Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

The board will now come to order. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderman Schweitzer.

Alderman Oldenburg. Alderman Cohn. Alderman Narayan. Alderman Devotee. Alderwoman Velazquez. Alderwoman Sanye. Alderwoman Cox-Antwi. Alderman Browning. Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard. Alderwoman Keyes. Alderwoman Tyus.

Present.

Alderwoman Boyd. Alderman Aldrich. President Green. Present. Alderwoman Coxanne Twee. Alderwoman Boyd. Alderman Aldrich. 13 present.

A quorum being present, we will be led in an opening reflection by City of St. Louis Poet Laureate, Patia Anderson.

Good morning. In honor of Juneteenth, we salute you. We salute you. For those whose lifeblood became the lifeblood of this place. For those whose bodies became nutrients for the soil that grew the towering landscapes. For those who endeavored and toiled to ensure that we freed ourselves. Who moved with muskets and side arms, rifles and carbines and formations that formed the foundation of this republic. We give honor. We salute you. to those who remain captive after the free, for those whose beings became legend, whose spirits move through history via tongue and the oral keeping, whose names remain blank in the books written by those who claim the spoils, still venerated by we who have descended, whose names remain, if not upon our tongues, but in our bones, in our cellular structures, in our dreams, in our goings forth. For those... Whom, regardless of the story that lives on, the ones who by the time they saddled up on those horses they rode in on, the ones who by that time had already been gone, for the ones who star charted and pace counted, quarter mastered and signaled, lobbied and congressed, smuggled, mended, tracked and cooked for those who did not rest, making it possible for us to free ourselves in our vibrancy. They called us colored, their enemies becoming their infantry, a heaven-sent regiment that turned the tide of war, tipped the scales in favor of a nation that favored us dead, knowing that without us, they all too soon would be. Knowing without us, there would be no victory for Susie King Taylor with her healing of injuries, for Harriet Tubman and her... healthy deliveries for Moses Dixon and the Knights of Liberty, for every unnamed who dug trenches and wells, for every body unclaimed whose sacrifice made it possible for liberation to excel, for every single breath captured in the springs of our central gold pine groves and elms, for every single ancestor who helped us free ourselves from Galveston to Gravois. Williamsburg to Walnut Park Baton Rouge to Baden Manassas to Mill Creek we give honor we salute you for those whose lives and blood became the lifeblood of this place for those whose bodies became nutrients for the soil that grew these towering landscapes from the then to the right here and the right now we give thanks we honor and we salute you Thank you.

We will dispense with line item four. Is there any introduction of honored guests? Any introduction of honored guests? Alderwoman from the 11th.

Testing. There I am. Good morning, everyone. And it truly is a beautiful and colorful day. I wanted to have as my honored guest Ms. Precious Jones, who yesterday held an event. uh... in remembrance of all of those who have died as a result of gun violence this week is national neighborhood gun violence awareness and prevention week and so if you'll notice the little green ribbon that i am wearing so this week you know if you have an opportunity to Dress your body in some green and somehow in remembrance of all of those who have lost their lives. And so posthumously, all of the names that we read yesterday are my honored guests. Additionally, I'm going to take everybody who's up in the gallery are my honored guests today. Please stand. Thank you. I wanted to get mine in first. Okay. So, additionally, Marlene Davis, former Alderman and my legislative... Joe Vollmer.

Thank you. Joe Vollmer. Thank you.

Alderman from the 5th? No.

Madam President, there we go. Members of the board, first, I don't know how I follow that up. I guess I need to shout out to Alderman Vollmer as well. Today is my honored guest. I would like to recognize Jacob Castillo. Jacob is joining the Fifth Ward team this summer. He is a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and he is working as an internship, or working as an intern in the office. So he's going to be helping us do some research and some aid. If we could all welcome Jacob to the board today.

Alderman from the Ninth?

Look.

Thank you. OK, that one works. Thank you. This morning, I'd like the St. Louis Water Division and Spencer Gould and Robert Atchison, who are in the gallery as my honored guests. We are going to get help today. And as the work around the clock to address the giant sinkhole just north of downtown, and really just all of the infrastructure in our city. We really appreciate the dedication that they bring and look forward to supporting them today.

Other woman from the first. Thank you, Madam President and members of the board. I'd like to have my husband's family as my honored guests today. Last week, I was not at this meeting in person because my husband's grandfather passed. Jim Reuter, as an incredible man, he raised a beautiful family and is a veteran, a service member as well. So I just wanted to have a moment of silence, if possible, for him in honor of my husband's family. We could please stand and bow our heads for a moment of silence.

Thank you. Any further introduction of honored guests? Any further introduction of honored guests? Seeing none, Alderwoman from the 10th, you're recognized on the approval of the minutes from Friday, June 12, 2026.

Good morning. I move that we approve the minutes from Friday, June 12th, 2026. Second.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 3rd that we approve the minutes from Friday, June 12th, 2026. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Report of city officials.

Report of city officials can be found in A, B, C, and D of the agenda, and a copy has been placed in a Google Drive for your review.

Does anyone wish to take any bills or resolutions off of any of our informal calendars? Alderwoman from the 10th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we place Board Bill 10 on the perfection calendar.

Madam Clerk, if we could please place Board Bill 10 at the beginning of the Board Bills for Perfection. So noted. Alderwoman from the 11th.

Members of the Board, please place Board Bill 44 on the informal calendar.

Is that later? It's on second reading right now. Wait till we get there. Thank you. Alderman from the 5th.

Madam President, members of the board, I move that we move board bill 28 as amended on the floor onto the regular perfection calendar.

Madam Clerk, if you could please place board bill 28 as amended on the floor on the beginning of the board bills for perfection calendar.

So noted.

Alderman from the 3rd, you are recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing Board Bills 51, 52, 53, and 54 for first reading.

Thank you, Madam President. I move to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing Board Bills 51, 52, 53, and 54.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 3rd, seconded by the Alderman from the 2nd, that we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing Board Bills 51, 53, and 54. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President. These bills are related to airport indentures, the public transit sales tax, and a community improvement district, and would ask for folks' favorable consideration as we vote to suspend the rules for the introduction of these.

It's been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderman from the second that we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing board bills 51, 52, 53, and 54. This is a non-debatable motion. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer. Alderman Oldenburg. Aye. Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan. Aye. Alderman Devotee. Aye. Alderman Velazquez. Aye. Alderman Sanye. Aye. Alderman Cox-Antwi. Aye. Alderman Browning. Aye. Alderman Clark-Hubbard. Aye. Alderwoman Keyes.

Aye.

Alderwoman Tyus.

Aye.

Alderwoman Tyus.

Aye.

Alderwoman Boyd. Aye. Alderman Aldrich.

President Green. Aye. Fifteen aye votes. By your vote, you sustain the motion of the alderman from the third. If you could please place board bills 51, 52, 53, and 54 on the first reading of board bills. So noted. First reading of board bills.

Board bill number 45, introduced by Alderwoman Clark Hubbard, pursuant to ordinance number 70333, as amended by ordinance number 71394, an ordinance directing the director of streets to install speed humps to calm the flow of traffic on the 5,000, 50, 100, and 50, 200 blocks of Ridge. Board bill number 46, introduced by Alderman Aldrich, an ordinance amending ordinance number 71302, which ordinance relates to an original lease agreement dated January 1st, 2021 between the city of St. Louis, Missouri and United Fruit and Produce Company and authorizing the execution of a first amendment to lease agreement between the city and leasing for certain land at or near 5 Clinton Street under certain terms and conditions as set forth in the first amendment attached here to as exhibit A and containing the serability clause. Board Bill Number 47, introduced by Alderwoman Sanye. An ordinance providing a redevelopment plan dated August 26, 2025 for the Tiffany Scattered Sites Second Area in the City of St. Louis. Board Bill Number 48, introduced by Alderwoman Schweitzer. An ordinance entitled Data Center Environmental Impact Monitoring. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish a mandatory environmental monitoring and reporting program for data center buildings containing a serability clause. Board Bill Number 49, introduced by Alderwoman Schweitzer, Alderwoman Sanye, alderman and alderman clark hubbard an ordinance recommended by the planning commission amending the zoning code to add section 26.77 creating comprehensive zoning regulations for data centers approved by the planning commission on june 10 2026 and containing a serability clause board bill number 50 introduced by alderman aldrick and president green an ordinance repealing ordinance 71212 as codified in Chapter 8.108 of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis and any other ordinance or portions of ordinances codified Chapter 8.108 that are inconsistent with this ordinance in establishing updated regulations for the licensing and operations of mobile food vendors, including designated commercial vending markets, PREDETERMINED VENDING LOCATIONS, PERMIT DISPLAY REQUIREMENTS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT BY THE STREETS DEPARTMENT. FOR BILL NUMBER 51, INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN SHANE, AN ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD OF ESTIMATE AND APPORTIONMENT AUTHORIZING DIRECTING THE ASSURANCE ESTABLISHMENT OF TERMS AND SALES OF AIRPORT REVENUE BOND NOT TO EXCEED Millions of all, I'm sorry, or a portion of the city's subordinate debt is incurred to provide interim financing and refinancing for the acquisition, expansion, construction, renovation, and equipping of airport facilities and to finance the cost of the purchase. extensions, improvement, or enlargement of the airport, providing for the funding of and any required debt services, reserve funds, and capitalized interest funds, and for the payment of costs of insurance appointing and trustee approving, and authorizing the preparation, execution, and delivery of necessary or appropriate documents and actions repealing and consistent prior ordinance and containing serability and emergency clause. Board Bill Number 52, introduced by Alderman Cohn. An ordinance pertaining to The transit sales tax imposed pursuant to section 94.660 as adopted by the voters of St. Louis City on August 2nd, 1994, pursuant to ordinance 63168, creating the city public transit sales tax trust fund, directing the treasurer of the city of St. Louis to deposit funds received pursuant to said sales tax and to the city public transit sales tax trust fund, account one appropriating 13,529,900 from the said sales tax for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027 to the by state development agency for certain purposes and containing a serability and emergency clause. Board Bill number 53, introduced by Alderman Cohn. An ordinance pertaining to the transit sales tax imposed pursuant to section 94.660 as adopted by the voters of the City of St. Louis City on November the 4th, 1997 pursuant to ordinance 64111, creating the City Public Transit Sales Tax Trust Fund. Directing the treasurer of the city of St. Louis to deposit funds received pursuant to said sales tax and to the city public transit sales tax trust fund account to appropriating $13,529,900 from the said sales tax for the period July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027 to the bi-state development agency for certain purposes and containing a serability and emergency clause. Board Bill Number 54, introduced by Alderman Odenberg, an ordinance approving the petition of owners of real property seeking the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the Bravo Community Improvement District, finding a public purpose for the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the Bravo Community Improvement District, and containing the serability clause and emergency clause. That is the extent of first reading of board bills.

Madam Clerk, if you could please assign Board Bills 51, 52, and 53 to the Transportation and Commerce Committee and 54 to the HUD's Committee. So noted. Reference to Committee of Board Bills.

Reference to the public infrastructure, board bill number 45. To transportation and commerce, board bill number 46, 51, 52, and 53. To the HUD's committee, board bill number 47, 48, 49, 50, and 54. That is the extent of reference to committee or board bills. Second reading, report of standing committees. To the following board, the following board bills were reported out of HUDS with a do pass recommendation. Board bill number 43 as amended in committee, introduced by Alderwoman Schweitzer and Alderwoman Keyes. An ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment amending ordinance number 71393, ordinance number 71494, ordinance number 71554, ordinance number 71555, ordinance number 71561, ordinance number 71591, ordinance number 71592, ORDINANCE NUMBER 71650 ORDINANCE NUMBER 71840 ORDINANCE NUMBER 71864 AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 72125 BY REAPPROPRIATING CERTAIN AMOUNTS SPECIFIED HEREIN AN AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF $2,520,436 FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT AND REPAIR AND WITH AN EMERGENCY CLAUSE. Board Bill No. 44, introduced by Alderwoman Keyes, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor and comptroller of the City of St. Louis to execute upon receipt of and in consideration of the sum of $200 and other good and valuable consideration, a quitclaim deed to remiss release and forever quitclaim until Willie Jarman's certain city-owned property, located in City Block, 4411A, which property is known and numbered as 4052 Camellia Avenue in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and containing an emergency clause. The following board members reported out a public infrastructure and utilities committee with a due pass recommendation. Board Bill number 33 as amended in committee, introduced by Alderman Browning. Pursuant to Ordinance number 70333, as amended by Ordinance number 71394, an ordinance directing the Director of Streets to install speed humps to calm the flow of traffic on the 4300 block of West Pine Boulevard. That is the extent of second reading and report of standing committees.

Report of special committees.

We have none.

We can dispense with line item 15, perfection consent calendar.

Board Bill Number 8, introduced by Alderwoman Swicer, Alderwoman Sanye, and Alderman Aldrich, an ordinance related to appointment of and salaries of certain employees in the Collector of Revenues Office pursuant to Section 82.610, Revised Statute of Missouri by Repealing Ordinance Number, seven one nine six six allocating certain other employees to a grade with rate and including an emergency clause the provisions of the section contained in this ordinance shall be effective with the start of the pay first pay period following approval by the mayor that is the extent on board bills perfection consent calendar alderwoman from the tenth year recognized on the motion to adopt the board bills for the perfection consent calendar

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we adopt the board bills for perfection consent calendar.

Second.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 3rd, that we adopt the board bills for the perfection consent calendar. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

Aye.

Motion carries. Board bills for perfection.

Board Bill Number 10, introduced by Alderman Clark Hubbard and Alderman Aldrich, an ordinance relating to the appointment of and salaries of certain employees in the Sheriff's Office pursuant to Section 57.530, Revised Statutes of Missouri, by repealing Ordinance Number 71968, allocating certain other employees to a grade with rate and including emergency clause. The provisions of the section contained in this ordinance shall be effective with the start of the first pay period following approval by the mayor.

Alderwoman from the 10th, you're recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 10.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we perfect Board Bill 10.

Second. It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 11th, that we perfect Board Bill 10. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President. Members of the Board, I move that we adopt Amendment 1, which has been in the draft and is on everyone's desk, reflecting some changes in the bill that came out of ENA to Board Bill 10.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 1st, that we adopt Amendment 1 to Board Bill 10. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we now perfect Board Bill 10 as amended.

We need a vote on the amendment first. Do you have any discussion on the amendment? No, I renew my motion. Okay. Then it has been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 1st, that we adopt Amendment No. 1 to Board Bill 10. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Alderwoman, you are now recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 10 as amended on the floor. I renew my motion. You need to make the motion now.

I remake the motion that we perfect Board Bill 10 as amended on the floor.

Second. It's been moved by the Alderman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 3rd, that we perfect Board Bill 10 as amended on the floor. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

Board Bill number 28, as amended on the floor, introduced by Alderman Devotee, Alderman Schweitzer, Alderman Cox-Antwi, Alderman Brownlee, and Alderman Velazquez. An ordinance requiring the installation of water meters on certain service connections in the city of St. Louis. providing mechanisms for enforcement including providing authority to deny or withhold service for non-compliance and delegating authority to the water division to administer implement and set technical standards for meter installation the requirement applies prospectivity to new service connections and mandates the installation of meters only on certain existing service connections the hardness also includes a serability clause

Alderman from the 5th, you are recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 28.

Yes, Madam President, members of the Board, I move that we perfect Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 5th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 10th, that we perfect Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor. Alderman from the 5th, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President. We had a fair amount of discussion about this particular board bill last week. I want to emphasize four points, and then I'm happy to take any questions. The first, Board Bill 28 does not require all residents of the city of St. Louis to install a meter on their home. Number two, the scope of Board Bill 28 is limited. This applies only to new water connections as well as major rehabilitation projects. Number three, Board Bill 28 is about fairness. It's about fairness in that when a meter is installed, our residents, the consumers of the water division, are being billed for the water that they use, not via a flat rate. And last, with respect to the limited scope of this particular bill, that this addresses an ideal situation to install water meters to attempt to work toward the process of modernizing how we bill for water. In that, we are doing this at a time when other permitted work is being done. And then finally, I guess as a caveat to that, to the extent that there is any dispute, I want to make very, very clear that the water meters that will be installed under this board bill are done at the cost of the water division. In other words, there is no direct cost to anyone installing the water meter. And at this point, Madam President, I'm happy to field any questions.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th. Members of the board, if the alderman from the 5th would yield. The alderman from the 5th yield to questioning from the alderman from the 12th?

Yes.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you. I want to thank you. We did try to work together to put an amendment together. I had sent that amendment to you. I thought I could get other people to sign on to a different amendment. But as you will recall, in our discussions, what came up from several of my constituents was a letter that they got from the Water Department regarding lead pipe

Yes, ma'am, we did discuss that yesterday afternoon.

Is that correct?

Yes, ma'am, that is correct.

And so what came of that was that we found out that there was a cost to putting those lead pipes in, and then there was an additional cost, not the... not the water meters themselves, but there was an additional cost to set the water meters and put them in place. And so that cost for doing the lead pipes and then the cost to set the water meters was gonna be any place from 10,000 and 2,000, which would be 12,000 to unknown. Is that what we got back from both the public utilities director and the water commissioner, right?

I apologize for being dense. You're breaking up a bit on me. Let me regurgitate what I think you just said, which is that when a lead pipe needs to be replaced, the base charge for that is $10,000. With respect to lead pipe replacement, there is as much as a $2,000 charge with respect to installation of a... Is that what you just asked of me with respect to information you and I learned yesterday?

So, and I'm sorry, you broke up. So did you say the $2,000 was the cost approximately of installing and setting the meter? Not the meter itself, which everybody asks, what does it cost for the meter? The meter's not the cost, but there is another charge that I did learn from the water commissioner, but I learned from the public utilities director of about $2,000 to set the meter, which is, so saying that it doesn't cost any money for the meter is correct. But the fact is there's still another additional maybe $2,000 cost to set the meter. Is that what we learned yesterday?

We learned that that is the case with respect to the installation of a meter when lead pipes are being replaced. Correct. Correct.

Right.

So after that, I told you I was trying to figure out another way to do that. The amendment that I have before the board, I couldn't, the people that I talked to, it really kind of amazed me. I wanted you to know, when I talked to them about changing it, they said that when you start talking about lead pipes, and a lot of them will have to do it, and especially in my area where there are older people

Alderwoman, I think you are frozen. I don't know if you can hear us. We seem to have lost Alderwoman Tyus. I will go to other discussion. Alderwoman Tyus, can you hear us now?

So I don't know what's going on. Nothing in my house is frozen because other things are being used. I don't know what's going on.

It says your Wi-Fi is very low.

I'm not getting that reading from here. So I don't know what's going on. Can you hear me?

We can hear you now. You're a little choppy, but I think we can hear you. Let me see if I can turn this up.

Here's my mic, maybe if I turn my mic up, okay. So anyway, so what I found out after, If you can hear me, what I discovered after speaking to several constituents who brought that lead pipe matter to my attention is that they thought that was a deal breaker. And so originally when I sent an amendment to Baldwin from the 5th, it was to not a widespread removal of people in the tornado affected area, but there were several instances in which we wanted to remove people who were in the tornado affected area. That would be any resident who was a property owner who reside in their residence on May 16th, 2025. and also somebody was living there as a family house um to remove them from having to go and be under the water meeting adoption and i do have an amendment that at the appropriate time i would like to um to uh bring before the board but i just want to say i i am a supporter of meters mostly, but I am not a supporter in the case when it becomes that we may get people not to or we may encourage people not to install because they're scared that they'll have to pay more money. Lead in water pipes and lead in the paint is something that we've been dealing with for a long time. We used to actually have a a fund that we would use to get people to remove the lead in their water and in their paint. We don't have that fund anymore. So at a time when people are being impacted by tornadoes and at a time when people got letters telling them they need to replace their lead pipes, I could not, in good conscience, then talk about another $12,000, not really 12, because 10,000 you're gonna have to do if you replace your lead pipes. But to incur another $2,000 or $3,000 charge was something they did not think that was appropriate. And I want to support them in saying, I think that we should hold off on the tornado impacted area and do that at another time. The ultimate, and I did talk about trying some people who would help fund us again, maybe some benefactors in the city who have money. But at this time, we don't have that. And I don't want the people who are in the tornado impacted area and already dealing with so many problems for that to have to be a problem. I mean, for that to have to be another additional cost. And for that reason, I cannot support the bill without an amendment that would remove part of the tornado impacted area out of the bill.

Hold on. I think I'm sorry, Alderwoman, was there a question? I apologize. I have been listening.

Okay, so I'm just saying you did know that that was my problem and that I was trying to find a way to work with that when I didn't find a way to ground it. And you know that I was trying to find a way to to do that. And so that's what I want you to know. That's why I went here to submit the original amendment I had, because I don't think the additional 2000 to set the meter something that I can discount when people are dealing with their budgets. And I don't want to encourage people to not. have their lead pipes removed or just not do anything because they will incur an addition. I did get the reply from Mr. Gold saying, well, they could finance it over this list. I tend not to discount when people tell me their stress on their finances, especially in a tornado area. So that is why I went ahead and submitted the amendment because I will not support it if we don't do an amendment because I think it's not. The list of goals should have told me that earlier when I asked about if there was a cost, he only answered the problem that the cost of what the meter would cost. But if there's an underlying cost with the leader, that should have been an asset that he gave me not only found it out, said, oh, yeah, that cost too. I don't feel like he was upfront with me. I have to now go with what the community is saying that they don't want to be involved and included in that. I wanted you to understand why I decided to go ahead with the amendment as I originally submitted.

I understand that, Alderwoman, and I do appreciate the explanation. This is something that you and I spent quite a bit of time yesterday discussing, and our dialogue is truly appreciated, and I do understand your concern. Yes, ma'am. Okay.

So I just wanted to know. I wasn't doing what I said. I just didn't get it done.

I understand. Yes, we've talked about it.

Madam President, at the appropriate time, I'd like to move to put an amendment before the full board. It should be in the drive on people's desk.

Is there, is it amendment number one?

It is.

Is there a second? Second. It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 12th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 11th that we adopt amendment one. Alderwoman, you may proceed on the amendment.

Madam President, members of the Board, Amendment 1 is an exemption to the bill regarding water meters that will take out, in very limited circumstances, people in the tornado-impacted area. I know the album from the 14th that asked about a bigger exemption and in last week when I talked to the album from the 5th, I asked him about would he be entertained if we took out certain people. So this limited amount of people who would be withdrawn from the owners. or if there are multiple owners who lived in the house of the property at the time of the tornado, they would be exempted from it. Or if it was resident or relative who lived in the house at the time of the tornado and now was buying the house or inheriting the house, that would just be a very limited amount of people that would be exempted from the requirement to get a water meter. Because although $2,000, Additionally, may not be a lot for me or some other people, but for other people, it's a large amount. And I just feel more comfortable if we, as much as possible, if we could give grace to people who are going through repairing their houses for tornadoes. because I'm one of them, and luckily I've had insurance, but as soon as we get something fixed, we find out there's something else that wasn't done, and so we're having a team to do that, so I'm very fortunate to have insurance, but a lot of people don't, and they don't have that kind of money, and they're small, and I'm hoping that the members of the full board support this amendment.

Alderwoman from the 11th. Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Permission to inquire of the alderman of the 5th ward.

Alderman from the 5th, would you yield to questioning from the alderwoman from the 11th?

I will. Thank you.

Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you. So, Alderman Devotee, a week ago, you and I had a text conversation about this very thing. And I told you verbatim, as a property developer over 30 years, and I've done a number of residential properties where I have had to bring a water line in from the street. That water line from the street is lead because that was the standard when those houses were built all over the city. When you have to have that done, you must, according to the plumbing code for the city of St. Louis, you must change that. You cannot leave that lead line and tie on to it. Additionally, the size of the water line itself at one point, I think, was about a half inch. Now it's about an inch in diameter. So that has to be. Oh, I'm sorry. Well, I was trying to look at. Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you, sir. So in dealing with plumbing inspectors and dealing with the plumbing code, this is not something that is easily done and it's not cheap. And other departments have to be involved, you know, to permit to open up the street, because that's where it originates from. So they have to open up the street, run the line into that property. That, on a small scale, you know, if you happen to get a good plumber that maybe doesn't necessarily, you know, be at the job right, is 10 grand. My brother just had one done a few months ago, and he lives across the street from Lafayette Park. I had a neighbor recently who also had one of these done, again, over 10 grand. You're talking about people in most cases, even working class people. We're not going to talk about the people we know got money. This is an expensive endeavor. You don't have the option, according to the plumbing code, to say, oh, just tie into that. You cannot. It has to be fully replaced. The other issue that I would like to raise is that because I'm doing a new project does not necessarily mean that I want to have a water meter. I don't think that that is fair at all. There are some people doing development of residential properties who don't want a meter. They want to just have the regular flat rate, and I believe that they should have that option in the interest of being fair to them. Thank you. Did you have a response?

My response, Alderwoman, would be you and I did converse by text. And again, I appreciate that dialogue. I also understand your concern. I would restate today what I said to you this past week, which is when we talk about the replacement of that water line, that lead line, that work that must be done, This bill doesn't require any resident to otherwise undertake work. Now, to your point, if the work is undertaken, if it's done, a water meter must be installed. From my perspective, the most opportune time to move to a water meter is when that work is being done, whether it's being done by choice or it's being done because one must have to in the tornado zone. With respect to the issue with respect to the water rate, I am certain that there are some people depending upon situation that want the flat rate. Circumstances do differ. But what I would point out is that installation and requirement of meters is the modernized standard today across the country. Requiring installation of meters gets our city from a bygone area into 2026. It does also, from a fairness perspective... indicate or mandate that folks are charged for what they use. And sure, some people are getting a deal now. If you're using a bunch of water and you're getting charged that flat rate. But there's a bunch of people that are going to benefit from installation of these. And that's essentially what you and I talked about this past week.

And I agree with that. And yes, some people are going to benefit from it. That's their choice. I'm not arguing that point. But what I am arguing is that when we have old systems in practically every house built before, I'll say 1950, with lead pipes, It's not an option, oh, we can just go and slap a meter on it. No, you've got to take out that lead. It's not a choice. And then where does the money for that come from? And my other point is that we're struggling with our water infrastructure. How is it that we have money to put in meters for people, but we're raising their bills at the same time? So I kind of have a problem with that as well. I'd rather leave it like it is for now and not raise the water rate as opposed to charging my people more for water and now dig up, you know, from the street into your property so that you can get a water meter put in. So that's the end of my questions. I yield. Thank you, Alderwoman.

Alderwoman from the first. Our mics are asleep today.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President and members of the board. I am in support of this board bill. This is without the amendment, very simply because this is requiring meter installation only when major work is being done on the line. This is something that is going to modernize the system. We hear over and over and over again from members of the public in committee that this The city should be moving to meters. The city should have done this a long time ago. The city should have had this requirement for a long, long time. This is something that people want to see us do. And it doesn't make sense to me to exclude a large portion of the city from this requirement when it is something that will, you know, ideally, hopefully... end up saving people money in the long term because they have more control over how much water they're using and how much their rate is. We hear from a lot of folks, especially older folks or folks who are living in houses that were maybe built for more people, but it's just one or two people in houses with multiple bathrooms and a lot of area that they really want to see these meters being installed because they feel they're being charged For more than they're using, and that is the, you know, the how the flat weight billing system works. So it seems like a really important and opportune time when major work is happening to put the meters in and to be modernizing the system. You know, obviously, you know, no one wants to have to do a major project like that. fine. It's incredibly expensive. But the meter is not what makes it expensive. The meter is not what increases the cost. The meter is what modernizes the system and ideally decreases the cost that people are facing over time, as well as making sure that people know if they have a leak in their line. Right now, if you're a flat rate... You could have a leak that's going to cause more damage to your home and not know about it. And that is, again, another cost that could be avoided by having these meters installed. So I think it's a really smart bill. And I know any change to how the city does things is always going to take some growing pains. But it's something that the city should be moving towards. And because it would be far too expensive and far too onerous on people to require meter installation, For everyone, when there's not a large project, when you're thinking about new construction, when you're thinking about these new projects, it's the perfect time to do so. I really hope that we keep the bill as it is today and move it forward as it is. Thank you.

Alderman from the 13th. Thank you, Madam President. Would the alderman from the 5th take a question? The alderman from the 5th yields questioning from the alderman from the 13th. I will. Alderman, you may proceed.

Alderman Spire, they changed out all their meters, but they knew they had to go an extra step and do the pipings. So, and we were not charged. Probably on the back end we'll be charged, but in the front, we weren't charged. So why couldn't we do that like that?

Alderwoman, I think anything could be done, as it often is in the city, especially when we're talking about old infrastructure. The question then becomes cost. What would be the cost for our water division to proactively or prospectively undertake that kind of work? And as we discussed this past week with respect to the water rate bill, At this point in time, we simply aren't in the position, our water division isn't, to prospectively take that work. I mean, ideally, you're absolutely right. That would be the way to do it. But we're not in that position. So that's why Board Bill 28 is that much more important. Because what it does is it's setting in motion the first step, a baby step, with respect to limited type of work. So I hear you. But again, this is an important beginning step forward on modernizing our water system. It's another step forward in modernization. Alderwoman, I can't hear you.

No. Are you muted?

Oh, okay. Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. Okay. So I do support with the argument from the 12th presented because, again, we need to look at those people have to spend more because they lost more, and they don't have those dollars. So I do agree with that, but I just think we should have looked at how we could do this differently with the, like the Spire did. And so sometimes you have to bite the bullet to say, okay, we might need to do it this way to make sure that people aren't being impacted as much as they are. And I'm pretty sure Spire looked at it financially on how this was going to impact, but they looked at how it was going to benefit them in the long run.

Alderman, I agree completely with what you just said. And that's why this bill is of limited scope. So when you talk in terms of, Alderman, I believe we need to limit what we're doing to do what we can to limit the cost to our water consumers. I agree wholeheartedly. And that's why this is an across-the-board retroactive bidding. This is talking in terms of two very limited instances, instances in which labor, time, materials, permitting, otherwise must be incurred. And that's why this is such a narrow, narrow bill. Yes, ma'am. We are on the same page as far as that goes.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, then it has been moved by the Alderwoman from the 12th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 11th. Alderwoman from the 12th?

Yes, I wanted to close on my amendment. I had something to reply to what you said.

Okay, Alderwoman, you are recognized.

Thank you. First of all, I wanna remind people that I am not asking for everyone to be exempted. I'm asking for people who are living in the middle of the tornado impacted area. And then on top of that, they got letters telling them they need to remove lead pipes because it's a health issue. So we cannot, continue to say we care about the people in the tornado impacted areas, except for when it's not convenient for us. I think that I just got an email from someone about a bill the auto woman from the first did, and they told me about how much tax abatement that she's passing this bill before some laws went into effect and that I was gonna give them a lot of tax abatement that they didn't deserve. The people who live in the tornado impacted area did nothing to deserve a tornado. You left your house on May 16th and when you came back, many of us didn't have a house or we had a house that was severely impacted or wherever we resided. People lived in streets and tents, everything. For one year, I have worked on nothing else helping people find homes, talks, boards, legal representation, all kinds of things that they did not know that they were going to need to be able to do. When the augment from the fifth talks about unlimited circumstance, limited amount of people. I didn't say for landlords and things like that. I said for people who were living in their homes or their relatives who were living in a home. That is a group of people that I addressed. I did not try to say everyone. And I asked him before if he would last week be open to something like that. I was made aware because I didn't get a letter about having to remove my lead pipes because I did that years ago. We did our sewer line one year, and then the next year, we didn't know that our water had to be replaced, so we did our water line. So we did that years ago. We had to pay double the cost because it would have been cheaper if we did it all at the same time, but we didn't know, so we paid double the cost. But at a time that I'm watching people struggle For day to day existence and trying to find ways and still feeling like enough is not being done by the city. We do not need another cost. If they already have to. Um, it's not wrong with it. If you already have to do it, if the city says you've got to remove your lead pipes. and you have to do it, then that is a cost. But then you add a couple more thousand dollars to that, because it was disingenuous to say, oh, you don't have to pay for the meters. But you didn't say, but you do have to pay for the installation of the meters, and that's going to be more cost. Once you give me an answer like that, then you're not trying to be truthful with me, because I do support water meters. In this instance amount of people who are in their homes and a tornado hit them and they may already have many, many other objects that they have to, many other budget items that they have to tend to. And then all of a sudden they got to replace lead pipes. Now, a lot of people may not do that because they will make a financial decision. That is why we set up money before to remove lead paint and to remove lead pipes. And it's a health issue. And the other woman from the 13th knows this. This is a health issue. When our children are impacted with lead, this shows up years and years and years and years. So anything we should be able to do to say, oh, I'm supporting this, except for in these small, I didn't ask for, Everybody in North St. Louis and impacted areas should not be charged a fee of installing a water meter. I said, if you lived in your home at the time of the tornado and you have to replace things that you, your pipes, you would have the option to put the meters or not. Yes, if you're already doing something, it does already. It's the cost, the big cost is bringing the backhoe out and digging up. I've gone through all of that. But then just add $2,000 more for the water commissioner to send me something and say, well, you can do it this way and it's just a little money. I think that he should have to put that money up for each and every person. If he would guarantee that he would pay that extra $2,000 for all the people who would need it, then I wouldn't have a problem. But I'm not going to pay it. He's not going to pay it. And we... cannot talk out of both sides of our mouth and say, oh, we support the people in the tornado area and then say, oh, but we need to get water meters. So we don't care that it's an additional cost and that you're being mandated and that it's a health issue. And so anything that would prevent people from addressing that health issue in an expeditious manner and putting a water meter on it and costing $2,000 more to install the water meter, if that's going to prevent them from doing what I support, then I I will not be supporting this bill without this amendment. It is a very small, focused amendment and it should be supported because it is a viable way to help people out in the tornado impacted area who do not, not necessarily have the funds to address this issue holistically. It should not be made to be hesitant about if they should go ahead and remove the pipes or if they have to go ahead and remove the pipes and spend an extra, besides the 10,000 or more dollars, then spend an extra 2,000 more to set the meters when this is something that is not an emergency. So that does not make any sense to make it an emergency that this has to be. I also find it interesting that, as I said before, I brought up water issues back when we first got the ARPA funds. Nobody was Nobody cared about. Now it's become things to talk about. But when we had a lot of ARPA funds, a vast amount of ARPA funds, and we could have put something to it, we didn't. Now we're backdooring it, as we often do. And we are telling the people who are in the middle of not only uh one of the biggest disasters probably of their life but also now have a health issue about how to replace their pipes if they're trying to rehab their house that that's too bad you need to find a way and go ahead but we're not finding any financing for them and so um i would renew my motion that we amend uh we amend board bill 28 with amendment number one it's been moved by the alderman from the 12th seconded by the alderman

that we adopt Amendment No. 1 to Board Bill No. 28 as amended on the floor. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderman Schweitzer.

Alderman Oldenburg. Alderman Cohn. Alderman Ryan. Alderman Devotee. Alderwoman Velazquez. Alderwoman Sanye. Alderwoman Coxey and Tweek. Alderman Browning.

No.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard.

No.

Alderwoman Keyes. Aye. Alderwoman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich. No. President Green. No. Alderwoman Keyes. Three aye. Three aye. I'm sorry. Four. Four aye votes. 11 noes.

By your vote, you failed to sustain the motion from the Alderwoman from the 12th. Any further discussion on Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor? Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Will the alderman from the fifth yield for questions? Yes. We may proceed.

Sorry. Alderman from the fifth, will you yield to questioning from the alderman from the fourth?

Yes, I jumped the gun. I apologize. Alderman, you may proceed. Thank you, Madam President. You must be excited for this inquiry, Alderman. I've been expecting this. Oh, wow. Hopefully it's a little more calmer than last week. I won't try to rile you up and get you all fired up. So I would say... So last week, my main concern with this piece of legislation, and I had a lot of residents that was watching this and also had questions, but my main concern was that these water meters that would only need to be installed, if I know your bill correctly, only would need to be installed if it's a major rehab for a new bill, that the cost of the water meter would then be on the consumer. and last week there was a little bit of conflicting information that it would cost that it wouldn't cost if you were making a certain income it would be free but i think since then we got an email from the water department about if the consumer would pay for the water meter so can you explain if there would be a cost to individuals if they have to get a water meter installed.

I'd be happy to, Alderman. And as you know, you and I did have a back and forth. And I think, frankly, and I apologize, we were arguing about semantics, and I take responsibility for that. But having said that, after we convened last Friday, I did reach out to the Water Division. because I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page. And I did ask your question, the question that you posed on the floor, to the Deputy Director, Spencer Gould. And as you know, because I forwarded the email around, Mr. Gould confirmed that, and I'm going to read this verbatim to make sure we're all on the same page. The Water Division fully covers the cost of residential meters and meters. And, of course, that answer was to the question of who bears the cost of the meter installed should Board Bill 28 pass. So that question was posed because of our back and forth, and I trust that... The Associate Commissioner's response satisfied your inquiry.

It did. You know, my concern was, I think, what Alderman Tyus and there was another amendment from Alderman, from the Seventh Ward, Alderman Sonnier, my concern was there is a large swath of an area that's been impacted by the tornado that will probably need some major rehab, if not new build, which your bill does not force them to do the work of the pipe and installing and all that. That would already have to come on the consumer to install those pipes. So that would have, regardless if your bill passed or not, if individuals that need pipe work done, they already have to pay for that. The nuance that I think with your bill that where I had questions was now mandating the water meters to now be on properties. And I know as we talked, I think what you said your goal was long-term people who have meters would pay less compared to like flat rates because right now the city goes out and charges you like per bedroom or bathrooms or Something like that, but the meter would be able to actually detect it and to know that the meter is not going to cost the consumer Especially individuals that have been impacted by the tornado. I will say moving forward with it I do feel comfortable voting for the bill if it ended up coming down after we vote for that consumers are actually you know, having to pay for these water meters. I hope we'll revisit that piece of legislation and amend it to make sure that people in the tornado impacted area will have an exemption. I support an exemption. I don't think a forever exemption. I think the older woman from the seventh had a time limit on the exemption. I do support that because I do think long-term meters is the right way to go, but we shouldn't be forcing individuals to do it. And that was my concern with your bill. I appreciate you reaching out to the Water Department. I think all the alders got that email from the Water Department that these meters will be at the cost of the Water Department, not at the cost of the consumer. So if that is true, I want to rise in support of the legislation. So thank you.

Thank you, Alderman. Alderman from the 12th. Madam President, if the Alderman for the 14th would yield. The Alderman from the 14th yields questioning from the Alderwoman from the 12th. Absolutely. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you. Mr. Alderman, so last week you asked about the cost of the meters. to Mr. Bull, but I also got a response from one of my constituents who said, hey, I got this letter that's forcing me to have to replace my lead water pipes. And in having a conversation with both from the fifth and others, and he and I both agreed we hadn't thought of that. So I sent this letter uh i sent an inquiry to both mr gold and to mr uh mr patel and mr gold only gave me part of an answer and mr patel gave me the rest and this is the nuance if you just ask do you have to pay for the water meter the answer can be no but that's like saying if you get dentures do you have to pay for the dentures no but do the dentist to install them, yes. And that is what is happening with this water meter. So what Mr. Gould said is, oh, you don't have to pay. But what Mr. Patel said, and I can send it to you right now, yes, replacement of a lead service line will be at the owner's expense. Estimated cost of about $10,000. The estimated additional expense to add a water meter center and pit is less, is about $2,000. So That's disingenuous to me when you tell me I don't have to pay for the water meter, but I got to pay to have it set. That's an added expense, whether it's the water meter or not. The water meter is cheaper than the $2,000 that you have to pay to have it set. It's called a pit, a water meter setter and a pit. So don't you agree that if that's an added expense, that that's an expense that should have been told to all of us?

Yes, and if you could send that email, I'd love to see it.

I think... Oh, I'm going to send it right now. In fact, I'm going to send it to you, and then I'm going to screenshot it to you, okay? But you can ask Mr. the 5th Ward Alderman, because that is... I sent it to him, okay? I just didn't send it to everybody, because it just appalled me that you tried to trick me. Don't try to trick me, and don't try to schmooze me. Tell me everything, because I really want water meetings, and I've

And I know that you said that last week that you weren't opposed to water meters. I guess the question that I would lean kind of in favor with you on is if someone needs work done and pipes done where they wouldn't need to install a water meter, they would probably pay for that. But are you saying that now with this legislation that they would have to pay for the installation? Of the water, yes.

So that's why they're tricking you when they say you don't have to pay the water meter and it's not, it's not tricky. It's just not the full truth. Okay. So the full truth is no, you don't have to pay for the water meter, but you have to pay for it. I wouldn't check with some other people. They all said that's right. But you have to pay for the extra 2000 dollars is for the additional expense to add a water meter center and a pitch. $2,000 more. So even though you're not paying for the water meter, and I said I can liken it to you have to get dentures, and they give you a dentures free, but you got to pay the dentures $3,000. So back off of it because I was supportive and I thought that we could work through that. And when I got the 2 different answers, if Mr Patel knows the answer to Mr Google answers also, so I'm going to screenshot this and then I'm going to send it full.

uh email to you so you can see it yourself if you don't mind okay i want you to read that yeah no i read it and i mean in that case and i know i have you know being transparent i talk with uh the alder forest on the water meter part maybe you know i don't own a home so i don't i don't know all the ins and outs if the individual will have to pay for the installation that is a cost. That's what I was trying to avoid ultimately with the whole water meter. Knowing that the meter was free, that relieved some of my concerns. If there is, I guess, they will have to pay for the installation part of it. That would be a kind of a force of a pavement on people in the area. And I don't want the Alderman from the Fifth to think I'm going back and forth. But again, I don't know all pipes and plumbings. But my whole argument last week is how do we minimize any additional costs? And I'll be honest, I know yours was a full exemption. I do think, you know, maybe it's a limited exemption. But how do we limit some additional costs on individuals in the impacted area that will need major rehab in the tornado. So if there is a cost to the insulation part, which comes to be about $2,000 additional dollars, that would be, you know, a concern of mine because While I also believe that water meters will benefit in the loan call, as I said last week, with water rates going up 18%, and even that bill is actually technically tied to CPI, so tied to inflation, it probably will be more over time. and then bring in this new water meter legislation requiring even more expenses. That is just my main concern. How do we limit as much expenses on people that's already being challenged to have burdens just trying to figure out how they can rebuild?

Okay. So I wanted to say, I've already sent you the email, and you'll see it's from Mr. Patel. And you do know him to be the director of public utilities, correct?

Yes.

Say that again?

I'm sorry.

I said I sent you the email that was from Mr. Patel, and you know him to be the director of public utilities, correct? Correct. Okay, so you will see in red that he outlines the cost because I asked the question about lead pipes because it had not occurred to me because I did not get that letter. But once I got the letter, I sent him some other questions that people had submitted to me, but was shocked when he came back and said, no, you don't have to pay for the water meter, but you have to pay for the installation. When you ask the wrong questions, you get the wrong answers sometimes. So some of that is on me because I ask just like you did if you have to pay for the water meters. Never kind of thinking that Mr. Guru wouldn't tell me, oh, you don't have to pay for the water meter, but you have to pay for the installation of the water meter. That's still the same concern. How much added expense will be added to a person who's already dealing with, uh, in the tornado area and dealing with the cost of the tornado. So that's why and, you know, last week I said, I asked Albert from the 5th, would he be open to a limited. limited, not a big full exclusion, but this is a limited exclusion only to people who it was, it didn't get passed, but it was for people who lived in their houses or if a relative lived in the house and they were going to buy the house and were buying the house. It was not a widespread and maybe it should have been because now if I don't have the money, I'm gonna have to make the decision of, well, I'm not gonna replace my pipe right now. And who's gonna come out here and find out if I have pipes. And our health issue ought to be more important than an agenda that we're getting this going now. Because we could have done this a long time ago. And just to reiterate, years ago, Anheuser-Busch offered to pay for us to have meters and the city turned it down. There's been a lot of problems that happened in the water department and that people didn't do what they were supposed to. It was all kind of reports that people didn't do. They didn't apply for the money. And now at a time when people are stressed Now we are going to say, okay, well, you just have to do this anyway. Many people are talking about both sides of their mouths. They either care about the people in the area or they don't. And $2,000 may not be enough of a cost to some people, but it can make a difference to others. So I asked you to read it, and I'm sending you the screenshot now, so you can also just look at it on your phone without reading the entire email.

I'm reading now, and I will say, because it was on record as I said last week, I don't understand the urgency of doing this now. I think meters long-term will benefit residents, and I think you even mentioned that too, but I do raise the question of now, what is the need to... we've at least been having the conversation of water increase going all the way back to when we did the one under Alderman Schweitzer like three years ago and there's been a long time of community engagement around the water rate increase those have been conversations actually going on previous before this board but you know I don't understand the rush of doing the meter element of it in my opinion but

From the 14th, excuse me, I just echo you.

I don't think I don't I don't understand the rush of either legislation at the moment. I will say.

Seeing the email, is that what is in my email to you? Is it does it say exactly what I told you?

yes it does it says if you need uh any uh yes replacing a lead service line is considered a new construction and will require a meter be installed that said replacing the lead service line is a major infrastructure project and installing a water meter at the same time will cost only a fraction of the overall project A lot of, additionally, the Water Department is continuing to work with state and federal regulations to secure grants and financing options that could further reduce and eliminate the cost if board bill is passed, which if, you know, if they're working on some of those grants and federal regulations, maybe we could secure the bag, as the young kids say, before actually, you know, Passing legislation, but yes, I mean, yeah, I'm reading my question to you when you're asking about the meters.

Did you expect that they would also tell you that there was an associated cost to install in the meters? Was that part of your expectation? Not just the meters.

No, I did not think about the installation part. Like I said, I'm not a homeowner, so I don't know. I was talking to Aldo on the keys a little bit about it, but my main concern was the meter. Didn't know that there would be a cost for the installation part, which... You know, I just believe that if there is pipe work that already needs to be done, that is, you know, a cost. But it sounds like what you said, this would be an additional cost on the pipe work because they would have to install a meter. Therefore, yeah, correct.

That's what I'm saying. And that was not where I was expected to be last week. That was not what I was saying last week. And it was only with this information that I had to pull back and say, well, that's not fair. I am a homeowner. And most of my buildings already have meters because we have six families. And if you're a six family, you have to have a meter. And I don't have a problem with landlords and people like that doing meters. That's the cost of doing business. But when you're in the middle of being stressed In a tornado impacted area and people are all this, you know, said, oh, we're taking care of this. But all of a sudden, now we have an agenda that wait for some people. That's the problem that I have. And from now on, I'll be much more careful when asking people questions, because the question should have been, is there a need to call or is there a surrounding cost? to the meter. So I will accept that as my responsibility, but I will always say that Mr. Gold should have told me the rest of it, because Mr. Patel felt the need, and I really want to thank him for telling me the full truth. When people tell you the partial truth, that does not help anything. Thank you very much, Alderman. I have no further questions for you.

No, thank you.

Any further discussion? Elder Woman from the 13th, your hand was up. Are you wanting to speak?

Yeah, I just wanted to follow up with Alderman Aldridge was saying, but it's just real interesting to me. As a board, we say that we're really fighting to help the people with this tornado. And then everybody vote against helping the people that's impacted by the tornado. So it just not making sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something. And that's just my comment.

Any further discussion? Alderman from the 14th. Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I guess with the Alderman from the 9th yield for questions.

The Alderman from the 9th yield questioning from the Alderman from the 14th.

Yes.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, thank you. Alderman, I know you have been working on infrastructure since you got down here, and as we was talking about the installation part, I've seen you shaking your head no, so I don't know if maybe there's something that I'm missing that is this new part of the conversation. I think, like I said, my main concern was always the water meter part, but The old woman from the 12th bring up the installation would be a cost. I see you shake your head. Could you maybe explain?

Yeah, as I'm reading the bill, I'm looking at page 2, line 18. We're in the definitions here. Major rehabilitation project. Any rehabilitation project in which, one, the plumbing division requires the replacement of a water service line, or two, when a partial water service line replacement is performed utilizing the service line repair fund otherwise established by this ordinance. So my understanding of this bill is that it's only required in the case of new construction or a major rehabilitation project. And in the case of major rehabilitation, you're already doing the work when this becomes a requirement. So that's already the cost you're paying. So if you're doing a, say it's a $10,000 service line replacement, it's still a $10,000 service replacement. You're getting the water meter for free.

So if the work already got to be done on a $10,000 line replacement, there wouldn't be, from what you're saying, there wouldn't be an additional cost of an installation fee for the water meter. There's no different pipes. You're just saying they're all the same pipe, and then the water meter will just plug up to that, and that will be free.

That's correct. There's a service line that goes from the street into the house. And if you're already there in the ground, you dug the well, you're working on the service line because that's already a requirement as part of some other work that's happening. You're already paying for that cost. It is no extra work to just cut in and put in a meter. I think we're not talking thousands of dollars. We're just talking about the already cost of the plumber already being out there and in the ground. So that's really the cost here. The water meter is, again, free. The water division provides that and they own it and they service it. But what is the cost that would be paid if you were doing this without a major? I just want to open up and get a meter today. I'd have to pay a plumber to come out and get that done. That would be an extra cost for me. But if I'm already doing a major rehabilitation project as defined by this bill, that's already a cost you're incurring. So you're just putting a meter in at the same time. So I understand this to be no extra cost to the homeowner.

Okay. So if there's no meter being put in, that work is already being done, it costs $10,000. They're not putting a meter in because they need plumbing work, so they have to pay for that, right? That's $10,000. And what you're saying is, even with this bill, even though it says rehabilitation or major rehab and new builds, you're saying with this bill, there is no additional cost for any additional lines that would be required now with the water meter. There's no additional line that is needed or no additional... cost of installation of hooking that line up to a water meter, it's already just going to be the same cost.

Yeah, there's already a service line attached to every single home. If that one service line is being replaced and part of that work, then a meter would be required to go in as you're doing that work. And that's in the definition of this bill under major rehabilitation project.

Thank you. Will Alderman from the 50 have questions? I will. I'm sorry.

Alderman from the 50.

I will.

You're very much wanting to answer the alderman from the 14th questions today.

There is just something about his inquiry. I can't hold.

Alderman, you may proceed. I'm a little nervous about that, but it's a lot of smoke today. So clearly, Alderman, our back and forth has been the water meter. And that was always been my concern. I brought to you. Correct. Yes. Yes. Hearing from the auto owner from the 12th of this installation, and again, I'm not a homeowner, so this is probably more educational, but making sure I do the right thing with this vote, would there be additional costs for the installation part or any new lines that have to be installed that would go to the water meter from the pipes that are being worked on?

I'm glad you asked me that question. Thank you. we had this discussion that yesterday the older woman and i did and she did forward the email to me and i hate to play lawyer but i played lawyer and i actually did it last week so i look forward to you playing lawyer this week so i pulled up the city code and specifically i looked at chapter twenty three chapter twenty three deals with the water division And I read chapter 23, and there's an interesting provision. It is 23.04.217. This is city ordinance, okay? So this is our code. And I think we can put this to bed, because I would direct everybody in this body to the the last sentence of that particular chapter, which says, quote, the water commissioner will furnish all valve box and meter box frames and covers at no cost exclusives of those for automatic sprinkler or combined fire meter use, end quote.

That's our...

That's our code. And so rather than, and I think the alderman from the 9th is dead right on this, that's the reference to the code section. And that would be my answer to you. Not an email, not the director, but our code with respect to who bears the cost. And our code says the water division.

And I know our code's a little outdated. That's why there's been a lot of work done. But with all that being said, and I'm not a lawyer, so I'm coming to you as a client, in simple terms, the installation from the pipes that will connect to a water meter will be no additional costs.

That is defined by the ordinance. It only talks about situations in which certain work must be done. It is extremely limited. So if a lead pipe must be replaced, that pipe collapses, and the cost to our resident is $10,000. That cost is going to be incurred by our resident, our division's customer, notwithstanding any water meter installation. And otherwise, I just pointed you to the ordinance. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but I don't know how else to answer the question.

Well, I think, you know, if there was more, like I think I explained to you, I don't understand the rush of doing this. If there was more time for all of us to digest it. Clearly, last week there was, and I appreciate your apology earlier, there wasn't clear understanding of the water meter part. So, clearly there's... still lingering questions out there. And without being a lawyer, so I'm hearing you clearly, and that'll be the last time I ask you, if I have to get work to your bill, major rehab done, I got to get work from, I have a lead pipe, and it needs to be replaced that is running from the ground to my house. That's $10,000 without a water meter. If I have to get work done because I have a lead pipe and it is destroyed and it's going to run from the ground to my house, but now there will be a water meter added to it, you're saying that work will still be $10,000, no special pipes, no connection, hookup fee. It will still be $10,000 even with the water meter because the work already has to be done.

I can't say that. And you know I can't say that because we discussed this last time of whether there's a nominal charge to do that specific work.

And I think that's – no. And that's the problem. Now you are saying – you can look like you're getting frustrated again. But if you can't say it and be clear on the cost, how do you expect – a a vote on something and we don't know and and what the ultimate from the night said he said regardless if it's a water meter or not it'll still be ten thousand dollars i just asked you if it ran from the ground a lead pipe going to the house it's ten thousand dollars if there is a water meter now that has to get connected to it is it still ten thousand dollars and you're saying you can't you're not sure if there will be an additional cost

I called three plumbing companies and said, can you parse this out to me? And the sound of exasperation on the other side of the line was like, huh? You want me to do what? We charge a rate to get this done. I can't break it down. So if an expert can't break it down, whatever that nominal portion would be, to have a plumber on hand another 15 minutes or 30 minutes, no, sir, I can't. And I'm never going to be. I do want to address this issue about the rush, about the rush. And I get it. I've only been a member of this body for the last year and a half. But I've been a member of the public utilities. committee during that entire period. And during that entire period, I have heard our residents, our consumers, complain nonstop about flat rate pricing. I got to imagine if that's been going on for the last year and a half, it's gone on for many, many years before this. And I'd like to point one last thing, one last thing out. And that is when we had the hearing on this bill before committee, The Consumers Council was present, and I know you know who the Consumers Council is, but for any of those folks who are watching it, it's a non-profit organization whose job is to look out for Missouri consumers, including utility consumers, like the residents, the consumers of our water division. And the Consumer Council testified in favor of the bill as written. And the comment was, thank you for finally doing this. Finally doing this. So I do take issue with the suggestion to anybody that this is a rush job. If anything, this is something that should have been done years, if not decades ago. And there is no better time like the present to fix a longstanding problem and make sure that our water division consumers are being billed properly for the water that they're building.

Step one.

Thank you, Alderman. I yield my time, Madam President.

Need further discussion. Alderwoman from the 12th.

Madam President, members of the board, first of all, the mayor, email that talks about was from the director of public utilities. When I then got further clarification from the water commissioner, he also admits that there is a fee to setting the water meters. And that's the specific terms that they use. But I'm also married to a person who does clean energy and works for a company. And so I took and his company, they're engineers. And they laughed at us because they said, why are you charging anybody for meters? What we do is we go out in the state of Missouri and we show people how they don't have to charge their constituents for installing this stuff. And they do performance contract. But I didn't want to drag that into it until after it was over, because I do want them to come and talk to you. So you can see there's a different way to do it. They laughed and said, nobody does it that way. 50 years behind the time. Because I told you already that when Anheuser-Busch tried to pay for a need to be put in place, we didn't accept it. But the email that the author from the fifth tries to say, oh, well, that was just an email, but he called out a public utilities said, this is the cost and put it in writing. That's the point of my thought.

Alderwoman from the 13th, could you please state your point of order? Madam President, I can't hear from all the background conversations. Could folks in the gallery, if you're having side conversations, please take them outside or away from microphones. Thank you. Alderwoman from the 12th, you may proceed.

Thank you. Again, I want to read this. This is what I wrote to the water, the public safety, I'm sorry, the public utilities director. Several constituents noted the recent letter sent out by the city of St. Louis regarding replacing lead water pipes in homes. They questioned whether if they replaced lead water pipes in their mostly older homes, which we have, whether they would be mandated by Board Bill 28 to install a water meter. The reply from the public, the director of public utilities. Yes. Replacement of a service line would be at the owner's expense estimated to cost more than 10,000 dollars. Which. I'm like, wow, because when we replaced ours, it was $3,000, but that was decades ago. And then we had to pay another $3,000 because we had to do the sewer and then the water line. The estimated additional expense to add a water meter, setter, and pit. Now, I didn't know what a water meter, setter, and pit, but all of you all can then Google it. And there is such a thing as a water meter center and a pit and that is about two thousand dollars that is an additional cost and that is when people may be mandated to uh they weren't mandated they got a letter saying you need to look at and find out if you have lead at the pipes the thing that i am concerned about if you're telling people to look at and see if you got lead pipes if they're already looking at 10 thousand dollars if they do it and another two thousand dollars to it is a lot of money that is twelve thousand dollars or more people who have to make decisions about repairing their house um children eating medicine and everything else that is not a small amount of money it is amazing to me that when we come to these kind of things now it's like oh poo poo oh that was just from the director of public utilities If he is not telling the truth, then we're in trouble. I don't believe he had any reason to say anything different than that. And then when I further questioned Mr. Gould, he admitted that there is a charge there, and that is the water meter setter and the pit. So that is an additional charge. And by telling people that you get a free water meter, but not telling people that you get to pay for having the water meter set is disingenuous. Ninth is wrong, as is the argument from the fifth. They are wrong. There is a cost to that. The argument from the fifth read a code. It never talked about what you would have to pay. And this is where the problem is. They don't talk about labor costs. They're talking about the actual cost of the machinery. Or the item, the devil is in the labor cost and there is a labor cost to set that leader in place is a labor cost. Then after setting place, you do not really own the leader. It is owned by. The city, yes, other meters from 13th talk about that. fire, I think, that replaced their meters. So does Ammon. Other people, they do it. When it comes to the city, we want to push it off on people and say, well, we didn't do it for a long time. As I said, if it was me, I would be supportive of this because I am supportive of meters. But it's not me that I represent. I represent people who have different socioeconomic backgrounds. And for those people, and especially for those people I represent who I've been trying to help for the last year in the tornado impacted area, which now we're saying we don't care if you're in the tornado impacted area, just pay it anyway. That is a dishonest discussion that we're having. And to try to Will we put something in there saying, because we can easily put a little addition into a minute saying that if it comes to be that there is a cost to install water meters, let me say the correct terms, to install a water center and a pin or whatever. Wait a minute, I don't have it in front of me again. I want to make sure I say the right term. Okay. If it is a cost, additional expense to add a water meter center and a pit, then the city will pay for that. That would be wonderful. We're not going to say that because we do not want to pay for anything, even though we have been getting away with this for a long time. We are the public utility. We should be paying for it and putting it on the back end. We all know that people pass things on to consumers. But when you're asking people to put that charge up front and not stretch that out over time, that becomes a problem. I could support it if we could give some conditions, but now we're saying unilateral, we don't have to do it. Nope, we don't care if you live in a tornado impacted area. And this is why I tell people all the time at this board, we say one thing, and all the women from the 13th said it, but she doesn't understand what's the problem now. because I asked the alderman last week if he would be open to a small exception, and this is a small exception, but he's not really open to anything. He wants to pass it just the way it is, and that's a shame. Alderman from the 14th, I want you to understand that it's a labor cost. The thing that the alderman was reading from the fifth was about the mechanics, the water meter itself. But the items that you would purchase, but we don't have to purchase the water meter, but if the water meter cost less than 2000 dollars, so they're giving you the most the least expensive item, but they're not saying we will also pay for it. deal. And we could also just add that if that's the case and we don't care about paying for it, why don't we just add in the bill that the city of St. Louis will pay for setting the water meter and the water and the pit. We're not going to do that because that's going to be passed on to the consumer. And that's going to make people who should be thinking about getting rid of their lead pipes as fast as possible saying, well, I've been dealing with these water pipes, these lead pipes for a long time, so I won't spend that extra money right now because I don't have it. And that's a health issue. And that's too bad that we don't understand. Men is a health issue. And the other woman from the third has been a caretaker for a long time. And she's seen all, I'm sorry, not the third, the 13th. She's seen all kinds of people and children who are affected by lead and it retards, it stops their growth. Sometimes it stops their uh intellectual growth the children have all kind of problems and anything the city of st louis uh should be doing from the health department is making sure our children are not exposed to lead be it in the water pipes or in uh on the walls with the lead uh paint and all we got to do is look to flint michigan to know what happens when you make a mistake with the water and we're making a mistake right now but telling people they have to pay for this when they're already financially stressed and they're still dealing with the dilemma of being in the middle of a tornado impacted area. Thank you.

And I will ask for a roll call vote.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, Alderman from the 5th, you are recognized to close.

Madam President, members of the board, I move that we perfect Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 5th, seconded by the alderman from the 4th that we perfect Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor. There's been a request for roll call. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Switzer. Aye. Alderman Oldenburg.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn. Aye. Alderman Ryan. Aye. Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Alderman Velasquez.

Aye.

Alderman Sonnier. Aye. Alderman Cox-Antwiig. Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderwoman Keyes. Aye. Alderwoman Tyus. No. Alderwoman Boyd.

No.

Alderman Aldrich. Aye. President Green. Aye. Alderwoman Sanye. Aye. Alderwoman Keyes. Alderman Aldrich. Alderwoman Sanye. Nine aye votes, five noes. Yeah, Alderman from the- Alderman Cohn.

Ten aye votes, five noes. By your vote, you sustain the motion of the Alderman from the Fifth to perfect Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor.

Board Bill number 22, as amended in committee, introduced by President Green, Mayor Kara Spencer, Alderman Aldrich, Alderman Cox-Antwi, an ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment appropriating a sum of $255 million of RAMP settlement funds for deposit into various new special funds to rebuild North St. Louis from the May 16 tornado and decades of disinvestment, support infrastructure and neighborhood citywide, and revitalize downtown to increase revenue for the entire city with amounts as described herein and containing a serability clause and an emergency clause.

Madam President, you're recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 22 as amended in committee.

Mr. Vice President and members of the board, I move to perfect Board Bill 22 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the President, seconded by the Alderman from the Seventh, that we perfect Board Bill 22 as amended in committee.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Board Bill 22, as amended in committee, allocates $255 million in RAM settlement funds to provide direct funding and secure additional capital for tornado recovery, northside redevelopment, capital and water infrastructure improvements, and downtown neighborhood plan implementation. From the beginning, I've had three goals from this bill. One, to get much needed funding, as much funding as possible to the tornado recovery efforts. Two, to ensure our water department has the funding it needs to protect our greatest public asset. And to put together a bill that can pass at both the Board of Aldermen and the Board of ENA before the legislative recess begins on July 10th. With both the Office of Recovery and the Water Division on the verge of running out of funds, it's imperative that we act now so those offices can continue to operate. I want to thank my colleagues for working together and ultimately finding a compromise on this bill, especially those on the HUD's committee who have some very, very long meetings. Allocating these funds is a pivotal step toward addressing the unprecedented needs that are facing our city. Rebuilding neighborhoods in the tornado-impacted area is estimated to cost between $1.6 and $10 billion. Our most valuable public asset, our water division, is looking at roughly $700 million in capital improvement, in addition to keeping up with the rising costs associated with producing safe drinking water that is known nationally as some of the best drinking water in the country. Peer cities like Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Detroit have invested between $5 and $8 billion to spur development of their downtowns. To stay competitive and see that kind of growth in our city, we need to make targeted investments that can attract that level of private capital and investment partners. Assembling the funds needed to fully address these issues requires a capital structure that includes the RAM settlement, state and federal funds, matching funds from philanthropic and corporate partners and other sources. Many of these funding partners have been waiting to see what the city is committed to and capable of doing so they can better understand how to fill in those gaps. The successful passage of this bill would mean those conversations would move forward and additional funding could be prepared for recovery, rebuilding, and reinvestment. Before I walk through the eligible uses and how the city plans to direct each fund, I want to address the reallocation of the reserve funds. I know some of my colleagues here supported keeping a portion of the settlement funds in reserves. Under different circumstances, I would agree that keeping reserves in an interest bearing account is a financially responsible way to hedge against future emergencies. However, as members of the public and members of this body have pointed out during our hours of discussion already, we are currently in a crisis that requires every source of funding available. Ultimately, the reserve funds outlined in this bill were redistributed to further support tornado recovery, water infrastructure, and vacancy reduction. Broadly, Board Bill 22, as amended in committee, funds the three funding priorities I described earlier, and within each fund are subaccounts, each with their own specific purpose and use. I want to go through those eligible uses a little bit. So at a high level, the North St. Louis and Tornado Recovery Fund has $120-plus million in it. $89 million in that fund is for housing stabilization and home repair. $31 million for implementation of Northside Neighborhood Plans. The Citywide Infrastructure Fund has $80 million dedicated to it. $40 million for water infrastructure, $30 million for sidewalk repair, street paving, and traffic calming, and $10 million for vacancy reduction. And downtown neighborhood plan implementation has $55 million in that bucket. $15 million for strategic capital projects, $15 million for riverfront redevelopment, $15 million for downtown infrastructure, $7.5 million for retail business and restaurant activation, and $2.5 million for event attraction. When we look at some of these, the eligible uses under each of these categories, I think we'll see that we have been able to narrow down these eligible uses over time. In the housing bucket for long-term tornado recovery, we have $78 million that can be used toward home repair, housing preservation, vacant unit rehabilitation to get rental units back on the market, and new housing construction with our Community Development Corporation. Also in the long-term tornado recovery bucket, we have infrastructure needs such as sidewalk repairs, tree replanting, and stump removal, as well as demolitions that can be of condemned properties that can be used from that fund. The Tornado Recovery Fund also put $7 million toward resident support. This is the rental and deposit assistance to impacted residents or other moving costs. We have had 700 people apply for rental assistance in our city and we know it is a huge need that needs to be funded. Accelerated resident connections to housing stabilization and resident support services like case management can also be funded out of the resident support bucket. And direct goods and services to impacted residents. And last, the Tornado Recovery Fund also allows for $4 million for service delivery and administration. This is to keep the Office of Recovery going over the next two years, providing administrative support, oversight, financial compliance, and data support systems. In the North St. Louis Plan implementation bucket, we have $31 million allocated for all potential uses that include but are not limited to development of single or multi-partial land assemblage and site preparation and gap financing for projects. In our housing bucket, we also support home ownership assistance, which can be down payment assistance for new homeowners. We know some folks in the tornado impacted areas unfortunately cannot return back to their homes because they are in such disrepair that demolition is the only option. We want to be able to retain those folks in the city. And so by having down payment assistance, we can help to make sure that folks that have been displaced from their homes permanently have means to be able to relocate in the city. Continuing in the North St. Louis plan implementation bucket, we have money for infrastructure, including neighborhood beautification initiatives, public infrastructure improvements such as streets, sidewalks, and lighting, and public park improvements. and also small business support funding for small businesses like grants and or other incentives that can help those small businesses get back on their feet and that fund also caps has a five percent fund balance cap annually for administrative fees um It's also important to mention that the North St. Louis plan implementation budget, those needs came out of diverse community engagement over a number of years. And half of the north side neighborhoods have neighborhood plans at the moment, and the remainder will be completed by the end of this year. As we look at our infrastructure bucket, we are dedicating $40 million to our water infrastructure for maintenance and improvement. This will help us to get matching funds for federal and state grants. It will allow us to pay debt service payments for loans and bonds. And it will help us in supporting professional studies and plans needed to upgrade our water department for the long term. Through greater infrastructure investments, we are also allocating $30 million. This will go to street maintenance and safety improvements, sidewalk maintenance and accessibility, gap financing for the 50-50 sidewalk program, purchase of neighborhood traffic study equipment such as flex posts and other temporary bollards or temporary traffic calming measures. Asset management program where we can do an inventory and assessment of our various public infrastructure, including equipment, streets, sidewalk surfaces, and curb ramps. It allows us to fund pedestrian-scale lighting along major corridors, and we have matching funds for private support on that as well. It also allows for the removal of hazardous trees and stumps in the city right away and redevelopment of recreation centers throughout our city. Again, that fund also creates a 5% annual fund balance max for administration costs. Lastly, in the infrastructure bucket, we will also be funding vacancy reduction. We have $10 million dedicated to that, which will help us to hire additional city staff whose job would be to recover city's vacancy-related expenses from property owners who fail to maintain their properties. including a dedicated collections attorney and paralegal. By us paying for those upfront costs for those staffing positions, once they get going and start implementing the ordinances that have been passed by this body, we will then be able to use those fines and fees to fund those positions in perpetuity. Further with vacancy reduction, we'll also be creating a pre-approved plans library, including architectural plans for standard new housing construction and common rehabilitation projects. We'll set up a vacancy public data infrastructure and analysis ability for the city. We'll be hiring legal support for neighborhood groups to enforce property and nuisance laws against property owners who fail to maintain their properties. This is something that Kansas City has done with much success for many years, and we're looking to replicate here. And lastly, we will be funding acquisition, stabilization, remediation, and other redevelopment activities involving vacant or nuisance properties by nonprofit CDCs. And in our last major bucket, the downtown neighborhood plan implementation, we will be funding strategic major capital projects at a level of $30 million. This includes acquisition and site prep for long-term vacant buildings, such as the railway exchange building. It also allows us to invest in downtown streetscape projects like pedestrian lighting, spot sidewalk repair, ADA compliance and enhancement, traffic safety improvements, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. It also allows us to support improvements to downtown open public spaces, greenways, tree canopies, and other public amenities. Additionally, we will fund $15 million toward riverfront improvements as part of the downtown neighborhood implementation plan bucket. This will improve pedestrian and vehicle access to the riverfront through signage, wayfinding, and gate access, build new urban activation support such as vendor kiosks, shade structures, and comfort stations, incentivize ground level development through maintenance on the riverfront, building a new dock for boat access, restaurant bars, and a water court. We're looking to activate our riverfront the way other riverfronts are activated in other peer cities. And last, we'll be putting $10 million toward retail and event attraction. Downtown sidewalks, parklets, and open streets will be funding new businesses and supporting the retention and expansion of existing city businesses like retail, restaurant relocation, and expansion grants. We'll be white boxing, doing tenant improvements, facade improvements to support commercial property occupancy and helping to recruit more events to downtown through a partnership with the Regional Sports Commission. And before I open it up for discussion, Mr. Vice President, I do have one amendment to Board Bill 22 as amended in committee that was emailed out to everyone last night, and I would like to make a motion that we adopt Amendment 2 to Board Bill 22 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the President, seconded by the Alderman, that we to board bill 22 as amended in committee

So the intent of this amendment is to ensure that the city is measuring whether these investments are achieving their intended goals and providing the Board of Aldermen and the public with consistent information to evaluate outcomes over time. One of the things that we've heard throughout our public engagement process is that residents would like the city to do better in assessing how our programs actually work. So in the future, we know to expand programs that work, or we know to tweak programs that do not work. So this amendment will require metrics to be developed within six months of the ordinance passage. For tornado recovery, it has to be done at the first quarterly meeting, so a little bit sooner than that. It will require annual reports to the relevant board committees using those metrics to demonstrate progress and outcomes until all funds have been expended. And relevant committees are likely to include the HUD's committee, transportation and commerce, public safety, and or public infrastructure and utilities. And it requires all categories have quarterly and annual reports that are made publicly available on the city's website. Again, so we can track how these funds are actually being deployed. So with that, I would take any questions on amendment number two.

Are there any discussions on amendment number two to board bill 22 as amended in committee? Alderwoman from the 13th.

I don't have anything. I'm trying to introduce an amendment, so I'll wait.

Thank you, Alderwoman. Any further discussion on amendment number two to board bill 22 as amended in committee? Seeing none, Madam President, you may proceed.

I renew my motion.

It's been moved by the president, seconded by the alderwoman from the seventh that we adopt amendment number two to board bill 22 as amended. Madam clerk, please call the roll.

Alderwoman Schweitzer. Aye. Alderman Odenberg. Aye. Acting President Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan. Aye. Alderman Devotee. Alderwoman Velazquez. Aye. Alderwoman Sanye. Aye. Alderwoman Cox-Antwi. Aye. Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard. Aye. Alderwoman Keyes. Aye. Alderwoman Tyus. Aye. Alderwoman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

No, the other is Aldrich.

President Green. Aye. Alderwoman Thais. 14 aye votes.

All right. By your vote, you have sustained the motion of the president and have adopted to board bill 22 as amended.

Thank you, Mr. President, members of the board. I know that the Alderwoman from the 13th has another amendment that I support, so I'm happy to yield over to her for that amendment.

Alderwoman from the 13th, you're recognized.

Yes, Mr. Acting President. I'd like to introduce Amendment 1 to Board Bill 22 to add Walnut Park East and Walnut Park West into the Ramsville. until board bill 22 i'm sorry it's been moved by the alderwoman from the 13th seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we adopt amendment number one to board bill 22 as amended other woman you may proceed yes uh ronald park east and west it was some confusion and it was in there in the beginning and then i think in the shuffle the neighborhoods got moved out and so we called it and so we're making sure they're included in this bill because it's critical for them to be serviced also i renew my motion any discussion on amendment number one to board bill 22 as amended any further discussion

Seeing none, it's been moved by the Alderman from the 13th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th that we adopt amendment number one to board bill 22 as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Amendment number one to board bill 22 as amended has been adopted. Any further discussion on board bill 22 as amended? Alderman from the fourth.

Thank you, Vice President, members of the board. I have several amendments here. They fall into kind of three camps. So I'll start with the least controversial. First, amendment number seven and eight are basically just to clean up a scrivener's error. They're supported by the mayor's office. So at this point, I would move to adopt amendment number seven.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fourth, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we adopt amendment seven. Alderman, you may proceed.

This is just a clean-up language. It's in the drive if anyone wants to look. Like I said, it's a Scribner's error, and with that, I renew my motion.

Any discussion on Amendment Number 7 to Board Bill 22? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Amendment number seven is adopted to board bill 22 as amended. Alderman, you're recognized. Thank you. I move that we adopt amendment number eight. It's been moved by the alderman from the fourth, seconded by the alderman from the 14th, that we adopt amendment number eight to board bill number 22 as amended. Alderman, you may. Exact same discussion as previously. Happy to answer any questions. Any further discussion on amendment number eight? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Amendment number 8 to Board Bill 22 as amended has been adopted. Any further discussion on Board Bill 22 as amended? Alderman from the fourth, you're recognized.

Thank you, Vice President, members of the board. Amendments three through six all kind of fall into one camp. So for the sake of expediency, good amendment three fail. I will not be bringing four or five or six. So all these amendments are basically to strip out the grants for small businesses. We've seen previously that these small business grants have been abused. They're ripe for corruption. We're just not good at this. It's not something that we should be doing. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Okay. Any discussion on amendment number four? Point of order? Three. Amendment number three. There was no motion made to adopt amendment. Pardon me. I move that we adopt amendment number three. It's been moved by the alderman from the fourth, seconded by the alderman from the second, that we adopt amendment three to board bill 22 as amended. Any further discussion? Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Mr. President and members of the board. So I guess I'm talking on three, but like the alderman said, three relates to four and five, which is in the drive that would basically take away the funding for small businesses in North St. Louis. And I know the alderman from the fourth does not reside in the north side. And yes, there may have been Issues with the ARPA funds with the small business grant, but this is completely different. We know ARPA funds also have a lot more requirements. There's a lot more regulations around them compared to us being able to use RAMS funds. They're outside of homes being impacted in North St. Louis. There's been a lot of businesses that have also been impacted. A lot of businesses that do not have the funding and capital like maybe they would in the fourth ward in Dogtown to be able to rebuild in the same way as other colleagues. So I wish the alderman from the fourth would have maybe attended at least one hearing around the Rams funding to actually hear, or maybe showed up to any of the budget hearings, to actually hear residents and their concerns of wanting to see funds actually put to Northside. As an alder who actually live in South St. Louis, I do think this is it's a shame and this is it's a slap in the face to so many people that he do not represent that most of the times he probably do not drive over to go see those businesses would love to know how many times he's actually been in the tornado impacted area to actually see some of the businesses that have been impacted so i would ask my colleagues not only to vote this down because it's a horrible amendment i would ask them to vote this down because i think it's super insensitive to even be thinking about pulling funding back from small businesses, mainly black and brown, that are struggling, one, before the tornado to keep their doors open, but could really utilize these funds to be able to help them to rebuild. So I'll be voting no on this, and I would ask for a roll call vote on Amendment No. 3.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th. Alderman from the 4th, will you yield to questioning from the Alderwoman of the 12th? Sure. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Alderman. Your statement was we don't do... Small business grants very well, I would differ from you a little bit and saying that we don't do. Legislation very well from the sport involvement that little money and it's little compared to what we got. We got approximately 500Million dollars.

Alder woman from the 13th. Could you please mute?

I'm sorry, thank you.

Alder woman from the 12th. You may proceed.

We got approximately 500 million dollars in June of 2021. We appropriated that money for the ARPA funds because we were comparing this with the ARPA funds. We appropriated it and had like a 10 or 12 hour Zoom meeting on July 9th, 2021. And the former mayor signed the board bill into law in August of 2021. When we had some fellow members of the board that ran into legal difficulties, we came back in 2023 and changed the board bill. And herein lies a lot of the problem. Go back and look at me saying we're taking all the checks and balances out. Nobody wanted the members of the Board of Aldermen to have any say. There's a reason why there's been a long history about writing a letter of support or at least checking in with why you think something is good or bad in the community that you serve. And we took all of that out and we changed the board bill, not me, because I didn't I was adamantly opposed to it and said many of the things that were going to happen had happened because we changed the board bill and we took checks and balances out. The legislative body is always supposed to have checks and balances, but there has been a concentrated attempt for the last few years to take the legislative body, the elected legislative body out of much of what is done in certain parts of the city, especially North St. Louis. It's as if, well, if we can't run it, we're gonna make sure that you don't have anything to do with it. So when the Alderman from the 14th says that he finds it offensive about you, I find it offensive that who's carrying this board bill in the first place, because neither one of them the mayor nor the president of board live in North St. Louis, okay? And don't own property in North St. Louis and didn't, you know, we don't see anybody from the 11th or 12th sponsoring this bill, okay? The 14th says he doesn't own property. So I don't find it any more insulting for you than anybody else. I will say that I disagree a little bit and say, we have to take the responsibility. We don't do good legislation so it doesn't get done right. Had we done it the way it was first set up and there were people who said, oh, Louis Reed did that, he did not. The comptroller put those checks and balances in there because she had the very concern that But I do find it interesting that people know all about that $37 million. But when I asked them, what about the other approximately $460 million? They don't know anything about that because that was not made fun of, that was not ridiculed, that was not put out there. And it was a lot of mistakes that was done because we didn't do our duty. So if we point fingers over at SLDC, And we can rightfully, we also have to point fingers at us when we do not take up our duty of checks and balances. And we did not, we turned all of that over based on some nonsense. Okay. So then when it happened, everybody said, oh, look at those people. And basically you would look at black people who cannot govern. And that really pains me because, um. I had the benefit of working with the former mayor, the former president of the board, and the former comptroller, and trying to come up with some agreements about how we could spend this money. I was asked by all three of them to do that. I begged and pleaded and almost lost my life because I was sick. and did not take care of myself and had to end up having surgery, tried to get us to be able to get something that would get done. But the $37 million was not the problem. The problem was us. You need to look in that mirror, augment from the fourth, and if you voted to change that bill, you were part of that problem. Because if you go back and look at You'll see me saying all the things that happened before because I knew what had gone into the bill. So I don't find it that we can't do it. I find it that we don't do it right if we don't put checks and balances. So if there are no checks and balances for this, it will not be done right, okay? If there are checks and balances, then there will be some more, it'll be a better run. But those people who want to say the augment shouldn't be involved, that is wrong. Doberman absolutely should have been involved because in that prior board bill, the ARPA funds, when they started saying where they gave money to, three of those places was in the now called the 12th, used to be the first, was originally the 20th. And those businesses have not been operating for decades. 15 years or more. And I could have told them that if there was anything that I was involved in. When I asked the sponsor of the board bill, what she thought, how would we know what's going on? She said, well, if you're friendly with the administration or you're friendly with the people of the SLDC, well, they could tell you. They should have a right to get information and it should be provided to us about request so that we can make informed decision. But we can't. Right now I'm getting requests from people who are part of the small administration, small grants from the ARPA fund. And it's so interesting because they start the letter, well, of course you know I got this amount. No, I don't. I don't know what amount they got. And then there are people who have worked very hard, put their own money up. I have four And I tell you, they treat them like they're begging or something like that. I don't even understand it, okay? It has been, the ARPA grants have been administered, but I do think that's our fault because we did not have checks and balances. And people were so busy covering up for their friends and their cohorts and their political friends that they did not do the things that you should do for everybody. Everybody should, every board should have got a notice every week, I'm not every week, but every month or every couple months, what was going on, how the money was appropriated, what boards did they have money that was supposed to be going out, what was the decision making? To this day, I call over to SLDC probably once every few days, trying to get something in writing about how does that program work? How is it that people applied for money? three years ago, had their own money and they're just now getting funds. That is ridiculous. So you're not wrong about we don't do it right, but you're wrong about who's responsible for it. We are responsible for it. We didn't do our jobs. We are checks and balance on ourselves and also on the executive body. And we didn't do that. So I could see where you would say, this is terrible, but it's terrible When you put a half a million dollars in your own money and you're trying to get something done and you're going to pay insurance. I have people that have to pay insurance on their projects for three years in a row. How does that make sense? I can't deny that your correct is not being done right. I just deny that it's just SLDC's fault. It's also ours. But it is their fault because they can't give you anything in writing how the program goes. I always say to them, let me just explain to you, when I rent out a property, I have a sheet. These are the things I need from you. If you give me these things, then this is about the time I will be able to get back to you and say if you have made the grade or not. If you don't, I tell you why. If you do, then I say this is the next step and this is what you're supposed to submit to me so that I can make the decision. I don't understand it. And if they have it, they keep it under wraps. So that is wrong. Everybody should be able to know how they are being treated and why they are being treated a certain way. But I spend a great deal of my time, I have four or five projects that I spend a great deal of my time just crawling over there saying, what is going on? But again, that is our problem, because we should have had hearing knocking heads and saying, you must do this at a clear outline about what had to be done. We didn't do that. So I can't. Hands down, say, well, he's right, and I'm going to support that because we don't do this well. I'm saying we would include the Board of Aldermen. And so until we're going to do something that makes people accountable, we're not going to do much well. So I don't know what I'm going to do with your amendment because I agree something needs to be done, but just taking it out necessarily may not be the solution to it. Thank you.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Madam President.

I think the Alderwoman from the 7th was actually first.

You were standing before the Alderwoman from the 12th, so I was just going off, but I'm happy to recognize the Alderwoman from the 7th.

Thank you, acting president, members of the board. I don't know if I've ever been this disappointed in the alderman of the fourth. As I feel right now, I am deeply disappointed to see this amendment brought forth. I am not going to yield to an inquiry or ask to yield to an inquiry because I want to be able to maintain a sort of decorum. But I do want to say on record that I think it is absolutely shameful that to bring something forward to suggest that people who had an EF3 tornado should not be able to get resources, to suggest that we should tie things to real property claims and put liens on people's property. I wish that the alderman would afford that. Maybe he needs to drive through those two communities because they're still in that state today. Putting a lien on a property that was blown away in a tornado. That is really shameful, and it really doesn't make any sense. Again, I don't know if we're aware, but we're talking about we want to make these be loans. There are people that are having to take loans out to meet their basic needs right now. There are people having to take loans out in order to afford their utilities, to get their groceries. If you had a vehicle that was on the street and it got blown away, that was in a tornado. There are people who are trying to figure out as far as their home situation, their loan, they're upside down in their loans because of intentional neglect by the government. And now a member that is a part of the local body of government is proposing that we not only tie things to real property and put lien... properties, but that we put loans in place. I just think it is deeply shameful, and I want to make sure that I'm perfectly clear on the record for anyone watching that I am strongly, strongly opposed to this. Have we had programs in the city that haven't gone right? Absolutely. We've had all kinds of things in the city that have gone right that we continue to do, but that's not the fault of the people who are in the tornado impacted area. So to say that we should not support businesses, which the whole economic theory, businesses bring jobs, they bring goods, they stimulate the money throughout those economies. So supporting those businesses and supporting cultural and anchor institutions within those communities is actually a good thing. And I think even aside, like including the tornado, but tornado aside, knowing the investment that has happened in those communities, I would have been disappointed in this regardless. But to especially bring something like this forward in the context of a tornado at a time where. FEMA is actively being dismantled, where a state moves faster to fund stadiums than EF3 tornado residents, and where really these dollars are one of the few dollars on the ground. To bring something like this is extremely shameful, and I am deeply disappointed, and I just want to make sure I put on the record that I say that, and that I strongly oppose this and every other one of these amendments that he has left. I don't know what happened to just a sense of compassion. I don't know what happened to being able to put ourselves in other shoes. But perhaps some of us need to make some visits to see the way that people are still living right now, to see some of the resources that people need right now. Perhaps some of us need to do something to warm up our hearts a little and be a little bit humane and be compassionate, because this is the opposite of that. And I am deeply disappointed that in the year of 2026, a little bit less than a year after the tornado, that anything like this would even come forward on this board. Thank you.

Madam President.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President and members of the Board. I also rise in opposition to this amendment. We all recognize that The ARPA program for small businesses did not go off with a hitch. The question is not whether we stop trying and ignore the need that exists. The question is whether we think it is necessary to continue to invest. Just because a program did not work 100% the way that we wanted to doesn't mean that that need went away. And that need only got greater after the May 16 tornado. I want to talk about the need a little bit. SLDC went out and surveyed businesses that were in the construction area. And out of 788 unique businesses surveyed, 405 reported building damage, 60 reported being a total loss. Approximately 46% of those businesses reported damage levels classified as either severe or significant. That is almost 300 businesses that have been inoperable, not bringing in tax revenue, not paying for employees, not supplying jobs, because they have not been able to operate since the tornado. We also know that our businesses are facing immense pressure from a combination of both physical repair costs and the ongoing loss of sales. And when we look at what FEMA provided for business owners in the tornado zone, it was SBA loans. And the problem with the loan is that if you don't have any income because your business cannot be operational, because your brick and mortar is so damaged from the storm, then you do not have income to then pay down a loan. And so one of the things we've heard throughout the public engagement is please do not leave small businesses out again. The $30 million in Rams interest money that we did just about a year ago did not include funding for small businesses. And we have heard about that over the last year and how folks want to reopen. They want to rebuild. They want to be able to bring their businesses back to North City. But they cannot do it because they can't afford to take out an SBA loan. And they can't afford it out of their own pocket without having any kind of income come in. So we know that taking out small businesses, too, also has a dramatic impact on our neighborhoods. That is less places to go to the restaurant or to get groceries or to get other goods. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our neighborhoods, and we need to be helping them get back up and open. And what they've told us over and over again is that they have a need for working capital to address some of the long-term implications from this, from the tornado and get themselves back to a place where they can open. We know that there's a significant support gap in the recovery effort between support for small businesses or ones that were destroyed during the tornado. And as I said before, the SBA loans being the only source of revenue to support these businesses has meant that that was very narrowly tailored. And only certain folks, certain businesses that had cash flow or ability to pay down a loan were able to get those. So we know that the need exists. So the question is, have we learned from the Northside grant program? Have we learned from some of the past challenges with that program? And what are we doing differently to go forward? The city now has stronger tools in the toolkit to ensure that we have the safeguards in place to implement programs like this. We now go through a strict vetting and review process. This is a comprehensive business and compliance review process to prevent awards that would go to vacant properties or businesses with active tax issues or unverified entities. We also have conflict of interest screenings now, which are internal reviews to identify potential nepotism or similar concerns that could create eligibility issues. And then we now have recipient performance standards. So funding agreements that require grant recipients to clearly track their usage, keep receipts, restrict spending to specific eligible costs. So that is all to say that we learned from that program and the oversight that we have developed is much stronger than it was before. I'll also add that the First Amendment that we adopted today also creates a greater level of transparency and oversight over all of these funds for the public and the Board of Aldermen. And so I expect that one of the metrics is that we will be evaluating going forward is how we have supported our small businesses in reopening or or growing post-tornado and tracking that outcome over time in a public and transparent manner. So in closing, I'm opposed to this amendment. I think that our small businesses have been telling us that they do not want to be left out any longer. And so I encourage our colleagues to vote no on this amendment and the subsequent amendments, which would also take out small business eligibility.

Any further discussion on Amendment No. 3? Alderman from the 12th, is your hand raised from the last time, or do you want to speak again on Amendment No. 3?

I would like to speak again, because I forgot to ask the alderman from the 4th my question. I made such a long speech, I forgot the question.

Alderman from the 4th, will you recognize the questioning of the alderman from the 12th? Absolutely. Alderman, you may proceed.

Alderman, so when you suggest, as I said before, run poorly i heard all the women from the seventh say that uh you know about putting liens and things they're putting liens on the people who are in the north side program um we've talked about it we call it the color tax that if you're part of that you got a tax it put liens of 10 years i think it's ridiculous okay they don't do that for majority owned companies and i think it's wrong and i Pinned a letter to say that. But saying all of that, did you have any suggestions about another way we might do it? Or do you just say we don't do it so you just want to take it out? Because we don't do it with them.

So I think the Alderwoman, I think, got a little bit ahead of herself when she was talking about liens. That's for a different amendment. That's not in relation to this kind of school of amendments. I think, frankly, we're just not good at this. Like... We haven't done it successfully. These dollars have less guardrails on them than the ARPA dollars did. And if we were bad at this with the ARPA dollars, I think we're going to be even worse. I think that we're going to just be flushing tons of dollars down the toilet here. And we're just not good at it. There was so much fraud the last time, and I don't think we should open up the door for this again.

So, I don't think that I kind of disagree with you because I'm still dealing with it. We're not again. We're not good at it because we didn't put in checks and balances and that. I'm sure you can agree. It's the board of Alderman's fault.

Okay. Agreed.

We're so busy. I beg your pardon?

I said agreed. I agree.

So, but I was saying, she was talking about the liens, but I'm saying right now, I'm dealing with the people who are in my ward and who are businesses in my ward who have been awarded the grants and they got liens of 10 years on their property for any kind of grant. So I think that's kind of outrageous. I do know you don't want people to get money and leave, but, and the same thing, been going through a whole thing about they got to make sure they have enough minority workers, contractors, which I totally agree with. Whenever they call me, I say, here, let me help you find some. But when I talk to the majority people in my ward who have been a recipient of these grants, because it wasn't always who got these grants in North Corridor. It was people of the majority community. They didn't seem to have those problems. So again, I think it is our fault and I think that SLDC needs to do something different I've actually taken the opportunity to call the former director of SLDC and talk to him. And I'm not talking about Otis. I'm talking about Neil Richardson, who I really did think that was trying to do a good job. But we've had conversations about what happened. What was your intent with this? Because I'm just trying to track down what went so wrong with this besides the fact that we didn't put in checks and balances. And what I find more than anything is that there was not a good... Um, program set up of how to get these dollars out and you didn't treat everybody the same way. Some people were able to use their political connections to go right around and get their money. The other people that applied at the same time. And as I said before, they've paid insurance costs 3 times. the people who are their co-lenders who was besides the grants they were getting money that they borrowed they they have gotten really spooky because they feel like wow how why is this taking so long so i understand the concerns that you have but i have to agree with the others who spoke with that and i said this before i don't know that you don't do it you just make sure those mistakes don't happen again and you make sure those checks and balances we will see that's something they want to do okay um because I am always a strong supporter that you should seek the alderman in the ward's support. Nobody knows the ward as much as you do, and so you should at least know what's going on in the ward so that when people contact me, I have a particular person who was awarded $1.5 million to redo a four-family flat, and they just sent me a letter saying, we don't have enough money, we need more. I am appalled. I have done four families and six families, and we've never... That kind of money. So, of course, I did not know because all of them were not required to know. But now as I find more about this, I will tell you I'm disappointed in it. But I'm not disappointed enough to say I don't want other people to have the opportunity. I'm disappointed enough to say that we need to do it better and right. And so that's why I will not. be supporting not having a program for small businesses, but I will be supporting that we need to write a stricter guideline of how it's done and require them to put it in writing and submit it to the members of the Board of Aldermen how this process goes. And would you be more comfortable if you thought it was a tighter, stricter way of awarding these funds? You knew what was going on and help it all with your thoughts about continuing the program?

I think if there were clearer parameters and we had a track record of any modicum of success at this type of thing that I'd be for this. But I think our history shows us that, unfortunately, that's not the case. And we're acting like it's a completely different concept. This is the same people running the same type of program that they were previously very bad at.

Well, I will tell you, I would like to introduce you to some of the people who have gotten the funds that are very successful. And I can tell you, I would like to take you to the buildings. The buildings are complete. A very famous one is Miss Robbie, who's working on now. I'm real proud. Because of her, we are attracting other people. So I would like to show you how success looks. Everything is not a failure. If you ever want to, I would like to take you around and see some of them because they are doing some good things. But I'll say, the people who are still in the program, they're having more problems from SLDC, CDA than them giving them problems. It wasn't the people, it was our people who were running the program. and um like i said every day or so i'm talking to them what do we what is it that we need to do what can be done better uh what do you need from them i'm calling the banks i'm doing everything i'm spending a lot of time with that but there are some success stories and i would like you to see them because they're they're not all failures and um so i think akin to what you're talking about is that you have several students that are not doing real well but you have some students are doing really great you don't get rid of school and say well i have some failures You try to school up to par so that you have much more people who are successful and the small businesses do need funds. And that was the original idea behind the 37Million dollars. It wasn't me. It actually came from the ultimate from the 21st president, former president, and they had come up with it. It really wasn't something I wanted. I want to do something else, but. Um, once I heard about it, it really was something that was needed because when you talk about the North part of it, and then it got changed, it wasn't the North court anymore. And then it got changed. It wasn't just businesses. And that was a mistake because we still had the money, but the North quarter itself. ranges from up into the 13th Ward of Chain of Rocks Bridge to someplace, if you're going down Natural Bridge, to someplace down to Parnell or something like that. So there are a lot of small businesses that if that firm would have been run right, they would have got facade improvements. was about what we really thought about getting box facade improvements helping them run their business and it was not a great amount of money 37 million sounds like a lot but when you spread it over that amount of land and different businesses there was not and it's just unfortunate that we didn't set up the programs right and um i would think that hopefully we will set the program up right and that also that we will request

that they report back to us in writing what they're doing often if this gets passed thank you any further discussion alderman from the 14th thank you madam president members of the board with all my from the fifth year for questions or fourth the all right well the alderman from the fourth yielded questioning from thinking about you for my last bill yes alderman you may proceed Thank you, Alderman. I think maybe the old woman from 12th was going again so long that she forgot. She did ask a question I think you didn't answer. So what is your solution then if you don't believe that we should be providing small business because you say we're just so bad at it? I'm sure there's going to be a clip and a meme of you in the future. Oh, I'm sure. What's your solution then? If you don't want to give money to small businesses in North St. Louis, what do you think the solution is?

I think that we need to look really hard at who is overseeing that PASS program. And who's going to be overseeing this program should it go into effect?

Who's overseeing the current or with the small businesses in the World Bill 22? Do you know who's overseeing that program?

So my guess is that it's going to turn out to be SLDC. Your guess. So you didn't read the legislation? No, I'm saying that they seem to get their fingers into a lot of things, whether or not they're officially in charge of something. Okay.

Well, I'm going to come back to you. Will the president please yield for questioning?

Will the president yield a questioning of the alderman from the 14th?

Yes.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Madam President, who, instead of guessing, since, you know, it's clear in the legislation, I think if people probably read it, they'll know who's over all these different funds that will be distributed. Who would be over the small business part for this part of the tornado issue?

So all of the tornado recovery funds will go through the Office of Recovery, and then the Office of Recovery will be coordinating with various city departments, whether it's SLDC, CA, Affordable Housing Commission, for the small business grant programs, more than likely it would be SLDC would do that again. But as I stated previously, SLDC has put in place some safeguards since then, since the last iteration of a similar program, so that we don't run into some of the problems we had last time of a business doesn't um, exist or, um, or it was vacant or had tax issues or, um, or whatever we want to, you know, we want to make sure that we're, um, appropriately vetting them on, uh, on the front end, which was something that was I think lacking.

Gotcha. Thank you, Madam President. With Alderman from the fourth year for questions.

Will the alderman from the 4th yield a questioning from the alderman of the 14th? Sure. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. So now knowing, instead of guessing, it sounds like it's going to go through the Office of Recovery. Yes. I'm not done. It's my inquiry. You're going to get your time. I apologize. What is your solution? It sounds like SLDC is your concern. It will go from Tornado to probably SLDC. You don't like that. Totally hear it. The program wasn't good. Our job is to find solutions and to try to figure out how to get somewhere. You want to take the money away. And with this amendment, by taking the money away from small businesses, where are you wanting that money to go?

I would put it in the... Personally, I think that we should be doing a whole lot more in reserve. So I would put in anything that we say, I would put in reserve.

So you would want this to go in reserves, the unspent for Rams money?

Yes.

But you do not have a solution to how to help small businesses in Northside that's been impacted by the tornado? I told you the solution. I think we need to look very hard at SLDC. Have you been, since the previous program, have you been looking very hard at SLDC to try to figure out a solution so that we make the program better?

I think that over the years here, virtually everyone knows my feelings about SLDC.

Yeah, that was my question. Have you looked very hard or talked with SLDC to come up with solutions to try to make the program better? Yeah, I think the solution is we need a lot of change at SLDC. A lot of change. It sounds very vague, but... So if we adopt this amendment and we adopt the rest of your amendments, are you going to vote on this board bill?

It'll depend on what the board bill looks like as it's actually up for the perfection vote.

So you've read the bill, right? You know what the board bill currently looks like? Yes, absolutely. So the current board bill as it stands... The current board bill as it stands is a bad bill. It's a bad bill, why?

Well, it would take me a long time to go over everything that is... Don't worry, I got time. Tell me your top five things of why it's bad. It's trying to do way too many things. We need to pick one or two things and do them well. So we should just invest in water and not support tornado recovery? I think that the water investment is necessary, absolutely. You would be fine with just investing in water? I mean, when this previously came up, there was an amendment to just invest in water, and I think it had the vote.

Yeah, and now we're on a new bill where I think there is some collaboration and solidarity that I think – that was before Tornado, too, right? Sure. But you said we're doing too much. You just believe that we should just do one or two things. and do them well. Seeing the bill that's been public for the last, I don't know, few weeks, I'm curious, since you're offering amendments to a bill that you would like to change, what are those one or two things? Because outside of legislating in the committee, this is an opportunity, or outside of the committee, this is an opportunity to do the work on the floor. So I'm just curious of what are those two things that you would like to see in the Rams bill?

I'd like to see much more in reserve. I think that currently we're making more than a million dollars a month off interest that we can be nimble with i think if we were to spend a whole lot more in reserve and create an endowment we can meet a lot of a lot more needs frankly we'd have a million dollars a million dollars plus a month to allocate at whatever issue is in front of the city including tornado recovery so you all love it to go to reserves that's the only thing you like see I'm not saying all of it go to reserves. I think we need a much more substantial amount in reserves. Gotcha. Would you like to see funds go into the tornado recovery? Absolutely. I think that we should absolutely be using the interest for tornado recovery, and I voted to allocate interest to tornado recovery in the past. You don't believe we should touch the principle? I think it's a mistake to get into the principle. I've said that since the day that we... got the settlement. I think that creating an endowment that spends off millions and millions of dollars a year allows us to be nimble and meet issues like the last time there was just amendment to do touch principle for water.

You supported that though. Yes. Water is a critical need that everyone, north, south, central corridor, everyone needs. Oh, okay. Everyone needs water and everyone needs homes, too. And everyone don't have homes in the tornado area. But you said you think it's a bad thing to touch principal for a tornado. You know, we can make money off the interest. But it's a great thing to touch money for water. I'm not even going to go down that path. I think it speaks for itself. But let's get back to your amendment. So with taking the money away from the small businesses, as I'm clear, there is no solution that you have for how to invest those money in small businesses in North St. Louis. I'm not the one who came up with this bad idea. But you are the one that's coming up with a horrible amendment. So let's talk about your amendment. And you also have the opportunity for this bad idea to attend a committee hearing, show up to hearings, be part of these conversations. So I understand you don't like the bill. It's bad. It's a bad, bad, bad bill. Brett or the all men from the all four saying it's bad, bad, bad bill. Agreed. And these amendments will make the bill better that will support the bill.

It would be a better bill. And you would support the bill? It would depend on how many of these amendments got through. Okay.

I'm done. Thank you, Alderman. Absolutely. Any further discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved by the Alderman from the 4th, seconded by the Alderman from the 2nd, that we adopt Amendment No. 3 to Board Bill 22. As amended, there's been a call for roll call. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer. No. Alderman Oldenburg.

No.

Vice Chair Cohn.

No.

Alderman Narayan.

Aye.

Alderman Devotee.

No.

Alderwoman Velazquez. No. Alderwoman Sanye. No. Alderwoman Cox Antwi. Alderman Browning.

No.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard. Alderwoman Keyes. Alderwoman Tyus. No. Alderwoman Boyd.

No.

Alderman Aldrich.

No.

President Green.

No.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard. Yes. One aye vote, 13 noes.

By your vote, you have failed to sustain the motion of the alderman from the fourth. Alderman from the 4th, you are recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, members of the board. I have another train of amendments here. Not about the small business loans. This would... Turn the neighborhood implementation plan into loans. This would allow us to reutilize these dollars over and over rather than one time expenditure.

Yes, I move that we adopt amendment number nine. Amendment number nine. It's been moved by the alderman from the fourth that we adopt amendment number nine. Hearing no second, Alderman, you can move on to your next amendment.

Thank you. I'll just speak to the bill as a whole. This is a bad bill. Alderwoman was previously talking about being ashamed. I can tell you that, especially for those of us who were on the board during the ARPA funding, I think we're going to be ashamed a decade from now when we look back and realize that we spent more than $750 million and don't have much to show for it. With that, I'll yield.

Any further discussion on Board Bill 22 as amended? Any further discussion? Madam President, you're recognized to close. Oh, I'm sorry. Alderwoman from the 7th.

Thank you, Acting President, members of the board. I would like to bring Amendment 15.

I'm sorry?

I would like to bring Amendment 15 to the floor.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 7th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we adopt Amendment number 14, or I'm sorry, 15. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? No.

Point of order.

Actually, I should have had, yeah, Madam Clerk, please strike that. We need discussion on Amendment No. 15. I'm just trying to move this board quickly through these things. But, Alderwoman, please proceed. Thank you.

Thank you, Acting President, members of the board. Amendment 15 is an amendment that would make sure that we implement our ordinances with NWBE and prevailing wage and nondiscrimination as these projects are happening. I know obviously what we're hoping to see with these funds is a lot of rebuilding, and we want to make sure that folks who are here and folks who make up the communities where the devastation happened get an opportunity to happen. We have some ordinances already on our books that reference these things. um and so the first portion is to make sure that this is implemented with these funds and then the second portion of this amendment puts in reporting requirements so it will require the administrator of the funds establishing this ordinance to submit quarterly reports to the board of aldermen where they will be made available on the city of st louis website for transparency and they will include information about contract awards subcontract awards total dollars awarded to MBE and WBE firms, total dollars awarded to St. Louis-based firms, and total dollars of awards based to local firms, as well as professional service agreements. And so the desire behind this amendment, again, is to make sure that our local contractors, developers, entities, as well as our minority and women businesses, that they get an opportunity to be a part of this process. And this does have the support of the president of the Board of Aldermen, as well as the mayor's office. Thank you.

Any discussion on Amendment No. 15 to Board Bill 22 as amended? Madam President.

Just rise to say that, yes, I support this. MOCAN came to us with this statement. kind of recognizing that we are going to have a lot of development as a result of this board bill and wanting to make sure that not only are we following our MWBE requirements that we currently have set in ordinance, but that we are being more transparent with the issuing of contracts and subcontract awards from this that come as a result of these dollars. So we have a better idea of just how many MWBE, WBE contracts Firms are performing work. The total dollars that are going to St. Louis-based firms and the total dollars going to St. Louis-area-based firms. I know one of the critiques of funding... thus far has been that there have been contracts that have gone to out of town uh contractors and this is a way to hold us i think more accountable to making sure that those dollars stay here and we are public and transparent about our goals to keep those dollars here so thank you alderwoman from the seventh for working on this and bringing it forth

Any further discussion on amendment number 15 to board bill 22 as amended? Alderwoman from the first, are you standing to be recognized? Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Alderwoman, you're recognized to close on your amendment.

Thank you, Acting President, members of the board. I would make a small correction. I actually went to MOCAN myself. If you were at the HUD's committee hearing that I had, I was talking a bit about accountability. And some folks from MOCAN, as well as some contractors, actually saw some of the media coverage that happened when I tried to bring an amendment forward to talk about oversight and accountability within the office. And so they saw that and then we were able to have conversation. And so I want to just make sure not just Mocan, but I know there are many Mocan as well as many contractors and even local businesses, as Madam President said, have just raised flags for us. And we've heard over time, especially on the Budget Committee, of some of the concerns. And so I think the hope is that this can help us to begin to get ahead of that as well as have some transparency. I'm looking forward to this information being available. on the City of St. Louis website so that anyone who is interested in seeing those dollars and tracking it can, as well as the fact that it will have to be reported on a quarterly basis, so we will be getting regular updates. But I think this is really important to make sure that as this money flows, it flows through our economy and that our minority and our women business entrepreneurs, as well as prevailing wage and other things, are implemented as we hope to move forward in our recovery and rebuilding our city.

Thank you. And just a point of clarification, as long as the president is on the chamber, I am referred to as vice president. So with that, we now have before us Amendment Number 15 to Board Bill 22 as amended. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries. Amendment Number 15 to Board Bill 22 as amended is adopted. Any further discussion on Board Bill 22 as amended? Alderwoman from the 8th.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I just wanted to take a moment to rise and also speak in support of this bill as a whole. And I wanted to do it in the context of a recent event in the 8th Ward that I think really illustrates why each aspect that is included in this bill is really vital at this time. As some of you may be aware, between Broadway and Biddle, there was a large sinkhole that opened over the weekend. And that sinkhole was caused by a water main break that created a cavern. That water main break was due to extremely old infrastructure that our city has not addressed in a very long time. And that sinkhole shut down the entire stretch of I-70. And in doing that, impacted our entire and south on Jefferson to get to areas in the south. And I think that illustration shows something really important, which is that a lot of people in our city haven't had to experience these kinds of differences in their areas before. And now we have a moment for the first time where we have an opportunity to see other aspects of the city. So I wanted to take this time to speak directly to some of my constituents and other folks in South City. In this time right now, where maybe for the first time you're traveling north on Jefferson, I want you to look around, and I want you to notice what you see. And if you have a problem doing that for any reason, I think that problem alone should tell you why the north side investment components of this bill are so critically needed right now. We know that tornado recovery is extremely important. We know that, quite honestly, before the tornado even happened, these areas need an investment. So I hope the sinkhole can give you a moment to reflect and think about that aspect. Lastly, I just want to point out what I think is a perfect poetic illustration of where this occurred. It occurred right outside of the convention center, the very stadium that this created, this opportunity and this cash inflow that we have right now. And so I think it also points to something else, which is that the downtown component of this bill is also needed. Because when infrastructure fails downtown, and when downtown fails, it affects not only the entire city, but the entire region. And that is something we are all also feeling right now in this moment. So I just want to say this. I don't think this is a bad bill. I think this is a great bill. And I think the moment and all the aspects that we have in this bill right now are probably needed now more than ever before. We are one city. We have one future. And we have a moment right now on this floor where we can either take the opportunity to work on that together, or we continue to rip each other apart. I hope we do the former today.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th.

Yes, Mr. Vice President. If the Alderwoman from the 13th would yield, please.

Well, the older woman from the 13th yielded questioning of the older woman from the 12th. Yes, older woman, you may proceed.

Thank you.

Thank you. Let's see how far was this. Let's see 2024. Is that it? You had a board video 1, 1 31. Right now. was for appropriation of the RAMS funds back a year or so ago. Then also, the other one from the 7th Ward also had a companion, well, it wasn't a companion bill, it was a separate bill, and hers was Board Bill 153 as amended. It also was about allocating the RAMS fund. We had quite a little kick-up. in February of 2025 about what should be done. And I want to remind people if it were not for you and the Alderman from the 7th agreeing to put that money on both of your board bills on the formal calendar, we would not have much of a ramp amount of money. People forget that. Sometimes things happen and I was able to help facilitate that, so I'm very thankful. But we did not know that in a couple of months there was going to be a tornado that would vastly affect our lives. But because we could not come together on something, maybe that was the reason we actually had this fund sitting there. When people send me and say, did you know about this Rams Fund? Yeah, I knew about it. I also did the first resolution back. When we 1st, got the brand on in 22, because we were not getting information about what was going on with the brands and they were very secretive. We were over there meetings, but they weren't telling us anything. But anyway, back to you and from the 7th, put your board bills on. the informal calendar. And so we didn't spend it, and thank God we didn't. But in the meantime, I don't know if you remember this, but we gave $30 million, and it's in this board bid, from the top of the $280 million we got from the RAMS fund. We gave it with a board bill that was from former Alderman Jack Kohler. It was the $30 million to go to the convention center, right? But what I don't see in this bill, and it's amazing to me, is that we gave another $15 million, not from the Rams Fund, but from the Auto Fund, and this was sponsored by a then-8th Ward Alderwoman, Kara Spencer, and Mayor Jones signed into call. And so that meant that the Convention Center got $45 million for one building. Correct? Correct. And so where is the convention center located? Downtown. No, downtown. It's downtown. Thank you. I just wanted to bring that up because I wanted people to realize that sometimes people have done great things and you and the other one from the 7th did a great thing to decide not to try to fight it out anymore and to put those board bills on the informal calendar. And I'm very thankful. I want to thank you and the other one from the 7th. That's my only, and I want to have it made known that downtown got $45 million for one building. And that's important to me. Thank you. And that's important to me because I now would like to know if the sponsor of the bill, the president, would answer with a question.

Madam President, will you yield the questioning from the alderman of the 12th? Yes. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you. I'm sorry, when you were going through your list of how much money was appropriated to what, maybe I'm going to try to see if I can get this. So we know the Convention Center, between the Rams money and all the $15 million, which I raised a lot of hell about, because they had told us they needed $30 million, and we all agreed that that's what we were going to give them, and then we gave them $15 million more, which... made Kitty have to leave because she was way over her budget. So how much exactly does downtown get from this Rams Fund? Not counting the $45 million they already got. What is the exact amount?

In this current bill, there is $55 million dedicated to downtown.

Okay. And so my next question is this. So North St. Louis and the tornado-impacted areas are not the same in this bill, right? Because there are some parts of the tornado-impacted areas that's not in North St. Louis. Is that correct?

Correct. And we intentionally wanted to make sure that both tornado area and North St. Louis was included in this bill. And I want to thank Elder Woman from the 13th in particular for raising this point that While the 13th Ward as a whole was not hit as bad with the tornado as some areas, the 13th Ward, for example, still has had, as you know, massive disinvestment over decades. And so we wrote the bill to make sure that not only that tornado impacted area, but the greater area of North St. Louis would be eligible for funds.

question is so if it's a but it's not in north ST L I drive down window and I looking at Forest Park, I' when I look at the peopl Because their houses may be bigger, but their houses got hit a lot. And it wasn't just Linda. If you go on to Washington and all of those places. So under the tornado impacted area, would they be included in the amount of money or not?

Yes, all of the neighborhoods that were impacted by the tornado are included. If you go to the definition section in the bill, we have a definition section for tornado-impacted neighborhoods and a definition section for North St. Louis neighborhoods. Right, right.

And how much does the tornado-impacted neighborhoods get?

In the bill right now, it is $86 million specifically for tornado-related expenses. Let me get up my spreadsheet here. Nope, sorry. Trying to find the right... spreadsheet there we go okay so we have eighty nine million for uh... so We have $78 million for housing in the long-term tornado recovery fund, a maximum of $10 million for infrastructure, $7 million for resident support, and $4 million for delivery and administration of funds. So that's $89 million in the tornado recovery bucket, and then $31 million for implementation of the North St. Louis neighborhood plans.

So that specifically for North St. Louis is 39 or 31 million?

31 for the neighborhood plans, but then recognizing that the tornado fund overlaps with most of or a good portion of North City, there's a lot of duplication of neighborhoods that are eligible for both buckets. Okay. And then the water department gets $40 million, right?

Correct. And then there's a vacancy retention fund that gets $10 million. And is that for North St. Louis? Is that for the entire tornado impacted area? Or is that for the entire city?

That is for the entire city. But as we talked about in committee, we know that the majority of vacancy is on the north side. and parts of Southeast City and Dutchtown and Gravois Park. And so the anticipation is that most of that money would be going to, obviously, the areas that have a lot more vacancy.

So when people are worried about North St. Louis getting money, the only part that's specifically for North St. Louis is the $31 million?

Is that it? For only North St. Louis, but 89 million from the Tornado Recovery Fund. As I said, I think there's only two neighborhoods that are not in North City that qualify for the Tornado Recovery Fund.

qualification except for that we listed it, I thought, in our board bill, we listed what were the tornado-impacted neighborhoods, correct?

Correct. And there's only two, I believe, Skinker, DeVoliber, and Central West End are the two tornado-impacted neighborhoods that are not on the north side.

And I don't know, I thought it was another one, Y-Down or something like that. It may be three, but okay. So... worried about the money that North St. Louis got because we didn't get a lot of money. We was, this was, to me, we were going to get more before the prenatal. And we have, the Alderman from the 13th talked about the disinvestment. The first disinvestment we have, I want you to know, is that the LRA properties are horrible. They are horrible. It should, I former mayor when we had a big amount of ARCA funds to take a big amount of money and tear those properties down. All of those people who want to tell you about how you can save LRA properties, no you can't. I've been rehabbing since 1979. And I want you to understand that by the time it becomes an LRA property, and I tried to teach this to Alderman from the 21st when he wanted to do the dollar program, he did learn later and come back, is that you have to be four years vacant before four years not paying your taxes before you go to our sheriff's sale if you're any kind of uh if you something that's a house or a property that can be saved the people at the sheriff's sale buy them so now it's been five years they go to lra they sit around and the only thing that they do is bring down the property value and commit that and have all kind of crimes and stuff that are committed in those properties. And I begged the former mayor to tear those properties down. And for all those people who said, oh, we need to be saving the brick I wish you would learn about why we have brick buildings. We have brick buildings because back in the 20s and 30s, we heated our houses with a fireplace and the embers went up the chimney and the chimney had to be really tall because if the embers came down, they would burn up the frame houses. So we became a very strong brick and stone coalition of people. And that's how we got these strong unions. We don't do that anymore. We don't do that in the richest communities. If you go out to most communities, unless you go to Huntley Hill or someplace, they do not build all brick houses. they build houses and then they put a brick front and wrap around and then they do some kind of uh wood siding or something other kind of siding and i say that is because all these people who push leave these terrible terrible buildings in our neighborhood that's you need to put that right by your house because during the tornado what happened every year I've been driving my neighborhoods for years and I always turn in that buildings that need to be torn down and I did that for a lot of years and then all of a sudden it slowed down under the prior administration and they had a lot of excuses of why they didn't do it but real things that they didn't understand and so with this tornado we had a great deal number of LRA properties that fell on people's buildings And these were people that I can show, these are properties that I can show I turned in. So when I look at this amount of $31 million and I look at this tornado impact, what I found out in my years experience of dealing with a large fund, and I'll give you, for example, the healthy homes. Every ward used to have a healthy home. of money it wasn't called healthy homes but we had war monies they had pots then under francis slave while i was going off this board they went to this great pot of money and it has been the most ridiculous thing people who live in north st louis try to have access to that that's what i'm going to tell you it's going to be a problem um the people who have the most uh knowledge will get the money and the people who have a lot of need will not get the money I think that that is awful that we have such a low amount of money that it was put into the tornado impacted area. Because what we just said is downtown has But counting the money that we already gave to downtown, and this was the thing I said to all the people who was lobbying for downtown. 1st of all, I've been here to watch you get billions of dollars. I've been here to watch them get all the block grant money. I've been here to watch them build buildings. They didn't work and tear them down and do other things. I've watched the partners. when they their tax abatement ended, they just moved to another court. I know how much rent or lack of rent that the Blues pay, and people would be surprised at that. So, to me, we don't have nearly enough money in the North St. Louis fund, and it's shameful. So when you look at downtown getting $55 million and North St. Louis getting $40 million, you're gonna get most of that. It was like, it's like we're embarrassed to say we're trying to make up for something that has been an ongoing problem and which was created by our great city forefathers and foremothers. LRA is impacting our community. And as LRA is impacting our community, so are the, you don't get grass cut. It looks like we live in a forest someplace with the grass. The grass is up to your knees. It is awful to live there. So we don't get the grass cut on the LRA properties. I have a house that is totally enveloped by grass that hasn't been put in years in my community. The only reason I just don't even bother with them is because it's off in some place. But just to give us $31 million is just really not enough. Everybody might think that's great. And if that was maybe before the tornado, that still wouldn't have been great. But after the tornado, for downtown to be getting $55 million is too much for me. because they have had so much of the money. If anybody sat around and looked at how much money they've been putting there at the expense of North St. Louis. I know that people are hollering and screaming, oh, North St. Louis shouldn't give it all. They should have done every bit of it. They should have gotten all of the ARPA funds. That should have been over there. That would have been a good thing if we had taken, if we worked on new water, which was my preference, to do half water and half North St. Louis, then we should at least demolish the houses because that would have saved a lot of people. having their houses that belong to LRA fall on them. It would also save a lot of people who don't have insurance, because part of the things that insurance looks at when they come into a neighborhood is what the neighborhood looks like. So when you're living on a block with tall grass, vacant houses, not created by the people who live there, by the way, so the people who think, oh, that's the style of people over there live, it is not. You will go on the street to the LRA properties And then we have this asinine thing that we do that we don't cut a whole neighborhood. We come in and cut lots every four weeks and then property every six weeks. So there's always tall grass in North St. Louis that the people did not create. So the people start cutting the front yards. And when they start cutting the front yards, then they are being told now from 4th Street, which is also asinine, is don't cut the front yards because then we won't know that we're supposed to cut the backyards. You should have a list to do that. And not too long ago I had a conversation with the alderman from the million dollars in North Saint Louis. So for me to see 31 million dollars is sad and to see downtown getting 55 million and Convention Center got 45 million, one building that we built and we gave millions of dollars to, that is not a equitable distribution of the funds. Now I know the Alderman from the Forest says he don't believe in Spending the money down, I always did. I heard that was from, not from him, I heard from other all the people who were told the former president didn't spend the money. That to me was like your husband sending you extra money for child support. And then you said, I'm gonna put this away, not spending it on clothing, shelter, and all the things. So to me, the $31 million is a slap in the face. sending me all the emails saying, oh, we're disappointed in the hoods and this is what you need to do. I'm disappointed in the hoods also. And you didn't have to tell me what to do because I've always thought that we should have gotten more money than this. And for us to sit on this money all this time, and now we're going to address it for tornado. But we're still not getting to the root of the cause. which is that we already disinvested. So you give us $31 million, and then other neighborhoods with 89, but it's really a tornado. So you never get to the things that didn't get done. Whereas downtown is crying in all of us, But you have gotten billions and billions and billions of dollars. And North St. Louis has gotten billions of dollars. And you should have, we're having a crisis like this, the money should have mostly gone to North St. Louis. And I'm not saying that we didn't have a tornado-impacted area for other neighborhoods, but we got 89, what did you say, 89 million in debt. and 31 million in North St. Louis. And no, the 13th Ward did not have as much problems, nor did the 14th Ward. But the 12th Ward and the 11th Ward and some of the 10th Ward just got devastated. And I don't see how we're only gonna address the tornado impact and not the impact of leaving LRA sitting in our community for all these years and not doing the things that we're supposed to do. grow black wealth when everything that you do is against North St. Louis or just a little bit. I just heard the Alderman from the seventh say how disappointed she was and the Alderman from the fourth. I'm disappointed in this board deal because I'm quite sure we had more money before the tornado and now it seems like we have less and I'm disappointed that the people who live in the community I've never seen were the mayor and the president of board carry a bill, but the people who live in the community are not part of that. And I'm talking about the people who represent the 11th, the 12th, a little bit of the 13th. We're not carrying the bills, but you are carrying the bills. The object of that is wrong. And if you didn't think about it, the fact that you didn't think about it optics of that is wrong and so um again i want to say how very disappointed i am i agree with the people who say we need 100 150 million dollars i agree and that would have been a little bit um but um hopefully instead of continuing to send all that ARPA money to the water department. Why don't we put ARPA money into now doing something constructive, which is demolish the L.A. properties? Because the government is not going to demolish our properties. They told us that. I knew that from the beginning. We didn't get those demolished because we didn't take care of them. So why don't we hopefully take some of the money from the ARPA that's going to be left over and it's soon getting to a point we could be setting up to tear buildings down because this is not enough money for North St. Louis. And I'm greatly disappointed. Alderman from the 7th is disappointed. I am too because it seems that after tornado, we have less. And I find that disappointing. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 13th.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. The only question I want to ask the board, I keep hearing about the tornado victims, but on the amendment that was just presented, you all voted against the tornado victims. So we need to make up our mind. Are we supporting the tornado victims or are we not supporting the tornado victims? Because the amendment that was introduced was saying exclude those areas that have been impacted by the tornado. And then it was a no vote. But now we're rallying and saying it's about the tornado victims. So I just wanted to bring to the board all of this attention. You double-talking yourself. So that's my comments.

Thank you, Alderwoman. Is there any further discussion on Board Bill 22 as amended?

Roll call.

Seeing none, Madam President, you're recognized to close on Board Bill 22 as amended.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President and members of the board. As I close, I just want to reiterate that this bill is not the final step for any of the priorities that we've discussed today. It is simply a step. With respect to tornado recovery, the city is still working with state officials to direct the roughly $185 million that has been approved thus far for the Missouri legislature. A lot of that is going to demolition work. And working with our U.S. senators and representatives to make sure that we get additional federal funding through the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Fund. Later today, this body will also take a final vote on long overdue water rate increases to keep our water division operational and make it possible to borrow the funding that we need to tackle the almost $700 million in critical capital improvements. And with the city making these commitments today, my hope is that our corporate community will step up and join us in revitalizing not just downtown, but North St. Louis as well. As we've discussed today, we know that the amount of needs that we have, whether it is the billion dollars just from the tornado damage, the 700 million in our water department or the $5 to $8 billion that it would actually take to revitalize downtown. The city can't do this alone. And so we need our corporate partners in addition to those state and federal partners to step up and help us in achieving all of these things so that we can have a safe, vibrant, and growing city. And with that, I close.

It's been moved by the president, seconded by the elder woman from the seventh, that we perfect Board Bill 22 as amended. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderwoman Schweitzer.

Aye.

Alderman Oldenburg.

Aye.

Vice Chair Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Ryan. Nope. Alderman Devotee.

No.

Alderwoman Velazquez.

Aye.

Alderwoman Sanye. Aye. Alderman Cox-Entwee.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Clark-Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderman Keyes. Aye. Alderman Matias. No. Alderman Boyd. Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

President Green. Aye. Alderwoman Keyes.

Aye.

Alderwoman Boyd.

Aye.

12 aye votes and 3 no votes.

By your vote, you have sustained the motion of the President and have perfected Board Bill 22 as amended. Report of Engrossment.

Board Bill 15, 16, 26 as amended, 31, 18, 23, 37 as amended in committee, 19, and Board Bill 25 as amended on the floor.

Third reading and final passage of Board Bill's consent.

Board Bill 15, 16, 26 as amended in committee, Board Bill 31, 18, 23, 37 as amended in committee, and Board Bill 19.

We just do report events. Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adopt the third reading and final passage of board bills on the consent calendar. Second.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we adopt the third reading and final passage of board bills on the consent calendar. Second.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we adopt the third reading and final passage of board bills on the consent calendar. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Oh, wait, sorry. We're on third reading. Got to do a roll call.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderman Schweitzer. Aye. Alderman Oldenburg. Aye. Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan. Aye. Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Alderman Velazquez.

Aye.

Alderman Sanye. Aye. Alderman Cox-Antwi.

Aye.

Alderman Browning. Aye. Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderwoman Keyes. Aye. Alderwoman Tyus. Aye. Alderwoman Tyus.

Present.

Alderwoman Boye. Aye. Alderman Aldridge. Aye. President Green. Aye.

14 aye votes and one voted present. By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the tent to third read and finally pass the bills. Third reading and final passage of board bills.

Board Bill 25 as submitted on the floor, introduced by Alderman Brownlee, and the co-sponsors include Alderman Cohn, Alderman Boyd, Alderman Cox-Antwee, Alderman Devotee, Alderman Schweitzer, Alderman Clark-Hubbard, and Alderman Velazquez. An ordinance pertaining to water rates finding, determining, and declaring that an increase in certain water rates is necessary for certain purposes. Defining certain terms, repealing and replacing parts of Ordinance 71683, which are presently codified as Section 23.06.130, 23.16.025, 23.16.040, 23.18.015, 23.18.070, 23.20.015, 23.20.202, 23.20.3030, and 23.20.045. of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis and amending ports of Ordinance 71683, which are presently codified in Section 23.16.020 and 23.04.220 of the Revised Code, all having as their subject water rates and charges and containing an emergency provision.

Aldermen from the 9th, you're recognized in the third reading and final passage of Board Bill 25 as amended and committed.

Thank you. I move that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 25 as amended.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 9th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 8th, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 25 as amended in committee. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you. I won't push this any farther. I think we've had plenty of discussion on this. I appreciate my colleagues' support for this necessary step to make the Water Division fiscally solvent and be able to address many of the critical needs in our city. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, Alderman, you're recognized to close.

Thank you. I renew my motion.

It's been moved by the... Well, one... Sorry, did I miss a hand? Alderwoman from the 12th.

Never mind, that's okay.

Okay. It's been moved by the alderman from the 9th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 8th, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 25 as amended in committee. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

As amended.

Alderwoman Schweitzer. Aye. Alderman Oldenburg. Aye. Alderman Cohn?

Aye.

Alderman Narayan? Aye. Alderman Devotee?

Aye.

Alderwoman Velazquez? Aye. Alderwoman Sanye? Aye. Alderwoman Cox-Antwi?

Aye.

Alderman Browning? Aye. Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard? Aye. Alderwoman Keyes? Aye. Alderwoman Tias? No. Alderwoman Boyd?

Yes.

Alderman Aldrich?

No.

President Green? Aye. Alderwoman Keyes? 12 aye votes, 2 noes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the 9th to 3rd read and finally pass Board Bill 25 as amended in committee. Report of the finally passed and signed by the President.

Board Bill number 15, 16, 26 as amended in committee, 31, 18, 23, 37 as amended in committee, 19, 25 as amended on the floor. That exists in a report of finally passed and signing by the president.

All other business being suspended, the president shall in open session affix her signature hereto to the end that these may become law. First reading of resolutions in reference to committees. We have none. We can dispense with line item 22. Second reading of resolutions, committee reports and adoption. We have none. We can dispense with line item 23. Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 7th that we adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Miscellaneous and unfinished business.

We have none. We can dispense with line item 25, announcements. Monday, June 22nd, 26th, budget and public employees, 9 a.m. in the Kennedy Room. Special full board meeting, 10 a.m. in the chambers. Legislation and rules, 2.30 p.m. in the Kennedy Room. Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026, we have a HUDS meeting at 11 a.m. in the Kennedy Room. Wednesday, June 24th, 2026, public infrastructure and utilities, 3.30 p.m. in the Kennedy Room. Thursday, June 25th, 2026, health and human development, 9 a.m. webinar. Personnel and administration, 11 a.m. in the Kennedy Room. Friday, June 26th, 2026, full board meeting, 10 a.m. in the chambers.

Any further announcements? Alderman from the 3rd. She's on the line.

Thank you, Madam President. I would like to announce and add a Transportation and Commerce Committee meeting for Tuesday at 10 a.m. Alderman from the 8th.

Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to take a moment to wish my husband, Jason, a happy anniversary and thank him for delivering lovely flowers to my desk today. And also thank him for allowing me to leave for a trip a little late today. So thank you.

Alderman from the 14th. Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Happy birthday, Jason. Also, oh, I missed. Anniversary! Even better, old woman! And hubby. Happy Juneteenth, everybody. Tomorrow's Juneteenth, of course, will be off. There is some Juneteenth events happening in the 14th Ward. So tomorrow at the Griot Museum, starting at 12 p.m., we will have a fun festival and a lot of small business and vendors that will be able to sell their merchandise, as well as tomorrow we will be having... The Juneteenth Festival at the House of Soul, where myself and Clark Hubbard, Alderman of the 10th Ward, will be speaking alongside other folks. But the House of Soul is always fun. We shut down, watch AF. There's plenty of vendors. It's just a good, black, fantastic time. So come on out and celebrate with us for Juneteenth and the 14th Ward.

Alderman from the 7th.

Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I would actually like to ask for a moment of silence for Basman Najra. She was a so many things, educator, a mentor, a organizer, an activist. I met her when I was literally just like 17 years old. I've known her consistently throughout the years. I actually, you know, just learned of her passing very recently, like this morning. So I still just can't even process that she's not with us. But I'm so thankful for everything that she gave for our city. I mean, she did amazing things in public health. She did amazing things around criminal justice reform. She literally gave me milk to get pepper spray off of my body several times. And even to this day, we've had plenty of conversations and I just really regret not going to see her as recently as I could have. But I really would appreciate just, you know, I know there are a lot of folks in community who are mourning over her, her family. And so if we could just give her a moment of silence, that would be amazing.

Please stand and bow our heads for a moment of silence for Basman. Any further announcements? Any further announcements? Seeing none, Alderwoman from the 10th, you're recognized on the motion to excuse.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board, all members.

Alderman from the 10th, you're recognized on the motion to adjourn.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we adjourn until Monday, June 22nd, 2026 at 10 a.m. in the Board of Aldermen Chambers.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 7th that we adjourn until, actually it should be Monday. Okay. Monday, June 22nd in the Board of Aldermen Chambers. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? No. Motion carries. We are adjourned.