people attended a previous open house and noted the city's population loss and vacant lots. She expressed skepticism about the need for BRT and urged more discussion on improving the current transit system, including fixing bus connections.
• Elise Schaefer (Ward 6, Policy Manager for Missouri Coalition for the Environment) urged the committee to pass BB59 with an amendment requiring all funded projects to be fossil fuel-free, citing climate goals. She shared survey data: 67% of respondents said transit was not convenient, 73% said buses/trains don't run frequently enough, but 70% would use transit more if service were more frequent, and 78% would use it more if it were more convenient.
• Melinda Long (Ward 11) criticized the bill's language as too vague, saying "other mass transit initiatives" could include rail, water, or aerial systems. She expressed lack of trust in the Board of Aldermen, not Metro, and asked that the bill be amended to add express buses rather than BRT.
• Mrs. Alexander (Ward 11) stated that the community had previously informed the city and Metro that light rail was too expensive and unsafe. She argued that the current BRT proposal still includes language allowing light rail, and that the community’s request to add express buses was denied. She asked the committee not to vote that day and to allow more community input.
• Zach B. (Ward 11) opposed the bill in its current form, calling it intentionally vague and leaving the fund open to pillaging. He argued that light rail is a better long-term investment, citing its ability to attract residents and economic development. He criticized the city for giving tax abatements to developers while claiming lack of funds for transit.

Discussion Items

• Presentation and Discussion of Board Bill 59:
  • Alderman Aldridge, the bill's sponsor, explained that BB59 would amend the language of the 2017 Proposition One sales tax (dedicated to North-South Metrolink) to allow flexibility for bus rapid transit or other mass transit initiatives. He noted that the light rail project was too costly ($1.1 billion for 5.6 miles) and that BRT would serve 11.5 miles, 23 stations, at an estimated cost of $360 million to $590 million. He emphasized that no new taxes are proposed and that over $100 million in funds have been collected and can only be used for transit.
  • Toby Roach (Metro) presented that 33 of 39 national projects in the federal Capital Investment Grant queue have shifted to BRT due to cost and efficiency. He highlighted that BRT would double the coverage area, serve dense transit-dependent neighborhoods, and allow for a full street solution with pedestrian and bike amenities. He stated that 84% of existing Metro riders use transit to get to work, and 74% have incomes under $60,000.
  • Kim Sellis (CEO, Citizens for Modern Transit) supported the bill, noting that the pivot to BRT increases the project footprint from 5 miles to 11.5 miles and opens access to St. Louis County. She mentioned a study showing that homes near high-frequency transit routes in St. Louis saw 144% price appreciation compared to 67% for those near less frequent routes.
  • Charlie Hinderleiter (St. Louis Realtors) supported the bill, citing national examples (Eugene, OR: BRT led to 49% residential price appreciation; Boston: 84% commercial appreciation). He stressed that transit access expands job access and economic mobility.
  • Scott Ogilvie (City Planning) answered questions about the breadth of the phrase "other mass transit initiatives," acknowledging that it would allow the city to pivot without a new voter vote, though any future capital project would require public processes and board approvals.
  • Alderman Sonye expressed concern that the language was too broad and would allow the city to change transit modes without going back to voters. She stated she supports BRT but wanted a narrower scope or a requirement for future voter approval on major pivots.
  • Alderman Velazquez shared similar concerns, noting that excessive flexibility could lead to inaction if public sentiment shifts.
  • Alderman Browning raised concerns about public trust, noting that many residents are skeptical after past transit changes. He emphasized the importance of frequency (targeting 10-minute service, not 25) and questioned the likelihood of federal funding under the current administration, which has only funded one CIG grant nationally. He also promoted upcoming open houses on October 19 and 22, 2026, for public education on BRT.

Key Outcomes

• Board Bill 59 was held in committee: No vote was taken. Alderman Aldridge agreed to hold the bill to allow further conversations with colleagues, community, and stakeholders to refine the language, particularly regarding the scope of "other mass transit initiatives."
• Next steps: The committee encouraged public participation in upcoming open houses (October 19 at Rung for Women, October 22 at Polish Heritage Center, and a virtual session on October 26) to provide input on the project.
• Adjournment: The committee adjourned with a motion from the alderman from the ninth, seconded by the alderman from the 14th, carried by voice vote.