Housing, Urban Development and Zoning - Regular Meeting

Good morning. We'll call today's Housing Urban Development and Zoning Committee meeting to order. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Cohn. Alderwoman Switzer. Present. Alderwoman Keyes. Vice Chair Sonnier. Alderman Browning.

Present.

Alderman Aldridge.

Present.

Chair Clark Hubbard.

Here.

President Green. Alderman Cohn. Alderman Cox-Entwee.

I'm sorry. Okay.

Alderman Cohn. We have five present. We have a quorum.

Thank you. With that, I'll accept an approval for the minutes from Tuesday, March 17, 2026. So moved.

Second. Second.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderman Cohn. Alderwoman Switzer. Aye. Vice Chair Sonnier. Aye. Alderman Browning. Aye. Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard. Aye. President Green. Aye. Alderman Cohn. We have five aye votes.

With that, we've successfully approved the minutes. We will move forward with item number one. President Green, you're recognized on board bill 22. Just for a little housekeeping public that wants to speak today, thank you for being here. We're looking forward to hearing from you all. We want to make sure that everything is done decent and in order today, so make sure that you have signed in on the sign-in sheet over there. President Green, as the sponsor of this bill, will lead her speakers. She has some lined up, and then there's some directly after her, and then we will go into public comment.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the HUD's committee. Also, I'm not sure if Madam Mayor is here yet, but I know that she is going to be here momentarily. Today I am presenting on Board Bill 22, which responds to critical citywide needs of allocating 230 million from the RAM settlement funds. Before I get into the funding priorities outlined in this bill, I want to acknowledge that this is an important decision for our city and it deserves adequate time for public discussion. For that reason, two additional hearings will be scheduled and an online survey is still open for resident input until midnight tomorrow. Residents can find that survey at stlouis.govocal.com. We've had over a thousand participants so far put in their comments on this version of the RAM settlement funding priorities. So I would encourage members of the public to take advantage of that. I want to make sure that the public has every opportunity to weigh in on this proposal before sending it to the full board. So I want to make it clear that we will not be asking the committee to vote on this today. I also want to note that city departments are here today to answer operational and questions that the committee may have. So thank you all for joining us this morning. The funding priorities in this bill reflect what we've heard from residents through a dedicated public engagement process and ongoing conversations with the mayor's office, members of the Board of Aldermen and other community stakeholders. We could switch to the next slide. Just to recap, the initial online engagement strategy that we started in January of 2024 demonstrated that the majority of residents viewed this fund as a transformational opportunity for the city and identified key themes for investment. Those included infrastructure, which was both water infrastructure and... streets infrastructure, raising wages for city workers, subsidized childcare, a revolving loan fund for redevelopment, and the need for both downtown and development. And what you see on the slide here is the top 12 ideas in the order that they were presented in the RAMS engagement portal. everything that is highlighted on that so the replacement of water mains traffic calming improvement for downtown street and sidewalks rehabilitation for water treatment plans protected bike lanes improving existing new use centers and real estate development for downtown and north st louis all of those priorities are in this current iteration of the bill And so while those priorities remain, even the ones that are not in this bill, three events have reshaped the proposal we are discussing today. If we can go to the next slide. First and foremost, last year's tornado and the subsequent response by local, state, and federal officials have made it clear that we must do a significant long-term commitment to rebuilding in North St. Louis and the areas that were impacted by the tornado. Second, in consultation with residents and neighborhood groups, the Planning and Urban Design Agency completed four neighborhood plans, which cover nine north side neighborhoods. Plans for the remaining North St. Louis neighborhoods will be completed by the end of the year. And why this is important is it gives us a blueprint for rebuilding in these neighborhoods in ways that align with the specific needs and vision of residents who live in those neighborhoods. It's important to me that if we are rightfully dedicating funds to rebuilding in areas that were ravaged by the tornado, in areas of North City that have long been disinvested in, that we do so with plans that actually reflect the needs, wants, and desires of residents who live there. And that is what those neighborhood plans do. And third, House Bills 199 and 3231 recently established entertainment and innovation districts for downtown, which unlocks state funding for redevelopment projects. This allows the city to build upon the momentum of those other projects currently underway, including the redevelopment of the Millennium Hotel and the Jefferson Arms Building and other vacant buildings within downtown. downtown area that have been vacant for years. For those reasons, Board Bill 22 supports three key areas stakeholders have identified as vital to the city's long-term success. Tornado recovery and rebuilding of North St. Louis, citywide infrastructure investments, and downtown revitalization. And I think it's also worth mentioning that other resident priorities that are not included in this bill but were identified through prior engagement processes still have passed to being put into place for example uh raising city worker wages the city commissioned a pay study and in the budget that we are getting ready to put into effect for fiscal year 2026 2027 it does take into account that pay study to get workers in our city within five percent of what the uh average wages are for various positions. So through other means, we have addressed that. And likewise, for subsidized childcare, there's currently a ballot initiative that is collecting with the hope to put that on the ballot directly as a different means for getting that address. So all of that is to say that those previous public engagement processes have been successful in moving elected officials and other stakeholders toward action on these issues, even if they're not reflected in this current bill. So next, okay, good slide. So the largest investment in this proposal is directed toward North St. Louis and tornado recovery. We are creating a $79 million long-term tornado recovery fund to help residents, businesses, and neighborhoods recover and rebuild. That includes funding for repairing tornado-damaged homes, supporting housing preservation and new housing construction, stabilizing neighborhoods, repairing sidewalks, removing hazardous trees, and assisting residents with temporary housing and other recovery needs. The legislation also provides dedicated funding for program delivery, oversight, and accountability for these dollars are spent effectively and transparently. In addition, the fund creates a $31 million North St. Louis neighborhood plan implementation funds. These dollars will help implement neighborhood plans already adopted by the Planning Commission and shaped by residents themselves. Funding can support housing development, small businesses, neighborhood beautification, infrastructure improvements, parks, and key community services. And importantly, projects funded through this process must demonstrate community consultation and alignment with the adopted neighborhood plan. So you will be asked to affirm specific spending strategies by voting to approve a later resolution or resolutions. This bill also proposes 65 million in major infrastructure investments citywide. It creates a $30 million water infrastructure fund to support 700 million in critical water system improvements, which water intends to use as part of a financial plan to leverage revenue bonds and a state and federal loan program. Another $30 million will go to a public infrastructure plan to support safer streets and sidewalks and traffic calming, create ADA accessibility improvements, support our recreation centers, tree removal, and neighborhood infrastructure upgrades. These investments prioritize high need areas and corridors with specific pedestrian safety concerns. We're also creating a $5 million vacancy reduction fund focused on tackling vacant and neglected properties citywide. This includes strengthening enforcement against absentee property owners, improving vacancy data systems, supporting access to legal support for neighborhood groups, and expanding pre-approved building plans to accelerate redevelopment. And finally, this proposal invests $55 million in downtown revitalization. Downtown is the economic engine of our city and region, and its success impacts every neighborhood. These funds will support major capital projects, safer and more walkable streets, riverfront improvements, retail and restaurant activation, and event attraction efforts that bring more residents and visitors to downtown. There are a few more things in this bill that I want to touch upon before we move on. As I think everybody in this room can see, these funds on their own are not enough to fully repair our water and street infrastructure, completely transform our downtown, or restore communities devastated by last year's tornado. That's why many of them will be used to leverage matching funds. The Water Division, for instance, will be seeking state and federal funds, as well as increased revenue from rate payers to reach its funding goals and major capital improvement. The funds will also be set up to accept matching donations from corporate and philanthropic partners, which in the case of North St. Louis and Tornado Recovery Fund will be absolutely necessary to meet the extraordinary almost $2 billion need for reinvestment after the May 16 tornado. I also want to note that each of the funds outlined here will be moved into their own interest-bearing accounts, meaning that the funds will continue to gain interest as they are spent down, and any interest that is generated from within those funds will be spent within that fund group. So for example, any money within the Water Infrastructure Fund, any interest that is generated will stay in the Water Fund. Any interest that's generated from the Tornado Recovery and Northside Funds will stay in those funds. So as these funds are spent down, there will be interest that accrues and so the dollar amount that we have for investment in the areas will go up. So with that, I'd like to invite leadership of city departments to come to the podium. and before we hear from the public, just to give some greater detail on implementation of many of these programs, but first, is Mayor Spencer here? Looking for you out here. Mayor Spencer wants to come up first, and then we will go through our list of speakers from city departments.

Thank you, President Green. Thank you, Madam Mayor, for being here. I just want to make sure that we put a couple more points out for clarification. So these speakers that you'll hear from next, and this is for the public and for the people watching, are part of President Green's speakers for Board Bill 22. Her is the sponsor. We will hear from Madam Mayor Spencer and her leadership that she has in line to speak. After that, we will hear from Comptroller If we can make sure that she's here and in line to speak. And I'm asking my colleagues if we can refrain from our question and out of respect for the public that's here and in the room so that we can hear from them. Because as you heard President Green say, this is not calling for a vote today. So this will be one of multiple hearings on this and I think out of respect for the people that are taking the time out side of their um day-to-day life to be here we should hear from them and then come follow back up with questions and possible amendments thank you

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the HUD's committee. I want to first thank you all, members of the Board of Aldermen, and particularly the members of the HUD's committee here for your time, attention, and your partnership in this important and critical I also want to thank President Board, President Megan Greene, as well as her staff for working tirelessly with our office through an important milestone in her own life and making sure that we carved out enough time to build consensus before bringing this board bill to the HUD's committee here. Their extensive work and collaboration over many, many months with our team to engage and receive important and incorporate important feedback into this legislation really has improved it and I believe is in a position to really for your full consideration here. and investing the RAM settlement dollars. I also want to acknowledge and thank members of my team, including Caitlin Smith, and of course, Casey Milberg and Dan Gunther, who have also put in countless hours, along with all of the Board of Aldermen, who have met with us dozens of times, and of course, your legislative staff, who have worked with our legislative staff to get us to where we are today. we know that this board bill board bill 22 doesn't do all things for everyone it can't but as president green outlined it does do a lot of things for a lot of projects here we were able to really hone in on some very important critical investments that we believe are common sense visible and city changing investments this bill is not just an appropriation It is a fundamental commitment to improve the trajectory of the entire city of St. Louis. It reflects months of diligent conversation, feedback from and collaboration from elected officials, community stakeholders, regional partners, all of whom firmly believe in the worth of our city and our people. Through the legislative process, those conversations will continue over the coming weeks. Starting with this hearing today, I want to commend you, Chairwoman, as well as the members of the committee for being present here, for prioritizing this and for making space within your busy calendars to hear this immediately so we can move this process forward, not only swiftly, but with community, as much community feedback as possible. Decades of disinvestment and the need for long-term recovery from the May 16 tornado have, of course, left North St. Louis requiring major resources, including home repair, housing production, and the capitalization of community-driven neighborhood plans. Our city's water infrastructure is in widespread city-wide crisis. We have need for critical repairs and need for more funding for projects like street paving and sidewalk repair, which makes our investment in infrastructure critical. And of course, the economic engine of downtown suffers from diminished vitality and reputation due to long-term vacant buildings and storefronts and underdeveloped riverfront and degraded infrastructure. With this bill, we reinforce commitment to the hardest hit areas and addressing decades of disinvestment in North St. Louis with $110 million focused on long-term recovery, succeeding the initial tornado recovery fund that this board of aldermen approved in board bill 31. i also want to mention the 65 million dollar citywide infrastructure and thank the president for really going through the details of the board bill i won't reiterate all of those things but i just want to say that this board bill is a shared vision for a more stable equitable and economically vibrant st louis and as a critical intervention at a critical time in our city President Green, again, thank you for your leadership, your team, for stepping up to the plate, and everybody who's played a major role here. Thank you again.

Thank you. Is the comptroller...

I thought we were I thought you wanted to go through her speakers first, but if we can.

Okay.

So yes.

All right. Next, I would like to ask Julian next to come up on the recovery.

Thank you, President Green. I will speak a little bit to the North St. Louis rebuilding bucket, specifically aspects tied to both tornado recovery as well as broader . I know we can advance to the next slide here. Go back one. Looks like it's skipping.

OK, yeah, that one's.

So the North St. Louis Rebuilding has been broken down into kind of four overall buckets. So we talked before, and President Green hit on it, there's about 79 million... Tornado Recovery Fund, which is made up of three buckets. One of them is tornado housing and neighborhood stabilization, which will support over 1,000 to 1,200 additional home repairs, affordable housing preservation, as well as additional infrastructure for things like demolition, sidewalk repairs, hazardous trees and stumps that are not covered directly by FEMA as we look at helping neighborhoods restore. We have about $5 million allocated toward tornado resident support and housing for about $5 million. That's to be in addition to a lot of the dollars that were already given through Board Bill 3193, 94, and 95 to help support rental assistant, nonprofit case management supports, as well as direct goods to aid in resident recovery. We also have, as you all know, my office and the broader staff was funded for last year for bill 31. So as we look to expand programs, especially the amount of administrative requirements to expand home repair, we're looking at about 4 million for program delivery and administrative oversight. for these broader sets of funds for this work, as well as the North St. Louis neighborhood plan implementation for about $31 million, as many of the neighborhoods across North St. Louis have undergone neighborhood plans, all of which the tornado neighborhoods will have all of their neighborhood plans finalized and adopted through December, putting in place a neighborhood plan implementation infrastructure to actually support delivery of the hard work residents have put in this initial $31 million that's been put there, that'll be distributed in collaboration with St. Louis Development Corporation, the Planning Department, CDA, and of course, the Affordable Housing Commission. As we go to the next page here, I want to talk a little bit about some of the implementation behind each of these dollars, and we can advance the slides. So as we look at each one of them, I want to kind of break down what people can expect to see if these dollars are rolled out from a work perspective across each of these respective categories. So as we look at tornado housing, neighborhood, and stabilization, there's really three core focus areas or initiatives or buckets. One of them is the rapid repair program, which we have been standing up, and this will fund about 1,000 to 1,200 additional home repairs to be added to the queue through our existing infrastructure, the construction management contractors, and growing rapid repair contractor pool. We will have to grow massively the contractor pool to support this work, but the timeline for implementation is that work will be taking place between when these dollars are passed, hopefully starting to be deployed in July through a December overall timeline. As we look at infrastructure, we have many hazardous trees, limbs, stumps, and emergency demolitions that still are taking place in their tornado zone, as well as sidewalk repairs. Those contracts have already been put in place, and so this would be a deployment of additional dollars into what we need. are FEMA ineligible specifically, areas to support that work so that work would start to deploy as soon as those funds are available. And my team is already right now building out the plans to deliver that operations within our existing sector pool once that funding is approved. The third category here is affordable housing preservation. This is to repair and bring affordable housing units back online. We have many properties, whether it be CDC-owned properties or other properties with land use restriction agreements that are affordable housing. that were damaged by the May 16th tornado or other ones that just aren't online. As we look at the continued housing shortage for tornado respective victims, bringing some of those additional housing stock online is critical toward our long-term recovery efforts. And so the plan would be to launch an application in Q3 to deploy through June, 2027. We're still currently working through what exactly that may look like through different partners like the Affordable Housing Commission St. Louis Development Corporation, as well as external partners with a goal of deploying that by June of this, by deploying that through June of 2027 of next year. The next bucket is tornado resident support for $5 million. That is, again, the next phase of resident support for rental assistance, case management, nonprofit supports, and direct goods. Most of that work was funded through December of this year from the past allocations that you all have already approved as a board of chairman. So this would be us to start to fund the next phase of that work. A lot of that finalized planning would be happening THROUGHOUT Q3 OF 2026 WITH THE GOAL OF CONTRACTING BY Q4 SO THOSE SERVICES ARE AVAILABLE BY THE TIME WE MOVE INTO JANUARY OF NEXT YEAR. SOME OF THOSE FUNDS WOULD MOVE INTO IMMEDIATE DEPLOYMENT WHERE THERE ARE GAPS BUT THE LION SHARE WOULD BE EXPECTED TO MOBILIZE IN 2027. The program delivery and administrative costs are an estimate for about two years of staffing related costs, other contracts and support services to deliver the funded programs. So those would be over the fiscal year 27, fiscal year 28, that that would be spent down and fund the full team. And then we have neighborhood plan implementation. That one was specifically we recognized that while we had neighborhood plans in development, we have not laid out the infrastructure for that work long term and how those work will be deployed. And so what's in front of the board bill is a resolution to determine what the infrastructure and priorities are that will come back to the Board of Aldermen with a broader deployment plan. with the goal of that being passed by Q4 of 2026 and then rolling out implementation next year. That gives enough time for most of the neighborhood plans in North St. Louis that are under development to have a good sense of what the core priorities are and then building that plan out for implementation alongside St. Louis Development Corporation. Thank you all.

Next, I would like to invite up Director Patel on behalf of the Water Department.

All right. Good morning. I'm Neeraj Patel, Director of Public Utilities. I'm here to talk about the water portion of the board bill here. So, Madam Chair, rest of the members of the committee, this money would immediately be available, accessible to leverage into debt service payment. We know that we have water mains that are aging. We plan to address a significant number of projects that we've identified, over 30 projects with this funding specifically targeting state revolving fund dollars and loans. We also know that the treatment plants are struggling with issues with the pumping units that we rely on. other infrastructure at the treatment facilities that is causing us to be inefficient with the use of some of our more expensive chemicals that we use to treat the water. And so immediately we plan to address source water issues with an intake rehabilitation project. issues with the lime facility upgrade, and also those pumping units. So again, these dollars will go back to the infrastructure that serves the entire city to supply drinking water every day, and it is quite important that we get a jumpstart on those projects. This funding will allow us to immediately start to address them. Thank you.

Thank you, Director Patel. Next, I would like to invite up Director Jackson to talk about streets and sidewalks.

Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is James Jackson. I'm the Director of Streets for the City of St. Louis. And we'd like to share just a few of those concerns that we currently have here in the department. Right now, it shares here on the slides that our 50-50 program is one of our big issues that we're dealing with. We currently have about 4,000 properties that are in backlog that we're working to bring up to speed. Part of our strategy includes actually converting that system from a 50-50 program to a block-by-block program that will actually assist the residents in actually getting their sidewalks taken care of in a more expedient manner In addition to that, we have a pilot program that we're getting ready to launch that will help us work with you to identify the deficiencies in your streets and your sidewalks and to give you an assessment. The last time we did an assessment here in the city was in 2012. So we really don't know what the condition of the city streets are, but we're working through that pilot to actually begin to provide that information for you. And we've got two of your colleagues that have already signed up for the pilot program, and we've already identified the vendor, and we'll be making plans to go ahead and get that underway here in the very near future. In addition to that, we've got about 30 streets on our internal street paving program. We inherited, I think it was 12 from last year. We have an additional 18 that we currently have in queue. So there's gonna be a total of 30 streets that we're gonna be working to resurface just internally here within the department. When you consider those projects as well as the asset management project that we're looking at, which we feel is going to really streamline our ability to communicate with you as well as the residents, and that has a price tag that has yet to be determined. I can share with you that whatever it is, it's going to be shared across departments, but the ideal or the strategy behind the asset management system is to make our delivery of services much more direct, much more convenient, much more transparent, give you ready information when you call on that information, and also keep you up to speed with what's going on, as well as to populate the Mayor's CityStat program, which we've already launched, so that you have an idea of how well we're performing. Madam President.

Thank you. Next, I would like to invite up Casey from the mayor's office or Alan. Okay. Alan Jankowski, would you like to come up next? Did not see you come in. That's fine.

Good morning, everyone. Allen Jemkowski, Commissioner of Forestry Division. This funding here for the Forestry Division would be to clear the backlog of 2,700 hazardous trees, so warranted tree removals. It would also take care of 6,500 stumps that we have throughout the city. It would not fund any new tree planting, but it would kind of clear the way for new tree planting coming in, especially those stumps when you get those out of the way. And roughly it's about $3 million. So thank you so much.

Thank you. I'll just check in with the mayor's office. Do we have anyone speaking on rec centers? Okay, I will speak on that real quickly, just to reiterate that in this section of the bill, the only infrastructure piece that is, you know, disseminated based upon the EJI framework is the recreation center. So the recreation center funding would be prioritized to basically north St. Louis and east St. Louis, the eastern part of the city, to help with making very critical repairs that are needed to many of our recreation centers so that they become more welcoming places that our uh children throughout the city can use and with that i will now ask for casey to come up it's casey skip over her okay then i will ask for stephen west brooks to now come up representing sld There you are.

Good morning. So for the downtown piece of the bill, the bill focuses on several areas. I think we can advance to the downtown. Areas that are intended to strengthen the city's economic core and improve the overall experience downtown for residents, workers, and visitors. First, there is $15 million of funding for catalytic redevelopment projects, including stabilization and site control efforts around major vacant assets like the railway exchange building. The idea there is to address some of the most visible barriers to investment downtown and help position these properties for future redevelopment and follow-on investment. Second, there is $15 million of investment contemplated for the riverfront. That includes improving pedestrian access, public infrastructure, and connections between downtown and the riverfront so that it functions as a stronger public asset for the city. The proposal also includes $15 million of practical public infrastructure improvements throughout downtown, things like sidewalks, lighting, crossings, traffic calming, ADA improvements, and other street-level investments that improve safety, walkability, and accessibility. And finally, there's $10 million of support for retail, restaurants, storefront activation, and events that help increase activity and foot traffic downtown. The overall goal is to create a downtown environment where people want to spend time, where people can support local businesses, and where we can have continued investment in our city's core. At a high level, these investments are intended to help strengthen downtown's long-term competitiveness, improve the quality of life, and create conditions that encourage additional private investment and economic activity. Thanks.

And now I would like to invite up Casey, talk about the vacancy portion. So we might need to go back in the slides.

Good afternoon. Well, I guess it's still morning. Good morning, rather. So this bill also proposes currently $5 million for vacancy reduction initiatives. Vacant, abandoned, blighted properties have been a serious challenge for the city of St. Louis going back decades. The city has suffered sea population decline, leaving vast stretches of vacant buildings and lots where homes and businesses once thrived. We know that vacant properties have caused an annual loss of about $25 million in real estate tax revenue. In 2024 alone, the city devoted about $20 million in direct services to maintain vacant property. We know there's also about $16.3 million in outstanding fees and fines owed to the building division and about $11.9 million in outstanding fees and fines owed to the forestry division. What this bill proposes with the currently proposed allocation amount is to fund city staff focused on vacancy blight reduction and recovering with the city's vacancy related expenses. It also would go to support established nonprofit legal organizations to support private enforcement of vacancy and nuisance laws. against absentee property owners. It would also propose supporting city vacancy data infrastructure and analysis, some of which we've got some groundwork that has been laid, but there's a significant amount of work integration streamlining and frankly automating for accuracy and sufficiency across the different city departmental silos that still needs to be done. And then finally, it would support the expansion of a pre-approved plants library, which is something a number of other cities across the United States have done as a way to streamline development of vacant properties, make it more affordable to do so, cut through red tape. So blight and vacancy have held their neighborhoods back for too long, and so the hope is that this allocation will help address a large problem with a massive return on investment for the city and its residents. And up on the screen in front of you, you can see some initial thoughts on what a vacancy reduction implementation timeline for these different provisions could look like. For city staff portion, the city staff enforcement portion, current fiscal year 27 is passing a board bill to push at least a portion of property tax revenue and excess revenue back into this fund. Fiscal years 28 would be pilot program for staffing costs, and then fiscal year 29 onward would be revolving fund based on collections using the enforcement actions of our city team. On the enforcement of absentee property owners, fiscal year 27 would focus on supporting established nonprofit legal organizations to the tune of approximately $250,000, and that would continue for the life cycle of the funds through the subsequent fiscal years. On the vacancy data infrastructure portion, fiscal year 27 would focus on assessing city databases for their capabilities and their limitations, organizing and streamlining integrated and automated data infrastructure systems and processes across the relevant departments at an estimated cost of about $240,000. Then in fiscal year 28, implementing, maintaining, and continuously assessing vacancy data infrastructure systems for accuracy and sufficiency, and that's estimated to be $140,000, and the subsequent fiscal years that would continue through the life cycle of funds. The final piece, the pre-approved plans library, which is something the city's actually begun a bit of work on. There's a meeting this Thursday to do the next touch point on that, so it is underway. Fiscal year 27's focus would be on assessing codes, launching the request for proposals, selecting the plan catalog, publishing the plan catalog, launching the library, and connecting community outreach. in fiscal year 28 onward the focus would shift to implementing plan processes assessing program performance and updating plan designs every one and a half to two years to keep pace with changing codes whether those are city codes or changes that are being made with increasing frequency in jefferson city and that would continue for the life cycle of those funds so that was the current proposal for the vacancy portion and happy to kick it over to the next presenter

Thank you, Casey. And now I would like to invite up Comptroller Beringer.

Thank you everyone, I appreciate you giving me the time to speak today. Thank you to the whole committee and to everyone who's here. I just wanna let you know that I'm here today because we're discussing one of the most significant financial decisions the city will make in decades, and that is how to spend the RAMS settlement funds. As comptroller, my responsibility is not to tell you what priorities to fund, My responsibility is to identify financial risks, protect the city's long-term fiscal health, and ensure we avoid decisions that could negatively impact our creditworthiness or expose taxpayers to unnecessary costs. When discussion began regarding the Water Division financial challenges, I met with the Water Commissioner Patel, and I requested detailed assessment of the system's infrastructure needs. The results were staggering. $700 million in capital improvements are needed over the coming years. Following that meeting, I met with some members of the Board of Aldermen to discuss potential solutions because it was clear that these costs should not fall entirely on the backs of the water rate payers. The Water Division subsequently engaged Black & Veatch to conduct a rate study tied to its approximately $720 million 10-year capital improvement plan. The reality is that the Water Division's current financial condition is unstable. Revenues are barely covering operating expenses. There are no meaningful operating services, no rate stabilization reserves, and no debt service reserves. As things stand today, the Water Division is not in a strong position to access the bond market. A poor credit profile would result in higher interest rates, reducing the value of any borrowing and ultimately cost to the residents. Before we can successfully finance major infrastructure improvements, we must first make the Water Division financially solvent. For that reason, my office engaged our financial advisor, PFM, to review the Water Division's financial situation and evaluate how RAMS settlement funds could be used to strengthen its position. PFN's draft analysis recommended a direct cash infusion of $40 million into the water division. Importantly, this was not to be alone. That investment would allow the city to reduce projected water rate increases, build operating reserves to more than 23 million within two years, and establish approximately 90 days of operating cash on hand. While not ideal, it would significantly improve the Water Division's financial standing and strengthen its ability to secure affordable financing for future infrastructure projects. This approach would help stabilize the system, reduce the burden on residents, and improve the city's position with investors and the rating agencies. You can imagine my concern when the proposal that was brought before me showed it was a $30 million loan to the Water Division. that will not give us cash infusion so we could go out to bond. A loan does not solve the problem identified by our financial advisors, does not create reserves necessary to improve our credit quality, it does not provide the financial stabilization needed to support future bonding. In short, it does not accomplish the objective the Water Division urgently needs. To date, I have not been informed whether the recommendations provided by my office and our financial advisors were fully considered during the development of this legislation. There is another recommendation that deserves serious consideration. PFM, our financial advisors, said the city should establish a protected reserve fund using a portion of the RAMS settlement proceeds. My office recommended setting aside $10 million as a restrictive reserve that could only be accessed for extraordinary emergencies and that would probably be the tornado-related expenses. Such a reserve would provide confidence to our bondholders, rating agencies, and taxpayers that the city has the financial capacity to meet its obligations during times of crisis. The decisions made regarding these funds will have consequences far beyond the next budget cycle. They will directly impact the city's bond ratings borrowing costs, and financial flexibility for years to come. A lower bond rating means higher interest rates. Higher interest rates mean less money available for services and infrastructure and greater costs for taxpayers. I am not here today to tell you how to spend the RAMS settlement funds. I am here today to urge you to spend them in a way that protects the city's financial future, strengthens critical infrastructure, and preserves our ability to invest in the needs of our future generations. Thank you for giving me this time.

Thank you, Madam Comptroller. That concludes the speakers that I have lined up on the bill today. If you would like to go to public comment.

Thank you, President Green. Just making sure everyone that's in the room that wants to speak on Board Bill 22 today has signed up on this public speaker list over here. If you are online and you wanted to speak, you can raise your hand so that our clerk will be aware that you want to be in line to speak. Everyone in the room that wants to speak, if you can raise your right hand, I'm going to square you all in at the same time to save on that time. as they call you up and if you can turn on your cameras if you're online and want to speak I'm going to do that at the same time as well. Or Madam Clerk, if that's not an option for them online, I can do that separately. Do they need to be moved over or anything?

I'm moving them over now.

OK, so I'll do online, if we can just track that. And you just raise your right hand and swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth in the room and online. Just say yes. Thank you all. Looking forward to hearing from you. You'll be called up by our clerk. She will call you up and keep the time for three minutes per speaker. And just feel free to state your name, any affiliation that you would like to, and then we're going to be heard. Thank you.

Our first speaker in the room is Sarah Ornetsky.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am Sarah Arnosky Coe on behalf of Greater St. Louis Inc. Greater St. Louis Inc. supports the direction of this legislation and we want to say clearly from the outset we agree with the significant investment in North St. Louis and the citywide infrastructure. It is right and necessary. Those are real needs and this bill invests in them. I'm here today specifically because we also believe downtown is essential to that same vision for a thriving city. Here's the fiscal reality. Downtown St. Louis makes up just 4% of the city's land, but it generates roughly 20% of the city's total tax revenue. That revenue does not stay in downtown. It funds schools, police, fire, and basic services in every neighborhood across this city. When downtown struggles, every St. Louisan feels it, not just the people that work and live there. The RAM settlement isn't money that came out of taxpayers' dollars. It's money St. Louis won from Stan Cronkery and the NFL for breaking their commitment to this community. The question before us is how do we put that to work in a way that generates returns for decades? We believe the downtown investments in this bill do exactly that. And those downtown needs aren't speculative. St. Louis has already done the hard planning work. The design downtown STL plan was a community developed and formally adopted by the city's planning commission in 2020. The problem has never been the vision. It's been the funding to fully execute it. The RAMS funds change that. The bill targets investments, as you saw, that really help to activate downtown. All of those pieces outlined are from the Design Downtown Plan. This is not a blank check. They are actionable projects designed to make downtown a more economically vibrant neighborhood. The public dollars here are structured to attract private dollars as well. Greater St. Louis Inc. is ready to facilitate a dollar-for-dollar match of the city's $55 million downtown investment. A more active downtown means more residents, more visitors, more sales tax, property tax, and earnings tax that flow back into the city's coffers. That money comes back to every neighborhood. The whole city needs downtown to work. We urge the committee to advance a bill that includes no less than 55 million recommended for downtown revitalization, thank you.

Online, we have Andy. Andy, could you give us your last name, please? Okay, I'll go online with Kami Thomas. Could you unmute and turn your camera on?

Hello.

You have three minutes.

All right, great. Hey, I'm Kami Thomas. I run an art house and a production company here in St. Louis called My Friends and I. And while we primarily create commercial work, doc work, after the tornado hit last May, we had to completely shift focus to provide the direct aid that the city needed and still hasn't received to the extent that a natural disaster of this magnitude requires.

Yeah.

um the presentation on this data has been great just to kind of see where everyone's head is at and uh while i'm no expert on exactly how funding should go in the last year the meetings that we've been on and the recurring figure that has come up which is 150 million dollars for basic level recovery uh basic demolition and even to set the stage for rebuilding North St. Louis, North City St. Louis, including the West side and areas that were impacted, knowing that that is the number, the minimum that we need to see any type of recovery in our city. I have to take this opportunity to say that 150 number versus the 110 that is currently in this bill is something that I'm requesting, something that I know a lot of community members are requesting. My team has spent the last six months or so speaking with experts all around the country about how disaster recovery typically goes exploring different funding and really getting to the bottom of you know if we're going to recover as a full city um the north side cannot remain in the state that it's in we've got a when it comes to the population of st louis we've got a tornado size hole at the bottom of that bucket and when it comes to people who are going to live and work downtown or wherever in the city we're losing people every single day and we are very much right now in a position where North City will not recover if we don't have the funding. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. It might not recover. And whether we're bringing people in for different events or whatever, if you go through and the way that it looks looks like a bomb hit it, that's not good for this city. It's not good for the people who live here, for the people who would want to visit here. And it's disappointing to see I have a lot of things to say, obviously, as it pertains to the recovery process and how it's looked. But I do think at this point, going into the second year, there's nothing we can do about this past year, you know, aside from accountability and things of that nature. But we can't turn back the clock and make it different. But as we go into this second year. we have the opportunity as a city to unify and really demystify North City for the rest of the city and make it known and make it a priority that North City flourishing impacts the entire city in a positive way and has always been worthy of that type of intention and funding and imagination and intention. THAT'S ALL I GOT FOR TODAY. I WILL YIELD THE REST OF MY TIME FOR WHOEVER ELSE HAS TO SAY ANYTHING. BUT $150 MILLION MINIMUM FROM THAT AMOUNT IS SOMETHING THAT I'M REQUESTING. AND ON BEHALF OF MY TEAM AND MY COMMUNITY MEMBERS THAT I REPRESENT, THAT'S THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE REQUESTING. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. WE HAVE JUSTIN EIDELBERG IN OPPOSITION.

Thank you all, appreciate you all. I'm not in full opposition. I have more social, I had to say my bad. My name's Justin Eidelberg. I live in the West End neighborhood.

You're a little talk. Mic up for you.

I'm sorry. My name's Justin Eidelberg. I live in the West End. I'm slightly in opposition. It's more from a technical and language aspect. and some suggestions. First and foremost, underneath the neighborhood implementation monies, I live in the West End, and since 1965, we've received over $160 million specifically for low income. Not mixed rate, not mixed income, not student housing, and I ask you all, put LIHTC housing where it needs, and please respect the approved neighborhood community plans. Secondly, I asked for the tornado resources fund is very broad and vague. Can you all put monies in there for respiratory protective like mask? And the reason why I asked that is because the 1600 buildings that you all would be tearing down will put in the atmosphere seven to 10 million pounds of hazardous building materials. lead, arsenic, and asbestos. And why am I so strong for this? Because I witnessed Centennial Church get torn down some weeks ago. And then half a block over, I had children at Euclid Montessori play. And thinking about the microfibers from these hazardous building materials are now in these children's lungs, right? The school's about to be out. Camps are going to be in these communities. And I ask you all to put some of those tornado resources for respiratory issues, very much like you all did with COVID, because you can't see this stuff. It's microfibers, and we don't want our mothers, children, and elders to be impacted by this. Last but not least, you all call this rebuilding, and I'm gonna suggest something that probably nobody thought about. Can we receive some funding for a pre-development and a feasibility study of the old USDA rule site on the 4300 block of Goodfellow. We talk about redevelopment, we talk about economics, but once you go past page, there are none, right? How do we use this money for it to be leveraged, whether it's this big pot or the $25 million that will be left over from this? And from doing the numbers, we would generate for the city today to tax $170 million in taxable income, one. Each half of the proposed innovation slash energy park would bring over 5,000 jobs, right? And the innovation aspect would be advanced manufacturing, right? The other side would be advanced energy, and I guess that's my time. Is that, am I hearing that correctly? Thank y'all, appreciate y'all. I'm gonna sit back there. Say again, all the one. Oh, okay, so I'm looking at that, right? We're talking about rebuilding. People have nowhere to work. So I ask you to give this a different lens and think about, like you're all talking about with downtown revitalization and innovation, let's repurpose the former USDA rural site at Goodfellow that everybody run the light at. Thank you all and have a great day.

We have David Jackson Jr. online.

Am I unmuted?

Yes, we can hear you.

Yes, thank you, committee, for holding this very important committee meeting. I believe, you know, I'm not in objection of the overall thought process of putting this together, this board bill together. But, you know, there's some things that we have to include and look at, such as the water department. And the comptroller kind of hinted to it because my whole life, I'm 69 years old, lived in St. Louis all my life, has a small business. My home was hit by the tornado. I was right in the eye of the tornado. And so, you know, I can speak the truth. And all the years that I've been in this city, when... They had a problem with the infrastructure. They did bond issues. They even did bond issues on public safety. That's why I don't understand why we're missing something here. Because if the water department is in trouble, why haven't we created a bond issue to help with that issue? They did it for the police department. When the first responders, there was a bond issue. There was a bond issue for the school district. So why are we spending that much money on the water department when we should be creating a bond issue to address that? It's the same thing with downtown. I think Mr. Westbrook spoke about the investment in downtown right around $55 million. But what I don't understand, and a young lady just got up with Greater St. Louis, they're going to match whatever the city spends in downtown. Well, if that's the case, we don't have to spend the Rams money to do that. The state has just stood up and said that we want to be a partner with St. Louis on revitalizing your downtown. Now, to me, that's telling me that they're ready to give incentives. They're ready to give funding. You know, the city, as little money as we have, we have to do the best for the buck. And why spend that money when we don't have to, when the state is saying, St. Louis, we want to participate with you. And they're talking about the vacancy issue downtown. They're talking about the businesses leaving from downtown. So I think we ought to look at that and do a little bit better with trying to decide how much money to allocate for downtown. You know, I don't know. Sometimes, you know, when you have problems, you try to fix them so fast you make mistakes. You know, we may need to slow down a little bit because even with the neighborhoods on the north side, we already knew there was ARPA money. Mr. Jackson, you can complete your thought, but your time has lapsed, but you can complete your thought. Yes, that's it. I'm in support of the board bill. I'm not in opposition, but I truly believe that we need to look at it and look closer and fine tune it. Thank you.

We have Lakeisha Mathis.

Good afternoon, chair and committee. My name is Lakeisha Mathis, and I am here with Greater St. Louis Inc. But at Greater St. Louis Inc., I get to lead our small business support work. So I'm here to speak specifically to the $7 million, $7.5 million in retail incentive program included in the downtown, included for downtown. Downtown St. Louis is not just a neighborhood, it's the city's fiscal engine. The taxes generated by downtown activity fund police, fire, parks, and social services in every ward and neighborhood across St. Louis. When downtown is healthy, the whole city has more to work with. When it's struggling, the ripple effects are felt far beyond its borders. Investments in downtown retail, isn't charity. It isn't charity for just one zip code. It's a revenue policy for the entire city. So what exactly do retail incentive programs do? Retail incentive programs do two things simultaneously. They fill the storefronts and generate revenue for the city, and they create pathways for local entrepreneurs to become business owners, especially those that might not have access to capital. So if we want a more vibrant downtown and more people to have an ownership stake in the success, programs like this work. To exhibit exactly what we're talking about and how it actually works, I want to give you a concrete example of what this kind of investment looks like in practice. Corey James, a local small business owner, participated in the Retail Incentive Program previously administered by SLDC and Greater St. Louis, Inc. The program enabled him to launch a new restaurant concept and strengthen Washington Avenue as a key commercial corridor in downtown St. Louis. Today, Corey owns multiple businesses in the neighborhood, including Buddy's Wine Bar and Bistro and Bella's Coffee Cafe. He is a taxpayer, he's an employer, and his businesses have become neighborhood anchors. And this is the exact outcome that we are trying to replicate. The downtown fund in this bill gives us the resources to support the next small businesses with big dreams. The downtown fund also ensures that businesses will operate in a neighborhood that has the public infrastructure and attractive assets that are needed to thrive. So my ask is that as someone who works every day to grow small businesses for this city and for the region, I urge the committee to support the downtown portion of this bill. This is vital, not just for downtown, but for the stronger St. Louis that downtown helps to fund. Thank you.

We have Andy online. And Andy, could you please give your last name?

Yeah, it's Andy Pawlicek. Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Awesome. Thank you. My name is Andy Palachuk. I live in South City on Cherokee Street. I'm a fourth generation St. Louisan. I will admit I grew up in the county. Don't hold that against me. I own a business, a small business, a property restoration business. And before I get to my main point, the gentleman that talked about the mask is 100% correct. We do disaster work. Not only what he's talking about, those contaminants in the building, but also mold. That stuff should not be released on these people without some protection. It's a big deal. This whole city has issues with mold. what i'm speaking about today is not necessarily in opposition to this bill but i will say that and i know people are not going to like that i say this but i'm telling you the truth because i know people in the county i know people in the county with money until you fix the perception that there's danger downtown and in the city in general and sorry but when i call the cops they do not come okay um you're they're not coming down they're not gonna spend money people don't want to hear that but that's the truth and that's the belief of people in the general area some people won't even go downtown i think that's a little crazy personally but Okay, back, my main point that I'm on here today is I was involved in the audit, the petition to audit the city. Mrs. Tamika Stigers has presented a resolution that we're asking all of the Board of Aldermen, the President of the Board of Aldermen, the Mayor, some of those folks actually signed the petition to support to push so the audit goes forward. I was with these folks when we collected signatures. Every person of every walk of life, every political point of view, every sexual orientation, I can go on and on, all the list of the diversity supported this audit to know where our money's going. This is a working poor city. I'm luckily a little blessed to be in better shape than some people in the city, but I see my neighbors suffering. We want to know that our money's going in the right place. You know, it's currently in litigation because, in my view, the Board of Elections threw out signatures a little bit aggressively. I could use more terms, but I'll use my words carefully here. You know, look... I think it's great that we're going to spend money in the city. I think our city should return to its glory days of the 50s. You know, it's lived in a lot of major cities. We're not doing the right thing. And some of this stuff, I think, is a good idea. It's always the devils and the details. And that gets back to the need for the performance audit. We have an audit every year. This is a performance audit. It's a different audit. It says where the money's going. We're going to spend this kind of money. We should know where that money that's already been spent is gone. And I'd love transparency on this as well. So I ask that everybody there who's in governance, who represents the people, Please strongly consider supporting Ms. Tamika Stiger's resolution, who I believe she's going to be speaking on here soon. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Ryan McClure.

Great, thank you for the time, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. My name is Ryan McClure. I serve as the Executive Director of Gateway Arch Park Foundation and I am a resident of the Sixth Ward. I'm here today in support of Board Bill 22 and the compromise approach in which it was created, what it provides for North City and citywide infrastructure and for downtown. A little history of our organization. We are the conservancy for Gateway Arch National Park and its surroundings in downtown. Over our existence, being formed in 2009, we have raised over $310 million for Gateway Arch and its surroundings in downtown. Most recently, we purchased the Millennium Hotel site to create that as an economic engine for downtown and for the region and for the city again. Downtown drives the economy of not just the city, but our region and our state. Investment in downtown supports growth, activity, and long-term revenue. Downtown has major assets that require stewardship and continued investment. The riverfront remains one of St. Louis' most important public assets. The Gateway Arch Grounds and Riverfront are central to the visitor and local experience in the city. Continuing to build toward a stronger, more active and connected Riverfront is important. Many of us remember when there were at least eight attractions on the Riverfront in the 70s through the 90s between Eads and Poplar alone, including the famed McDonald's Riverboat. We now have only two attractions in that space. It is time for that to change and it can change. Visiting work is underway. Stakeholder alignment along this stretch is more strong than it has ever been from Laclede's Landing through the Central Riverfront to Choteau's Landing. Public engagement has already started on a riverfront revitalization. It started this weekend at Rolling on the River, an event that Gateway Arch Park Foundation sponsored with a pop-up roller rink on Lenore K. Sullivan Boulevard. Design, coordination, and phased implementation remain key next steps. Infrastructure improvements have been made on the riverfront, but deferred maintenance and visitor amenities and activity remain in need. Safety, vibrancy, access, and experience all matter in long-term planning. Stewardship includes taking care of what already exists while planning ahead. Downtown has serious needs that cannot be ignored. The riverfront is a major underutilized asset. Projects like City Arch River have shown that strategic investment in these spaces can generate economic impact for region jobs and tax revenue. This is important and it's an economic driver for the region. 15 million alone will not complete the broader vision. This initial investment will help unlock additional public and private philanthropic support that we are committed to seeing through at our organization. The riverfront continues to be as important today as it was when our city was founded in 1764. While the city around it has changed in many ways, the riverfront The river is still there. We need to stop turning our backs to it, and this is an important step in turning to face it. Thank you for your time today.

We have Elise Forgelman online.

Yeah, hi. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak. I hope you can hear me. I'm a South City resident, St. Louis transplant. I've been here for decades and decades. I care a lot about this city.

And cities in general.

I'm here today to stand with all the tornado impacted people on the north side specifically to call for the minimum of 150 million of the ranch settlements. It's not enough. We all know it. But we need to try to make the north side whole, not just for the tornado, not just from the tornado, but for decades of neglect. The tornado pushed the city into a crossroads, in my opinion, along with some other things, including the Board of Police Commissioners attempt to take over, the estate takeover of the police. Anyway, and we're in the public eye, not only locally, but nationally regarding our tornado response and how we're handling our entire city. If we don't care for the entire city, we're failing. I have really complicated feelings about money going to downtown. Some of the people who have spoken are exactly correct. We need to foster businesses. We need to connect the riverfront. There's been decades of mismanagement regarding redevelopment. That's not holistic. That's from outsiders coming in. That's about businesses. and we need to have a more holistic response that brings the people impacted in i appreciate the woman who was talking about small businesses i want to support that but i'm very suspect of the amount of money being dumped into downtown it's been a money pit in my experience um decades so and i also support the water infrastructure again water is a human right and if we want to see this city hall we have to take care of that um and that's where i stand i'm a person i work with a lot of uh A lot of different organizations. I'm an artist. I'm an activist. And I care a lot. But we have to bring the north side up. You know, again, it's not enough. But we're at a moment where we have to show goodwill. We have to show that we care. You know, the NGA took a lot of liberties on the north side. People are tired. People are cynical. And this is a good time for us to toss this windfall and really bring up the entire city. Thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. And the hard work that goes into this. I do appreciate that as well. But we need to make some changes here, folks. It's not OK. Our city is dying. Thank you.

Thank you, Miss Forgo. May you mentioned you lived on the south side. Would you mind sharing your ward?

Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you for your comments. And just moving forward for constituents, residents of the city of St. Louis, it's not to just be in your business when we ask for the ward. We really want to track that to show the support, the voices in the city of St. Louis and where they're coming from. So please don't forget to mention either your ward, the city, the neighborhood you live in, or if you live in the county. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Gretchen Mingers?

So my ex-husband and I have been developing in the city of St. Louis for 20 years. We are not fat cats. We don't have big banks investing in us. We have taken everything out and put our lives on the line in many ways. As I'm sitting here, I'm going to be real vulnerable with everybody in this room. I had a disconnect from my gas bill right now. We're not living high on the hog. I have four teenage boys that I'm trying to do the best I can to be a part of taking this business on. We've never been so close to being millionaires and bankrupt within two seconds. We don't have banks bailing us out left and right. We've been developing on Laclede's Landing for 10 years. We are the only ones who have put our money where our mouth is. We lost millions of dollars on the AT&T building, yet we still keep developing in this city because we believe in it. A year ago, there was no money put in this bill for the riverfront. To be honest, we got divorced because of the pressure that we've dealt with. There's real world stakes and there's a lot of areas in St. Louis that have been disinvested and not taking any heartache or fear away from anyone else. But I've lived in fight or flight for 10 years and been the angry one in the room because it sucks. It's hard. I'm not gonna speak for anyone else. I can only speak for myself that we want to keep developing, but we can't keep doing it alone. We are so appreciative that the riverfront is on this bill finally. We have an operator who actually wants to come in and speaking of low hanging fruit, it's not that much to get this area up and going and then actually have tax dollars coming in and we're not getting big operators downtown anymore. We have to make sure tourism can sustain our tax dollars. Having an open air market will also allow small vendors, businesses who can't afford a big brick and mortar to have an opportunity to fall in love with our city that we know how great it can be but don't have the investments to go into a big brick and mortar. I need to fill my retail in my brick and mortar or my banks are gonna take my buildings. It's a lot. Banks aren't investing in St. Louis right now. We did not get a bank out of St. Louis for our first building in 2017. We now have all local banks. We don't want it to keep going backwards because it has to sustain somewhere and the money has to become cohesive We've been doing it alone. It's exhausting. This is not what I thought I would come up and say, but I feel the room and I get it. It's hard. Everyone's trying to survive, but we're not just big fat cats downtown. And so there are little things that the city can do for us to be able to keep developing and grow and increase the tax incentive. So we appreciate you guys for having the riverfront on this bill and hope it stays there. Excuse me.

All right. We have Evan P. online.

Evan P. Can I go next? I need to get to a stopping point.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

Can I go next? I need to get to a stopping point at work.

You are next. Can you turn your camera on, please?

No, like next, after, can you skip me for right now?

Can I have Haley Black?

Yes, right here. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes, we hear you. Hi, my, right. Hi, my name is Haley Black and I'm a sixth ward resident. So in Salt City, Tower Grove, Compton Heights area. And while I appreciate everyone's input and presentations, I also am requesting no less than 150 million going to the north side for reinvestment. I hear a lot from local leaders about why St. Louis is at this place, specifically north cities of St. Louis, and a lot of it has to do with this investment. And this is our chance. to take money that is not already allocated and under absolute necessity needs in other places and really invest in North City in ways to make it whole. Right now, I think it said 75 million was there to support housing rebuilding. There's no way that is going to do anything for these neighborhoods. And we think about a lot of activists have spoken out from your city about how they grew up there for four generations. Their kids could go from house to house to house. And as this community was torn apart, the people that they would typically rely on are also dealing with their whole world torn apart. Like this is the time to invest in North City and that will provide safety and security and more jobs when people have some place to live, places to work in North City near their home, then that is going to be more investment in the city. So my request, again, as a South City resident specifically to ALERT ARE ALL THEIR PEOPLE, THE HUD'S BOARD, THE MAYOR THAT SOUTH CITY IS WITH NORTH CITY AND THERE'S A LOT OF REPRESENTATIVES OF PEOPLE THAT REALLY CARE ABOUT SEEING IT MAY FOLD THAT AREN'T JUST SITTING OR WERE RAISED IN THAT AREA. SO NO LESS THAN 150 MILLION OF THE RAM SETTLEMENT FUND GOING TO NORTH CITY SO THAT WE CAN SEE IT FOLD. THANK YOU.

WE HAVE MARK SCHREIBER.

Chairwoman Clark-Hubbard, members of the committee, my name's Mark Schreiber. I'm the president of the St. Louis Sports Commission, the privately funded nonprofit organization that works to attract and produce major sporting events for St. Louis. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address the Sports Event Attraction Fund that's included in Board Bill 22. Over the last year, we've seen the impact of events like the U.S. Figure Skating Championships, NCAA Basketball Tournament, the college hockey Frozen Four. They generate significant economic impact, tax revenue, positive media exposure, activity and vibrancy, and support jobs in our city. Just those three events alone generated $35 million in direct visitor spending and more than a million and a half dollars in sales tax revenue for the city. To keep events like those and their associated impact coming to St. Louis, we need the city's participation. In our industry, we face strong competition from other communities that devote public resources to capitalize on the value and power of sports tourism. Our efforts here in St. Louis have long been carried by the private sector. We generate more than $3 million annually from private sources to fund our efforts. But to continue to be successful, we need a public-private partnership. and that's where the event attraction fund comes in it's an innovative and thoughtful approach we will tap into the fund to help with our financial guarantees and to overcome gaps in our ability to cover event expenses that makes our bids more competitive and allows us to land events that we might otherwise forgo because we cannot take on the risk The beauty of the fund is it would be replenished with tax revenue generated from new events, making it self-sustaining, a one-time investment that pays off long into the future. We see this as an effective, impactful, and responsible way to use a very small portion of the RAMP settlement funds. I think it's also important to note that it was an investment in sports that led to the settlement windfall. That being the case, it makes sense to invest some of that windfall back where it came from, to sports attraction, which has a proven record of success for St. Louis. Looking ahead, we'll be pursuing Olympic trials, NCAA championships, conference tournaments, the Rugby World Cup, the FIFA Women's World Cup, and much more for our city. These high-profile major events can bring an infusion of dollars, prestige, pride, excitement, momentum, and opportunity to those who reside in St. Louis. There has never been a better opportunity for the city to participate in these efforts. I'll wrap up by acknowledging our success is dependent on the health of downtown and the health of the entire city. So we are supportive of dedicating NFL settlement funds to downtown revitalization, tornado recovery, North St. Louis development, and city infrastructure. All are key to making St. Louis an even more attractive event destination. We're grateful that the event attraction funds included in Board Bill 22. Thank you very much for your support and service to our city.

We have Evan P. online. Evan, could you give your last name, please?

Hey, everyone. My name is Evan Pardue. We can't hear you. Hello, can you hear me now?

Very faintly.

I'll hold up I don't know what the issue is. Hello.

Can you hear me okay.

ELLIE WILSON- It's better. DIRECTOR HERSEY- Okay.

My name is Evan Pardue. I'm a 10th Ward resident. I'm not going to talk for too long today but I just wanted to come out here to testify to say that I don't think that the city should be investing any of the RAM settlement funds into the downtown corridor. you know, for the past few decades in St. Louis, you know, the Board of Aldermen and SLDC, whenever there's time to make public investment into any region of the city, downtown is the primary of downtown, as well as like the central corridor around SLU and WashU are the primary recipients, you know, of this public investment. With these RAMP settlement funds, we have kind of like a once in a generation opportunity in order to make some real substantial investments into like the real living conditions of people in the city. And so with that, I want, you know, I believe that you all should spend majority of those funds investing in the north side. You know, the May 6th tornado caused damage to the north side that, you know, like previous people have said, you know, if there's not significant resources put towards this, the north side may not recover. And if you all let that happen, then the city itself is going to, you know, falter as well as the, you know, alongside the north side. And I think the rest of the funding, so I think that $150 million should go to the north side, and I think the rest of the funding should be spent on improving our infrastructure via that water, streets, sidewalks, and things like that. And I just wanted to make another comment about, you know, people have kind of come up and talked about how downtown generates, you know, majority of the taxes through the city. And this is true, but I think this is more of like a public policy failure than anything because Downtown generates majority of taxes because that's where like majority of the investment actually goes. You know, majority of the public investment definitely isn't going to the north side and it's barely going to the south side either. So I think when we're thinking about the future of this city, we should be thinking about investing more so in the things that actually, you know, keep people in their homes. You know, we shouldn't be shaping our future, you know, based around the interests of like, you know, businesses. and as well as like tourists and people who don't live in the city, you know, because it doesn't matter if we can have, you know, a great riverfront and, you know, great sporting events and things like that, that people can't afford to like stay in their apartments or afford to stay in their homes or stay in their neighborhoods. So yeah, with that, I think, you know, we need to invest more in the north side and more in our city infrastructure to make this like a better St. Louis. for everyday people.

Thank you. We have Brian Rogers.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. So my name is Brian Rogers. I am a Sixth Ward resident and I'm with Gateway Arch Park Foundation. I want to start by acknowledging that there are many urgent priorities facing our city right now. And I do not believe the riverfront should come at the expense of neighborhoods, families, and communities that are hurting. This does not have to be an either or conversation. But I do believe it's important that we continue investing in the St. Louis Riverfront because it is an economic engine, cultural and civic asset to the community and one that has potential to generate long term benefits across the entire city. Cities like Detroit, Pittsburgh, Nashville, Louisville, and Cincinnati have shown that the strategic investment can create jobs, attract private development, grow tourism, improve connectivity, and strengthen the city's tax base. Those projects did not happen overnight. And they did not happen through private investment alone. They started because local leadership showed their belief in the vision first. That's what this proposed $15 million represents. It is not the full solution, and it is not the final investment. It is seed money. It signals to federal agencies, philanthropic partners, and private investors that the city of St. Louis is serious about its riverfront and serious about creating long-term economic opportunity. The riverfront is the front door of our city. Millions of people experience St. Louis every year because of the Gateway Arch and the Mississippi River. The question is whether we leverage that asset in a way that creates broader public benefit through jobs, small business opportunity, tourism, connectivity, and future investment, or whether we allow momentum to pass us by. I appreciate the committee's consideration, and I hope we continue pursuing the approach that balances immediate needs with long-term investment in the future of St. Louis. Thank you.

Online, we have Jaden Wilson. All right.

No, you're fine. Okay. Hello, I'd like to share our comments on Board Bill 22, and I'm on behalf of the St. Louis City Council. For context, my name is Jaden Wolfman, and I currently live in Ward 3. We think the bill reflects some of the goals we care about, including redevelopment of our downtown and tornado assistance for victims. At the same time, we identified other priorities that should be considered. To address this, we created a proposal approach without priorities being broken down into three buckets. Those three buckets are, one, community spaces, two, youth-centered activities, and three, growing the city. For me, youth-centered activities, such as creating paid internships, intentionally funding mental health support, and enabling youth voices by finding that council benefits not only us, but the city as a whole. In other words, our youth will be able to secure jobs and improve their future, access to mental health support they need, and avoid involvement in crime. That's why we should be added onto Board Bill number 22. On another note, in the future, a fellow new council member will be testifying about the full proposal at a future hearing. I hope you all get a chance to attend. Lastly, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Robert Thomas. Linda Nguyen.

Good morning. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee. My name is Linda Nguyen. I'm the executive director of the Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis. I am here on behalf of many of our member organizations. We serve community development organizations and community building organizations all over the city and the county. But today, I specifically want to emphasize the importance of community development corporations, CDCs, who are neighborhood developers in our city. These are organizations that are place-based in our neighborhoods, and they have had many ongoing relationship with residents. Today, I want to speak in support of that. I have many other CDCs that are part of our network today testifying into that role that they play and the things that they do in our community. In this bill, as you know, there are explicit language about affordable housing, economic development, and neighborhood plan implementation, which are really, really critical for the city's recovery and rebuilding efforts. One of the things I wanna emphasize is it's great to have vision. We also need folks to carry out the plan. And today, as we stand in support of this bill, we want to emphasize the importance of having organizations who are in our community doing this work and able to address the ongoing needs of affordable housing, economic development by support of our small business communities, as well as neighborhood plan implementation. All of these are core strengths of CDC. Our members are positioned to deliver meaningful community-led results, especially in north city neighborhoods where long-term reinvestment is very much needed. This bill, as you know, dedicates about $110 million to supporting tornado recovery and addressing decades of in disinvestment. $79 million goes to housing and neighborhood stabilization, to home repairs, new housing production, and a revolving fund loan. Many of you should know that we have state and federal dollars that need to be executed in our city. And for us to leverage that opportunity with our public dollar is a shout out to our city in terms of the leverage that we were able to do. $31 million for neighborhood plan and implementation. Several of our CDCs have executed neighborhood plans, and they will also share the success and the lesson learned from neighborhood plans. We need to have our community voice in the change and the evolution of our community, and that is something that needs capital in terms of investment, but also for plans to become reality through land assembly and small business support. These investments are not only impactful on their own, they're catalytic. Public commitment at this scale sends a powerful signal to philanthropic partners, national funders, and mission-aligned investors that St. Louis is serious about rebuilding North City. And emphasize here is that people do care about St. Louis, and we need to show others that we as a public are committed to change. Thank you.

Online, we have Michael Burns.

Good afternoon. I'd like to say to Chairman Clark Hubbard, your family has my condolences. Also, I would like to say to the members of the HUD's committee, thank you, first of all, for the opportunity to speak. My name is Michael Burns. I'm president of Northside Community Housing. We are located in North City in the Ville, Greater Ville communities. and we were severely impacted by what took place on May the 16th of last year. I'm also a member of CBN, as Linda just pointed out just a second ago. We work alongside community development partners to advocate for resources and systems needed to strengthen neighborhoods that have been historically disinvested in St. Louis. I'm testifying today on support of Board Bill 22 because this investment is really critical for stabilizing and rebuilding neighborhoods that have been had decades of disinvestment. And this bill's focus on affordable housing, economic development, neighborhood plan implementation. It aligns directly with the work that CBN and Northside Community Housing does. Now, the $79 million is dedicated to housing and neighborhood stabilization that will support home repair, new housing production, and tools that help residents live safely. And the $31 million for Northside neighborhood plan implementation ensures that community-driven plans can also move this vision finally to action. And then there's also another $5 million that addresses vacancy reduction, which is critical to improve safety, property values, and long-term neighborhood recovery. Now this level of public investment also helps attract philanthropic and private partners who are more likely to invest in the city once we demonstrate this strong commitment. But I think that this is especially important to St. Louis, North St. Louis City, where long-term investment needs to take place because it's been looked aside for so many years. And I say that not in opposition of seeing some great things happen in North, I'm sorry, in downtown. I'm the former executive director of Downtown Children's Center at 22nd and Washington. I'm the former executive director of the Nestle Purina Child Development Center on Shuttle. So I'm very familiar with the decades of revitalization that has taken place in downtown. But nothing has happened in Northside, North City during that time period. And I can say that because I've actually lived in North City for 33 years of my life. And I've lived in South City for 33 years of my life. And I'm currently in the 8th Ward. So now that you know my age, you know that I've been here for a while. But I thank you for your consideration and for your commitment to St. Louis neighborhoods, and I look forward to seeing this bill passed. Thank you very much.

We have Ryan Dybul.

Hello, my name is Ryan Diebel. I live in the North County, but I work in the 10th Ward. I am also an organizer with the Party for Socialism and Liberation. The tornado recovery efforts made by the city have been totally inadequate and shameful. Much of North St. Louis looks exactly the same as it did weeks after the tornado. It is almost as if the tornado never stopped for many of those affected. Houses that had tarp roofs on May 16th still have tarp roofs. They flood every time it rains. People are still living outside, living in tents or hotels. Not to mention either the data center that was just recently approved by the Board of Public Service, for which Ameren will raise rates on people who have already had their rates raised by Ameren after the tornado. Of the thousands of applicants for demolition or reconstruction, only a handful of projects have been started and nothing has been completed. That being the case, one year after the tornado is evidence of the city's total neglect of the north side, a community which has been historically neglected and redlined. The fact that the mayor has given upwards of $25 million to a Texas-based company, SLS Co., to oversee repair and demolition, the same company responsible for building part of the border wall, and Trump's infamous alligator Alcatraz. This, again, is shameful and absurd. The north side, at minimum, should get $150 million, and this money should go to grassroots organizations that are already doing the work, and to directly affected citizens. Do not let the north side get gentrified by greedy developers. Do right by the people. The people of North St. Louis should be able to stay in their homes and stay in the neighborhoods that they know and love. Also, I don't care how profitable downtown is if it comes at the expense of the people. $150 million of the ramp settlement should go to North St. Louis at minimum.

Online we have Candy Barnett, Candy Barrett.

Hi, my name is Zondi Barrett. I live in the sixth ward and I also serve as the Grabois Jefferson Catalyst at Dutchtown South Community Corporation, which serves parts of wards three, six, seven, and eight. Dutchtown South is also a CBN member. So it works with other community development partners to ensure that St Louis neighborhoods are strong. I'M HERE TODAY TO COMMENT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IMPLEMENTATION FUND PORTION OF BOARD BILL 22. I SUPPORT THE INVESTMENT OF THESE FUNDS IN THE NORTH CITY NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS BUT I'M ASKING THAT THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN CONSIDER ELIMINATING OR RAISING THE CAP ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY CAN DEVELOP AND STAFF AN EFFECTIVE PROGRAM. My role at Dutchtown South for the past three years has been to implement the neighborhood plan for Benton Park West, Browboy Park, and Northeast Dutchtown. So I have a lot of experience with what neighborhood plan implementation means. And I really believe that our neighborhood plan implementation programming needs to lead within the city and not only within our community nonprofits. I think we can be partners, but the city really needs to take a strong role in plan implementation. These projects and plan with implementation require a diverse and well staffed program. We need project managers that can carry out infrastructure projects to completion. Staff that can coordinate with city departments to ensure that projects that fall in the domain of city departments are an ongoing priority. Staff that can continue to engage and communicate with residents to ensure that their priorities and vision are carried through. and staff that can continue to bring a new investment and deploy that investment to the nonprofits and private entities that need to do the work when it does not belong with the city. This work requires very significant staffing teams. These teams could be shared between planning areas, but you're not likely to find all the skills like project management, communications, coalition building within one staff per plan area. There are nine plan areas in North St. Louis City, and this is a large area to disperse funds over and will require sufficient staffing. Some of these plan areas do have active community development nonprofits, but others only rely on dedicated but unstaffed neighborhood associations. To ensure equity in plan implementation, we really have to make sure that all plan areas have access to equitable staffing and the staffing they need to make their vision a reality. We all know that the $31 million to neighborhood plan implementation will only go so far, so this initial investment is a great start, and we need to use it to develop a strong, innovative, and replicable plan implementation program that can multiply the implementation dollars. Instead of thinking of this work as a scattershot of programs that address the random assortment of plan priorities, as is currently written into the portion of the bill, We should properly invest in a strong program that moves this work forward. I have submitted additional written comments speaking to my personal experiences doing this work but really appreciate the time to speak live here. And thank you for putting together this proposal.

ELLIE WILSON- Our next speaker is Melanie Marie.

Good morning. Melanie Marie. I live in Ferguson, and I work in the 13th Ward. Before I speak to this, though, I do want to say I think it's very disrespectful that the mayor would come and have a seat and then get up in the middle of us speaking so that she can do a press conference in her office and say it's media only. And then other authors, too, have gotten up to go see media. The media can definitely wait. I think there's been enough photo ops. Again, I'm Melanie Marie. I serve as the People's Response Organizer with Action St. Louis, and I'm representing impacted residents who are more than likely at work right now. And honestly, the fact that we are just now having this conversation nearly a year later is terribly frustrating. At this point, residents are not confused about whether this city has the money. We are questioning the priorities, the urgency, and the accountability tied to it. The city has acknowledged that the neighborhood stabilization program alone requires roughly $150 million to sustain applicants at the full $50,000 cap. Your own numbers said that. So residents are trying to understand what exactly is unreasonable about allocating the amount you already identified was needed for recovery. Especially when this same proposal can allocate $150 for recovery and comfortably structure roughly $65 million for infrastructure and the same $25 million for reserves. Even knowing downtown also has access to foundations, investors, grants, corporate partnerships, and matching dollars, you still come in here and expect millions for downtown from the Rams Fund, and that's crazy work. Downtown is also where they used to sell black people for their own gain, so the irony of this fight is uncanny. See, there is a way to fund all of these buckets while still fully prioritizing North City recovery if the desire actually exists. And people are exhausted that we are still deployed. The recovery office has built an entire STL recovers infrastructure. Yet residents still cannot clearly track where recovery money is going in real time. The survey process itself has almost as many barriers as the program residents have struggled to navigate all year. News reports say only one home has been repaired in recent weeks, while roughly 100 have been demolished. Kara. How dare you hire yet another outside agent in Kansas City, which was awarded 26 million recovery contract with very little public transparency surrounding it, as if we don't have qualified talent right here at home. Meanwhile, organizations are being framed as receiving recovery money when many of those dollars were reimbursements for groups that stepped up to do the work the city failed to do in the immediate aftermath of this disaster. Also, many of you simply are not loud enough, not upset enough, and not willing to hold your peers accountable enough for the scale of suffering residents have gone through. North City should not still be negotiating for recovery a year later, and that's the hardest part for us. After a year of funerals, displacement, demolished homes, one would think you don't care about black people in North City who are the most impacted. And that is the level of disconnect we are here about today. Allocate $150,000 to North City. The money is there. We need it. Do the right thing.

Next speaker is Tyler Peters online.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Awesome. My name is Tyler Peters. I'm a resident of the 8th board and I'm here today in opposition to board bill 22. I am, of course, demanding 150Million of the RAM settlement fund to be allocated to North city. And, of course, you know, investment in downtown and our small business is important is important. Our dollars should go 1st to resident well, being not last. We've seen how heavy investment in downtown has failed to prove fruitful. Yes, it's provided tax dollars and whatnot, but in terms of real growth and sustaining our communities, it has not done what we've expected it to do. What will make St. Louis thrive is investment in those who already live here, not in prioritizing attracting corporate entities through private investment. Putting money into... services that actually keep our neighborhoods safe like the tenants right to council program code blue as well as the office of violence prevention and so much more are worth investing in that will help all of us i'm also here today in support of all public workers who will likely be laid off due to this budget which will stir up our community of skilled jobs and sending local wages out the door Our city workers are already paid too little and this budget will slightly increase their pay, but not to the extent that is necessary. And without fair wages, we lose the talent that keeps our city running and leaves families struggling to make ends meet. I implore all of you to continue to reject the State Board of Police Commissioners budget, because as Melanie has already stated, I want to lift up her words once again. We do have the money, and it's just a matter of what we decide to prioritize. Let's do the right thing, hold the line, and reject this budget, fund North City until it's whole.

Our next speaker is Regina Dennis known.

Good afternoon. My name is Regina Dennis Nana. And I'm here on behalf of the neighborhood Association and the members of the project connect committee. I live in Ward 14 with Alderman Aldridge. And you mentioned the neighborhood plan that's being a part of the funding under the rounds of $31 million. We've been working on this plan for three years, for a long time. And it really addresses the needs that are in North St. Louis long before the tornado. Tornado just happened. We were already developing the plan and we were wondering where are we gonna get the money from to implement it? Housing, vacant housing, businesses, cultural activities, all of these are part of the plan. What we're requesting is, this has taken a long time, I'm a bureaucrat, retired US diplomat, USAID, lived overseas for a long time and came home to St. Louis for my forever home. And I understand bureaucracy. I understand how long the process can take. But I think that this here now, we've been working on it for at least two to three years with the money, so I'm requesting that you really work hard, much harder, and implement this and pass these monies in a timely manner, because North St. Louis needs it. The tornado victims need it, and our plan needs this as well, too. The other point I wanted to mention, too, is the recreation centers. You talked about the recreation centers and you mentioned children. What I have you know, there's a bunch of us older people who go to Wolves Community Center, which I watched to be built in the fifties as a child living on Eastern Avenue. And it's the same showers that were there when I was a child. Nothing has been changed in that building. Nothing at all. Everything is rusted out. We have about three or four of the showers that work. So we work and we rotate ourselves until we can get them fixed. So put some more money in the Rose Community Center, which is very, very active in the day and in the evening. during the winter and in the summer. So all year long, it's an active place. So all in all, I'm very happy to be here in St. Louis. This is my first time coming to one of the meetings. I'm very much have been involved in the neighborhood association. And we really hope that our plans will finally give some fruit. And as I always say, I'm longing to have a meal and a glass of wine in North St. Louis.

Our next speaker is Rachel Hurtado online. We have Michael McLemore.

Good afternoon. Michael McLemore, Ward 12 resident and impacted tornado survivor. I stand in opposition to this current bill. I believe that Bill 22 should at minimum allocate at least $150 million from the RAMP settlement directly to the rebuilding and repairing of homes impacted by the May 16 tornado. This figure illustrates what the recovery office stated was necessary to begin a pathway back home for those displaced by the storm. It would ensure that everyone who applied for repairs through the STL Recovers program would see up to at least $50,000 of repairs that would ensure their home is safe and sanitary. Allocating $40 million less than necessary means that a large number of those applicants may never recover. More than that, of the $110 million allocated to the Northside recovery, only $70 million of those dollars are for repairs, meaning even less impacted people will be able to recover. Meanwhile, downtown is due to see an influx of cash from the state and matching funds from groups like Greater St. Louis, who again at this point should change their name to Greater Downtown, because as they've proven time and time again, they don't give a damn about the rest of the city. For that reason, I believe the gap of what's necessary for repairs and what's being allocated should come from the downtown allocation, as they don't actually need it to be successful, since again, they can afford a 3-1 matching funds, but again, exclusively for downtown St. Louis. In fact, downtown has already seen an allocation of $46 million from the Rams Fund towards the convention center. In closing, None of the projects mentioned here today, downtown or infrastructure improvements works if one third of the city is left in ruin. Unless of course, the plan is to replace the displaced with someone else. And I'll be damned if I just allow that to happen. Thank you.

Rachel Hurtado online. Rosa Parks.

I'm here.

Can you all hear me? Yes, can you turn your camera on, please? Okay, thank you.

My name is Rachel Hurtado. I live in Ward 7. And I'm here to oppose the proposed bill for the Rams allocation, like many folks here today, and strongly urge this committee to do everything in your power, both as an older person, as a powerful political person in St. Louis, as a human being who cares about St. Louis, to use all of your political and personal relationships to to move 150 million of these rams dollars to the north side for tornado recovery. Like a lot of folks have shared today, I think what's really in question here is two different populations in St. Louis, or two different interests. There are folks who were deeply and devastatingly impacted by the tornado who want to stay in St. Louis City. People who want to stay, but who do not have the resources to do so and have been intentionally disinvested from for many, many decades. And we see that exacerbated with the tornado. And on the other hand, we see wealthy developers, millionaires who are maybe interested in being in St. Louis and swearing up and down that they'll bring more business and more revenue to St. Louis, but only if the taxpayers match those funds. These wealthy developers and special interests that support them like St. Louis Inc. are holding the city hostage. And I want to see my elected officials force these wealthy millionaires and special business interests to put their money where their mouth is. Because for Northside residents, for community organizations who have been working day in and day out, grassroots, boots on the ground since the tornado, there's no question about how much we care about St. Louis and how much we want to be here. But for these wealthy folks, these millionaires, these developers, who are holding this money over our heads and saying, we'll only give it to you if you match our energy, they have the money to just do the investment if they really care about St. Louis. They could put all that money into downtown and create all of this business development. and put their money where their mouth is. And so I want y'all to force them to do that because they are holding us hostage and threatening St. Louis and saying that if we don't use this money to give them tax breaks, taxpayer dollars to fund their already wealthy business interests, then they are not going to see our city as worth investing in. And for the Northside residents and everyone who has been supporting them for a year, there is no question about how we are 100% 10 toes down for this city and for the North side of this city. And so this Rams money, this investment needs to go to the people who want to stay in the city, the regular working class, everyday people, families who have been here for generations, black families, who have been here for generations are now being forced, forcibly displaced because the city continues to hold out on resources for tornado recovery. There needs to be increased funding for resident needs, direct resident needs like rental assistance, because we talk to people every single day who have not seen a dime in support from the federal, city, or state government. We need to see $150 million for the Rams funding for North St. Louis until the north side is whole. Thank you. Rosa Parks.

Hi, my name's Rosa Parks, and I am a resident of the Sixth Ward. Do you know the history of our city, Mill Creek, of the arch grounds, of the repetitive storyline of black displacement and white replacement, of how highways paved over black families' homes, of how leaders continue to use the status quo over the people who built this city? I hope you remember this history when you make these decisions. This RAMS bill shows you care about downtown buildings and entertainment districts and attracting new residents to the city rather than taking care of the ones who already live here. To me, this bill sounds like intentional gentrification and intentional negligence. How are you gonna take care of the people who don't even live here when you can't take care of the ones who've poured generations of life into this place? Is attracting new residents more important than keeping the current residents here? Is creating a flourishing nightlife more important than housing families who lost everything in a tornado? Imagine if it was your family, your childhood home, the devastation you would feel. We see what's happening with Mayor Spencer and Bob Clark and the photo ops and handshakes and the data center governor, with the brutalization of nonviolent protesters, with the collaboration between downtown revitalization and SLMPD. We've seen this before. Racism still persisting in every aspect of this government. I urge you all not to be like your predecessors. I urge you to decrease allocations to downtown and increase the allocation for North City to $150 million at the least, with the additional funds being earmarked for tornado-impacted residents to rebuild their homes. And I leave you with a question. Do you want to be known as the older person who spearheaded the black displacement of this generation? If not, you'll do what's right and not what's white. Thank you.

Chris Wilcox.

Good afternoon. My name is Chris Wilcox and live in the 14th Ward. While I recognize the progress has been made on funding for North St. Louis, I must oppose the bill because it's not enough to meet the moment with sufficient urgency. North St. Louis needs a minimum of $150 million. As a downtown resident, I also say that not $1 should be spent on to downtown business development. If they need the money so badly, they could spend less on paying Board of Police Commissioners President Chris Saraceno to hire private cops for them and purchase even more surveillance to feed the SLMPD and ICE. I'm sure all of the alders present will acknowledge that the city's response to the 2025 tornado is a shameful failure. One year later, we're barely talking about demolitions while people are still living in tents in front of their own homes, living through winter without windows. We're outright displaced, including by landlords and developers who would love to hollow out North City to make it a real estate investment bonanza at the expense of our neglected neighbors who have lived there for decades. Immediately after the tornado, while the city was burning money on police curfew, people gave incredible amounts of time and money on their own initiative to step in for their neighbors. If the city was remotely democratic, it would have heeded what could have been a four-hour participatory budget process at the Board of Estimate and Apportionment public hearing, where the mayor phoned it in from Italy. We would divest from bloated policing and invest in critical services to be provided by the many residents just waiting to help. As for where this should come from, there's no more obvious waste in this proposal than the downtown development. How much more do they need to take from a city that gives them everything, from comprehensive public transit to swift city services relative to every other neighborhood? If downtown was truly the economic engine of the city, they wouldn't be spending so much money on surveillance and commanding the deadly SLMPD to sic dogs on teenagers. Greater St. Louis Inc. could spend their own money on the developments they want. It's beyond me how they expect to be St. Louis' local destination where they spend most of their time panicking about black children. If they want to develop downtown into a destination for racist tourists who have contempt for the people that live in this city, they can ask Greater St. Louis Inc. and their attack dogs and the SLPD to pay for it. The priorities are clear. We can't afford another decade of neglect for the heart of St. Louis and North City. They need $150 million minimum, and the wealthy real estate investors and businesses downtown can fund their own development without the city residents that they have so much contempt for. Thank you.

Danny Kahn.

Should I be nice or mean?

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Danny Khan from Ward 2. I'm an artist, activist, and I value slowness, intention, and justice. There are many people here talking about the urgency to seize this opportunity to invest in downtown, that it is necessary to attract big ticket developments for economic growth, It is disrespectful and racist to come here today and talk about downtown when it's obvious where this money needs to go. This has been the pattern that got us where we are today. You give tax incentives to huge developments. They don't give back, prices go up, residents get priced out, people get locked up over and over and over again. It's a system that cannibalizes itself and our people, but it can be reversed if we are patient, and North City has been. Black people have been patient. I believe in slow, thoughtful, bottom-up development, begging the question, developing who, for what, to what end? and to address the historical need of our community and tornado victims acutely. I believe in direct reparations. I don't believe in letting money sit in a bank when people are hungry or cold or when rain leaks through their roof when their landlords fuck them over. This is the world we are living in, not a riverfront white tears about how hard developing without a bank is. Some people don't have a bank account or a cell phone plan. But of course, y'all are just going to keep displacing black people to make way for white whole foods shoppers, tourists, and tech bros. Y'all are just going to keep giving money to cops and tax breaks to big ticket developments, data centers, and trying to get the Olympics here. When you look at our own history, or recently Atlanta history is a good example, the same pattern shows you just The same pattern just shows that you hate black people when you do this shit. You're scared of poor people. You resent homeless people. It is precisely these demographics that make up our city. Our neighbors who have to take care of each other because we know the city doesn't. Do the right thing today and amend the bill for $150 million for North City tornado recovery and take it out of the downtown and the reserve funds. Make sure vacancy enforcement is for delinquent landlord and owners like Green Street and not poor people needing a hand. Do the right thing tomorrow by developing the people, not corporations, from the grassroots, from food sovereignty, black land ownership, roofs over heads, lead, asbestos out of walls, thorium out of basements, education, libraries, third spaces, reparations.

Ethan Crawford.

Hello, my name is Ethan Crawford. I live downtown. I was one of the many volunteers that stepped up to take care of those in need. We did our part providing immediate relief as best as we could. going door to door, checking if people were okay, getting donations, delivering donations, cutting fallen trees, putting tarps on roofs, picking up bricks, loading cases of water into cars, sorting and organizing baby formula, bagging up cleaning supplies. Everyone volunteering was contributing something towards healing North City. We were outside being part of this community, and I saw a few of you, but not all of you. But that's okay, we all have a part to play. We did our part, we just need you to do your part. Find the north side and listen to the people asking for help. Thank you. 150 million.

Jim Pepler. Aaron Johnson.

My name is Ariane Johnson from the Great Tenth Ward. I'm opposed to the bill in many, many different ways. First, I want to, it's off the subject, but for Greater St. Louis to have $55 million to match downtown, and if you go a couple blocks down, you got people standing in tents, and you got people that don't know what they're going to do tomorrow. It's not even humanitarian. I don't know how they get funded. They shouldn't be a part of this conversation anymore, because it's not great at St. Louis. It's just one part of St. Louis. And then my other issue, honestly, is recycling the money. It's opportunities where we can start recycling the money. Keep it for us local. How can we recycle? To me, it's training. We got problems with the youth out there. We're talking about the Rams settlement money. When I was growing up in St. Louis, I looked forward to going to Rams games. It was like, because I'm like, OK, I can be a football player one day. I can get out and make a difference. A lot of these youth now don't have the opportunity to go to Rams games to change their mindset about things because it's all about the mental. I mean, so I figure at least 0.1% should go to the youth in some type of way. I don't see nothing going towards the youth, even if it's us building them a nice facility to go play football at or us To me, train them. Train them to rebuild North St. Louis because at the end of the day, it's going to take so many meetings to put money, $255,000 and nothing for North St. Louis. That's not enough money, but if we recycle it and start training facilities where we can actually rebuild our own cities and we can actually stay in our cities again instead of the SLS coming and taking the money and it's nothing getting recycled. I'm just saying, if we can do anything, can we put something for the youth in the bill, and something where the money can be recycled, where I can look forward to rebuilding North St. Louis and being able to afford it. Because if we let, like, McBride or somebody come and rebuild, we're not going to be able to afford to stay there anymore. If we can't stay there anymore, then it's less votes coming from North St. Louis, and then we in North County. I'm from the 10th Ward, and just like North St. Louis, we had a lot of tornado damages. And I'm not here speaking on that. I'm speaking more on how can we recycle the money where we can see, well, we spent $255 million, but later we seen the money recycling. It coming back into the community. I don't see nothing recycled in the budget. I don't see nothing for the youth. Again, I'm not backing the downtown situation at all because I figure until North St. Louis start asking for money, then the police start asking for money now, and they start asking for money. And I feel like we having all these meetings, that way the police commissioner lawsuit be over with, they have the money we arguing about, ain't even gonna be available no more. So I feel like we can, y'all prolonging the situation, that's where the money can get took in a different way. So if anything, can we invest more into the youth? Just more to the youth, please, even as a point, because the Rams left here and they took dreams from youth. You know what I mean? So let's put money into that and let's recycle it some type of way. To me, recycling is training. Let's train so we can rebuild our own communities. We must unite to save our future. We can sit here and fight against each other all day. I'm disappointed that we got organizations that got so much money right now A year later, and they could have been helping St. Louis out. You know what I mean? It's not right. But at the end of the day, we must unite to save our future. That's the mayor, the aldermen, the people, like to save St. Louis, our future. We all here because we ain't thinking about leaving St. Louis. So somehow we got to come together and say, how can we recycle the money to stay in St. Louis? And that's my time. And I'm here for the youth. And I'm back in the north St. Louis because I want to see it rebuilt. I mean, I know we need the water situation, but like the man said on TV, it's different ways to get that money. I know downtown need it, and I used to love going to McDonald's downtown. I really used to enjoy downtown. But I feel like right now, if downtown look good and I can go a couple blocks down and North St. Louis looking like that, it's not worth it. You know what I mean? I don't think nobody's going to come in town and see our Disney World attractions, but North St. Louis ain't even got a roof over their head. So I'm asking y'all, please, can we invest in the youth? I'm always about the youth. I don't know what y'all, it's the youth. We invest in the youth, that's the future of St. Louis. Let's come together somehow and let's recycle the money. I don't know how we can do it. I'm not smart. Let's see how we can recycle the money where we know 10 years money coming back that we spent in 2026. Thank you.

Mark or I can't pronounce the last name.

Good afternoon. My name is Mark Oriwala and I live in ward nine and I'm here to urge the housing urban development and zoning committee to invest at least 150 million of the Ram settlement fund in North St. Louis. That figure reflects the estimated amount needed to fund home stabilization through the city's private property assistance program. First, I want to bring attention to the resilience of our Northside neighbors and community organizations. Over the past year, after the tornado devastated neighborhoods across North St. Louis, residents stepped up to rebuild, organize, and support one another, even in the absence of adequate federal and local aid, but they can't continue to do it alone. Of the 110 million currently allocated to North City, only 79 million is dedicated to recovery from a tornado that caused over 1.6 billion in damages. That is simply not enough. As a St. Louis native, I'm tired of seeing our city treat North St. Louis as an afterthought while relying on private developers and supposedly altruistic millionaires to reverse decades of disinvestment, segregation, and redlining. We continue to find money for downtown projects and tourism while some Northside residents are still living in tents, shelters, and unsafe homes. The city cannot justify prioritizing downtown projects over the people who already call St. Louis home. I urge this committee to reallocate a greater portion of the RAM settlement funds away from downtown development and toward the urgent recovery and long-term stabilization needs of North St. Louis residents. This money isn't just about rebuilding after a tornado. It's about whether this city is finally willing to invest in the people who have stayed, organized, and fought for their neighborhoods for decades. No amount of money can fully reverse decades of structural harm, but allocating at least $150 million to North St. Louis is a chance for the city to send a different message. North St. Louis will not continue to be left behind. Choose human dignity over downtown development.

Thank you. Cassie Fowler Finn.

Casey Fowler, Finn Ward 6. You all have already heard from us at every single BOA budget meeting this year in terms of what we want for the RAMS money. You all keep saying that you know North City needs help rebuilding, and yet you still proposed a bill that does not indicate . Put all the RAMS money into the most disinvested areas in our city, and if you can't do that, then invest a minimum of $150 million that you calculated as needed to fund the city program. This bill reflects systematic and overt racism that dominates the city's politics. We absolutely owe North City strong investment and we will all benefit. It will keep folks in their homes and help build back up a vibrant community. It will directly generate tax revenue for decades to come. Without a thriving north city, St. Louis will suffer. Let's also put money into water infrastructure, which we will all benefit from. I also want to comment on investment in downtown. The east-west corridor illustrates exactly who benefits from investment downtown. It increases city services to county residents and further divides our city. If any money goes towards downtown, I advocate for building a strong north-south corridor, which will help unify our city and provide better access to city services for our north city neighbors. Finally, please do not implement the interest structure you propose. It incentivizes sitting on the money for folks that can afford to and penalizes those that need to use funds right away. Please put them back in a general fund that funnels it into the areas that need it the most. The proposed interest structure is racist. It is just one more way that prevents black St. Louisans from building wealth.

Marguerite Williams.

Good afternoon. My name is Margaret Williams. I am a lifelong citizen of the city of St. Louis. I lived in the 10th ward on Walton. My home was destroyed and I now live in the 7th ward. Our business remains in the 10th ward at this point. First, before I start, I'd like to say I extend my love and my condolences to our Chair Alderman and the loss of her dad and my classmate. On May 16th, 19, I mean, 2025, That changed my life, and it changed the lives of thousands of us who live in the path of the tornado. From my perspective, our city leaders should have spent much more than they did to assist those of us who lived in that horrific experience. And my experience comes not only from my loss, but from being actually in the house as the tornado struck. Our lives will never ever be the same. Our communities will never be the same. However, it is my belief that not being in opposition of spending monies the way you have listed, but instead being for the monies being redistributed so that more money is spent on our families rebuilding and restoring North St. Louis. if we take the right steps now to rebuild our city, we can bring people back. We can support those that stayed through the storm. But I'm going to stop there, even though I could go on a lot more and say more. But just please consider opening that up. The amount listed there, and then when you look at the distribution, there's not a whole lot spent on the families like it should be. My third point here is where I'm really here. The city of St. Louis, and that includes every single leader elected, appointed, who has not spoken out and said, what? St. Louis has spent no money helping the businesses in the 10th ward and the other wards when it comes to tornado relief. No money spent on those businesses. FEMA directed us to go to small business, and small business said, well, we'll give you a loan. at that time when at least my husband and others who were applying had no power, no electricity, no Wi-Fi. That was not an answer that we needed at that time because they had no way to make any money to begin to pay a loan.

Ms. Williams, that's your time.

Okay, I will just kind of summarize here and say this, that the money's listed. At some point, there are statements made about including businesses. However, when you look at that, they're really talking about the division of the city plans that are there. And if all of those city plans got an equal portion, you're talking about less than $9 million per community. There isn't any money in there for businesses. And that's what I'm hoping that this board will do. Open up specific monies, $30 million or more to help businesses that in some cases lost two whole walls, their roofs. The 37,000 that would come out of $30 million if you divided it equally among the nearly 8,000 100 businesses would be less than many of them would need to replace a single roof. So please, in closing, remember the daycares, the grocery stores, the restaurants, the auto and truck repair, the entertainment venues, the barbershops, the beauty shops, the home repair business, and many, many more. St. Louis, don't let us down again. Over a year and no money from St. Louis City going to small businesses. Thank you.

Damon Starks.

Good afternoon. My name is Damon Starks. I live in the 11th Ward, and I work at Action St. Louis. I am in opposition to this proposed round budget. I demand that we spend $150 million to rebuild North St. Louis. This is why. First off, we understand $150 million to the North City ain't even going to scratch the surface. Let's just be real on fixing some of these problems. This has been a 70 year, 70 years worth of disinvestment to the North City. Waiting on the state, waiting on FEMA, waiting on federal funds, That's just poor management for city. They ain't coming to help us. We got to help ourselves. We have a fund here that can truly help North St. Louis. We understand that this is not enough money to begin to help the numbers of the people that have been displaced by the tornado. This is not enough money to even rebuild a lot of those homes, businesses, churches, and everything else like that from that tornado. But this is a start. $150 million is a start. We can do that. We can fund that. Money invested downtown, let me explain something to you. Prop man said it best. Their money can be generated and recycled itself. One gentleman said they had $35 million generated from the soccer game, some other stuff that came into town recently. Is there some of that money going to rebuilding these schools, getting St. Louis school districts out of debt? No. Is some of that money getting funded into having... bringing in and restoring businesses downtown? No. So if they're not recycling their own damn money in downtown, why the hell should we spend that money downtown? Hell no. Let me explain something to you. Downtown can figure itself out. This is why. We would never be a Chicago. We would never be a New York. We would never be a Pennsylvania. Let's stop there. What makes St. Louis City, St. Louis City, you got to go into the neighborhood of St. Louis City for that. Our downtown, you either hate this man or love him. But someone once said to me, and I'm going to say his name, James Clark. He was speaking at an event back in 2012. He said, if you invest in downtown without investing it to the communities, you're going to lose downtown. We lost downtown because at that time nobody invested in downtown. Everybody invested downtown. Nobody invested into the communities. If you invest into the communities, you will get a response from the city. But until then, you're not investing into the city. You invest in all the money downtown. That is wrong. You lost your community. We used to have 28 alders. We're at 14. I get you. We're at 14. You keep this up, we're going to be at 7. Invest into the community. Thank you. $150 million.

We have Audrey K. online.

Hi, everybody. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. My name is Audrey Kidwell. I'm a resident of Ward 6. And I am here today virtually to speak in support of the coalition that's requesting $150 million for tornado recovery in North St. Louis. I just joined the meeting, so I'm sure a lot of this has been covered already. But the amount that's been allocated, I believe it's $79 million, is not sufficient to make North City whole. There was at least $1.6 million. billion in damages from the May 16th tornado last year. And, you know, the city has really made a very, very small amount of progress towards repairing any of that. And, you know, we know that the situation with FEMA has been complicated. There's also you know, issues with how the city has been handling it, but we have this money available from the RAM settlement. And it just doesn't make sense to me to spend it on anything else for the city while there are people without roofs over their heads, while there are people sleeping in tents, while there are people who can't go to school or can't go to their jobs. et cetera, et cetera, because tornado damage is still, hasn't been addressed in North St. Louis. So completely agree, 150 million should be the minimum for tornado recovery in North St. Louis. I know when we get a big pot of money like this, everybody wants their fair share. There's lots of great ideas for things that we could spend our money on. But bottom line is people do not have homes. People are sleeping on the streets because of the devastation that still hasn't been addressed. So to me, everything else pales in comparison. That has got to be our priority for this money. $150 million for Tornado Recovery in St. Louis, that should be obvious. That should be table stakes. That should just be... I feel like anybody who has, you know, a heart, it's like, come on now. It's more important. It's more important than the other priorities is, you know, people having homes. It's more important. So that's what I've got to say. Thank you everybody else for being here. And yes, let's make North City whole. Thank you.

Tamika Spigers. We can't pass them out to the audit people.

Good afternoon committee. My name is Tamika Stigers. I am a resident of the 10th ward. I work, live, play in the 10th ward. I love St. Louis city and I am here in opposition of this bill. for a lot of reasons. The money from the RAMS settlement should not just be thrown at a problem with hopes of fixing the problem. I truly believe that the city isn't capable of equitably spending the funds across the correct priorities because we haven't seen it yet. This isn't the first large influx of funds. We've had board bills that designate how funds should be spent. and we don't get it done. So I don't have faith that the funds will be spent even the way that it's outlined in this paper because that just doesn't happen in the city. The funds typically get lost at the top as negotiations are made behind closed doors and we receive lies and delay tactics in public. Before we go down the rabbit hole of fighting for the crumbs, let's clean house and attempt to do a better job. I have a resolution. She said, I couldn't pass it out to you guys, but it is here. I have a resolution and it is an attempt to hold our leaders accountable and do a full performance audit of the city government and all of its 22 departments, including the police department. We cannot continue attempting to make responsible decisions about our funds when we've had so many instances of foul play with current funds. Building Division, Police Department, SLDC, We should pause with spending these funds until we receive data on how the departments are operating, which doesn't only include financially, but operationally as well. For example, there are many individuals and businesses that are still waiting to receive city funds Not two years, three years, four years. We have to do a better job. We should put the money towards infrastructure by way of a bond issue to reduce our interest rates and increase our credit rating, allowing our dollars to stretch further. This helps the entire city as developers no longer have a need to ask for TIFs because we fixed our own infrastructure. This helps residents too as we're now able to build with better terms and conditions in the financial and physical terms. When we put the money into a bond issue, the money will go towards the areas that need the money the most anyway. And we all have heard all morning where that area is. Thank you. Fund North City.

Tracy Fatini.

Good afternoon. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today. I will be as brief as I can. So my name is Tracy Fantini and I'm a resident of the fourth ward, as well as the executive director of housing options provided for the elderly. Hope has been helping older adults live with dignity and independence and the housing most appropriate to their circumstances for over 39 years. We serve our community helping our lowest income seniors, many of whom are unhoused, access safe, stable and affordable housing. The majority of our clients came from the north side before the tornado, and we are now also a provider of disaster case management for older adult tornado survivors and have been a key partner in recovery planning and relief efforts with the St. Louis Area Agency on Aging since the day the tornado hit on May 16, 2025. For many decades, the Northside has suffered from redlining, intentional disinvestment, and intentional neglect. And as I've been serving tornado survivors and reflecting on our city's history, I'm frankly struck by the short-sightedness of our leadership over those decades. As our city hemorrhages population, our public schools struggle to survive amidst constant attacks by the Missouri legislature and others, and our largest employers leave for the county, I have to wonder what made the decision makers over the past 70 years think that any of this was good policy. We can't know their thoughts, but we see the results that brought us to where we are. We see how blaming residents for their own circumstances and choosing not to invest in all of our people has turned out. While we cannot change the past, we have an opportunity to change the future. It's unconscionable that so few people have been helped one year after the tornado, and in most neighborhoods, it looks like it just happened, while money that could help them has been sitting in the bank. They're living in damaged, mold-infested homes that are making them sick. Some are still unsheltered, unhoused, on the street, or couch surfing. We have to allocate the maximum funding to rebuild the north side. We need more than 150M dollars. We need immediate home repair now that will allow residents to stay in their neighborhoods where they want to be. We need rental assistance that doesn't require cutting through a mile of red tape. We need ongoing case management to help people recover as this is going to take years. We need businesses to be rebuilt and investment in new businesses, as a previous commenter stated. People spend money where they live. You need residents to patronize businesses and businesses to provide jobs. Where is the plan and the investment for retaining and rebuilding our population? It must begin with recovery on the north side. Our survival as a city is dependent on it. It's not only good for the north side, it will benefit downtown, it will generate tax revenue, it will improve infrastructure, and it just may save our city. Because the fall of the north side will be the fall of all of St. Louis. The whole city will flourish or perish together. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. We have Ahasa.

Firstly, Madam Chairwoman, please know I'm sending you and your family love and light during this time. Good afternoon, members of the Housing, Urban Development, and Zoning Committee. My name is Ahasa Jadu, 11th Ward resident, who is deeply concerned about the continued pattern of disvestment or underinvestment at best towards North St. Louis. It was mentioned earlier that the city has done the hard work to ensure that downtown investment will work. I want to remind this board and the room that in 1974, the city of St. Louis adopted what became known as the Team 4 plan. It was a plan that divided the city into three areas, conservation, redevelopment, and depletion. North St. Louis was designated as a depletion area, meaning that there was intentional reduction in services, investment, infrastructure, and opportunity. Decades later, many of us are still living with the consequences of that decision. And today, after the divestment or after the disaster of the North St. Louis tornado, neighborhoods that have been suffering from generations of public abandonment are still living in the same type of plan today. As currently set out, 22% of the money would go towards tornado housing and neighborhood stabilization, while 17% of this money would go towards downtown revitalization. Downtown has continuously received concentrated investment in infrastructure support and political priority in this city at the expense of North St. Louis. In the Team 4 plan, similar to this bill, downtown was recognized for redevelopment and revitalization. North St. Louis is the economic engine of this city, and North St. Louis has received vacancy, displacement, demolition, and broken promises. This 1974 was when the Team 4 plan was enacted. We are in 2026 now. That is 52 years of downtown investment at the literal expense of North St. Louis, which is proof that downtown investment is a poor investment and that North St. Louis is the economic engine. If we are serious about repair and stabilization, then the repair must be proportional to the harm. As written, this bill does not prioritize repair and stabilization. And in truth, North St. Louis needs revitalization more than it needs stabilization. To begin, that means prioritizing rapid repair, infrastructure restoration, affordable housing preservation, and neighborhood stabilization in the communities that have endured both natural and political disasters. Historical honesty and material investment is needed by this board so the people and neighborhoods that this city once deemed disposable can start to be made whole again. If the past plan was depletion of North St. Louis and today's plan is about stabilization, the outcome will be a more socially acceptable form of depletion. And as currently written, this bill underfunds what is needed for housing stabilization as a result of the tornado. So this bill actually prioritizes a continuation of the depletion plan. I'm in opposition of this bill. Tornado Housing and Neighborhood Stabilization Fund needs to have $150 million at minimum, and that still would only satisfy stabilizing the past plan of depletion. North St. Louis needs revitalization. Thank you.

Caitlin Kilgore.

I just want to say, Ms. Hubbard, Clark Hubbard, I know what it's like to lose a parent, and I'm so sorry for your loss. My name is Caitlin Kilgo. I am a proud resident of the Seventh Ward, and I'm here because I love St. Louis. I just want to point out that I am not here because I'm paid to be here, like some people. from Greater St. Louis Inc. and other organizations. I'm actually losing money because I don't get work right now. I'm a small business owner and I work for myself and so I'm the only one that's got me. But I know St. Louis has got me and so that's really why I'm here. A local historian that I follow posted this from a book, and I thought it was really interesting, and I'm gonna talk about why. It says, lost amid the debates about exorbitant financing and stolen elections is another matter. Some of the buildings in the area were considerable historic value. Dr. Siegfried Gideon, a Swiss architectural historian who had founded the International Congress of Modern Architecture, was outspoken in his efforts to keep many of the cast iron buildings from being destroyed. These buildings were unlike any others in the nation, he said, and must be saved from the wrecking ball. One located at 7 North First Street was the office of US Express Company, which had doors made completely of cast iron. Another structure was a four-story warehouse at the corner of First and Washington, in which graceful cast iron pillars supported the upper floors. Many others should be cut, he said. because they will form a real monument to early life and work of St. Louisans. It might first appear that it is not worthwhile to save them, Gideon remarked, but we can understand their great value when we realize they have no equivalent in other countries. That is an excerpt about talking specifically about buildings that no longer exist because of the arch. And I think there's a real parallel between the demolishing of a thriving black neighborhood to build a giant metal Arch. Still don't know what it's for. Cute, I guess. But what is more is the history that's lost. And I feel like there's a real parallel between wanting to invest in the riverfront and downtown and not wanting to save the history. And so much more important than buildings, the people that make up North St. Louis and deserve to stay and live in their homes and to get back to those homes. So I lost the rest of my notes, so I'm just kind of going off the cuff because my phone died. But I just want to say that I think that $150 million is definitely not enough. If Greater St. Louis Inc. has $55 million to spend, they've already got it set aside because they're ready to match it. Let them spend that. Let's use our money, and this is, it's not funded by taxpayers, the Rams bill, I get it, but it is our money. It was given to the taxpayers, the citizens of St. Louis to use to better our city, and specifically to make reparations for the disenfranchisement that the NFL took from us by not keeping their promises, right? And where is that money needed most? It's needed on the north side, and it's needed right now. This meeting is a year too late. This money needs to go to the north side. Take that $55 million from downtown development. It can wait. We don't need sidewalk cafes and restaurants and exciting events for people in the county. We need it for people's homes, and we need it now. Thank you.

Torreon Taylor.

Hello people of St. Louis City that are here in the room and online with us. I want to start by saying Kara is not our mayor, she's an agent of terror. Then I want to go into the continuation of misinformation every time I come into this building. Every time I come in here and I pick up a paper off that table that is supposed to be information for the people of this city to know what's going on with you all behind this table, it's always chopped up and half pieces of information. And I know for a fact that y'all have enough tax money to print out full documentation for us. I shouldn't have to pull one of the gentlemen from behind your desk to ask for what's actually going on. Misinformation is one of the reasons why we keep finding ourselves in these situations, arguing over money and arguing over things that we know are right. We're continuing to fight developers and people who run sporting committees in the city of St. Louis. You're complaining about money. No. North City needs it now and North City needs it all. If North City don't eat, St. Louis won't eat. Thank you.

Dallas Adams,

Good afternoon, committee and Alder Lady Clark Hubbard. My heart and prayers are with you at this time. My name is Dallas Adams. I'm a proud resident of the Third Ward, and I have the fortunate privilege to be able to see recovery from a cross-sectional lens with my work in disaster case management. Obviously, everybody here is competing for the same resources, and as you can see that there are many people here that are interested in seeing North and West City recover fully. Unfortunately, unlike other well-drawn parts of this bill, we do not have lobbyists that are preparing remarks for the best interest of West City. I have a lot of notes here. I'm going to try to make them as concise as possible, but I echo Kami Thomas's statements at the beginning of this hearing that it is quite possible, it is feeling more literal every day that North City will never recover without significant and I have been before the budget committee multiple times throughout this process to ensure that we don't let bureaucracy fail of our city. Very quickly, just to go through the things that I know that I've heard, I hear time and time again, I hear older people say that we don't deal in emotions, we deal in facts, we deal in figures, we deal in numbers. So I'm gonna go ahead and break down the numbers for us. Because out of that $110 million, $70 million are what we currently have allocated for housing stabilization. But if you break that down and you take away $10 million for sidewalk and trees, you take away $5 million for rental support, and you take away $4 million for administration, that leaves us $51 million for housing repair. If we stay at the same allocation of $50,000 per house, that gives us about 1,020 homes to repair. We know that there are over 3,700 people right now in the private property stabilization pipeline, and that is not even a full capture of the need because many people were left out of the application process before it closed down. $50,000 in my work is fractional. The average cost for a roof and tuck pointing and basic stabilization for a home is $90,000. And we have over 3,700 households that are needing that need right now. That leaves us in a large gap that philanthropists and other nonprofit organizations have to stand in the gap for, which continue to pull away from the lack of social safety net that the city of St. Louis has in place for its most vulnerable residents in the first place. But this is what happens when decades of neglect are hit with a natural disaster. And unfortunately, good governance does come with its fair share of balances to interest in real time. But I will say that I think the real economic engine of the city of St. Louis and whether or not it survives or whether it becomes absorbed or some other pathway forward for a dying city is population growth. We have been hemorrhaging residents since before the tornado, and now we are an exponential throttle ahead to have the most increase in haunted house population since we've started tracking things. I know that I... Ms. Adams, that's your time. Okay, I will leave us with this. We have a 25% increase in unhoused population. We have people who are dedicated to the city of St. Louis. We have community members who can come from St. Charles and St. Peter's where they have been displaced to take part in their community meetings. And we need to see all of them restored and recovered. And so I think that... Based on this math, $185 million is actually the figure that we're looking for to serve the households that we have in the queue right now. But every single resource needs to be advocated at every level of government. And I do agree with Melanie Marie that everybody needs to be as loud as possible to get the resources we need to recover this city. Thank you.

Kennard Williams.

Should spend some money getting a new one of these. Good morning, HUD's committee. Alderman Clark Hubbard condoles your loss. I'm here today. My name is Kenar Williams. I'm a resident of the Ninth Ward Senior Organizer Action St. Louis. I'm here in opposition of this bill off of the basis of the number for tornado recovery is lower than what the recovery office has already stated is needed to move forward with getting basic repairs done. And as folks have already commented, it won't even get us all the way across the finish line. It's just the start. I also want to speak to what I'll call probably political violence. I think political violence is people showing up in this meeting who represent elites in the city of St. Louis. Interests that have their name on everything from Forest Park to the Science Center to the Lakes to the Arch to the Zoo and every single other attraction and building and stadium in this city to say that, oh, we have money in our pocket, but we're not going to spend it unless you give us some first. These people are generationally wealthy. These people are people who have had their names all over everything in this city, some of which members of the Bail Profit Society probably. These people come in here and make demands. As people have said, they are holding us hostage. They come in here and make demands that we spend this money on them when they have the money to do it themselves. They did it with their own soccer stadium. They can do it with everything else. Additionally, political violence is also coming in here and saying that they need this money downtown to take it away from other communities, to turn around and say that they want curfews to restrict certain people in this city, young black people specifically, from accessing parts of the city. They want to take their money, money that is entitled to their neighborhoods and restrict them. What right do they have? What right do they have to stop us from accessing our own city while they live off of the backs of the work that the people in this city continually do? Political violence is contorting your face and saying words like, it's so unfortunate what happened to people in the tornado while you come in here and bank on them moving. Political violence is coming in here from room 200. to say that money needs to go downtown and to these other interests after you just lauded many other people in this room as heroes of the city for cleaning up a mess that they did not do. And then having the police beat the shit out of them because you didn't want to hear people hold you accountable to the failures. Shout out to Mayor Spencer for that one. Political violence is looking at all the people in this city who have lived for a year with holes in their roofs, breathing in mold, being moved from encampment- It's time, Mr. Williams. Absolutely. That's political violence. You have a moment right now to move $150 million to make some sort of stand of equity to people, some sort of stand of equity. Thank you.

Jacob Foss.

Good afternoon, everybody. So I think both sides of this, both the people that are interested in downtown and the people that are interested in North City, realize one thing. There is not enough money to go around, and the city's needs are great. Sorry. Sorry. The water infrastructure, we heard earlier that the need is 70 million and we need 40 million now and there's only 30 million advocated for it in this bill. The city housing need, we obviously need a bare minimum of 150 and the figure mentioned not long ago of 185 and I think it's probably closer to the bare minimum. When it comes down to, somebody mentioned earlier, Mayor Spencer spending 26 million on this out of state Texas fund who clearly doesn't have the best interest of St. Louis at heart. I agree with that, I agree with the audit. What we need to use as funds for, if possible, I've heard Bonds mention that we need to use the money to invest further as a down payment, 20, 25% to secure more money as a loan, get it from the state who has a vested interest in profiting and helping St. Louis to turn around, get it from wherever we can. get more money to get to this city it will not be enough no matter how we spend this unless we scare more all the interests in this bill are great all the needs in north city are huge they are devastatingly in up there and they really really need the funds in downtown They talk, I just don't disagree with the thought of it's wasting money, it's not enough. If downtown is the economic heart and engine of our city, then we might be stopping the heart attack, but meanwhile, letting North City go away is like not addressing a severed limb. We have to do all of it, and there's just not enough money. We need to use these funds to secure more money to bring further investment. In the meantime, we need to use what we can to house people, Now, as people have mentioned, they're living in horrible conditions in tents, in homes with leaky roofs, mold I've heard over and over again, asbestos, all that. Look at some of the buildings and properties down here with low or empty vacancies. Put people in housing. Find ways to fund that and get people in housing now and then further help get them steady and get them stable, get money coming and flowing back into the city. So, I mean, I'm not going to tell all the folks in North City that the money shouldn't go to North City. I'm not going to say that we should just completely ignore downtown and let all of our businesses in our tax base and fail, you know, because it is the face of the city and the one thing that st louis has is a reputation of being a bad place because downtown doesn't look great but we need all of it and we should use the money to finance further money it should be an investment engine not a spend it once and it's gone and it's not enough thank you jessica warnley

Good afternoon. I'm a resident of the 11th Ward in the Grand Center Arts District. Part of my ward was impacted by the tornado. My community was not. My neighborhood was not. I'm in support of $150 million going to the north side. And let's just say I'm in support of all of it going to the north side so that we feel like $150 is a compromise, which it really is. I've lived in St. Louis for 15 years. I'm originally from Chicago area. When I moved here and I saw the downtown, I was less than thrilled, right? And it's only gotten worse. Our downtown is embarrassing. And we don't need this settlement money to fix that. The downtown, the state of our downtown is due to a lack of leadership, lack of vision, lack of creativity, and as someone said earlier, lack of investment in what really makes this great, not a lack of resources. And what's more embarrassing is the state of the north side one year after the tornado. It's embarrassing and it's heartbreaking. Leadership is about juggling competing urgent priorities. When I hear us talk about what's most important, I can only think about the analogy of the Titanic and rearranging the deck on the Titanic as it's sinking. We're talking about North St. Louis like it's separate from St. Louis. We want to play sports on the deck of the Titanic. We want to polish the deck of the Titanic. We want to fix the engine. But we have a hole where people are falling through and are drowning. What does this conversation say about our priorities? What does it say about how we value human life? What does it say about our leadership? And what does it say about our critical thinking skills? They say insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results. We've said we need the NGA, we need a soccer stadium, we need a data center. All of these things at the expense of residents. We have a pattern of prioritizing development over immediate needs of residents, particularly our black residents. What happens if we choose to do something different? What might happen if for once, when community is clearly indicating what they need, that we meet that need fully with no haggling, no negotiating, When I've heard the sentiment that when downtown struggles, the whole city does. So what might happen if we felt the same about the north side?

Emmett Coleman.

All right, thank you, committee and all the people. My name is Emmett Coleman, resident of the Mighty Tenth Ward, city of St. Louis, born and raised. First, I hear a lot of people come up and they talk about what ward they live in. I think a small percentage, a tiny percentage of the people that up here live north of Del Mar, north of downtown. And I just want to make this clear right now that when we talk about disinvestment, We're talking about disinvestment because of individuals who decide not to live in the city, not to live in our communities. And I sit here and I hear North City, North City, North City, like we're all the same. North St. Louis has many different neighborhoods just like South St. Louis. Every neighborhood has different needs. So to say that we have a disinvestment and it's a money issue, what are we going to do? Just throw the money at what? We have no strategic plan. We have no type of planning. Do we even have an inventory of individuals who've been displaced out of my ward, the 11th ward, the 12th ward, the 14th ward? I mean, do we even have, what are we talking about? We're just throwing money at nothing. I just look at the budget. I don't see any type of itemization. I don't see any type of scope of work. When we're talking about rebuilding, we talk about scope of work. There's nothing that shows what are we going to spend on, like Ariane said, that's a neighbor of mine that also is invested and has a home in the north side, the youth or youth centers. I heard somebody mention that. I don't hear anything about, you know, we talk about lead poisoning, lead paint, and lead pipes. Do we even have an inventory of any homes, even the ones that were damaged at the tornado? Do we have any type of inventory on how many homes that still have lead pipes on North and South City that need to be replaced? Those are the type of things that are line items that we're not even talking about. We're just talking North City, North City. There's different neighborhoods. There's different problems. And I want you guys to think about strategic planning. because we need strategic planning. We can't just throw money at what we don't even know where it's going, okay? We've had problems with SLDC and the North City Small Business grant funding. That was a fumble, fumbled the ball on that. We fumbled the ball on downtown. Our downtown is one of the worst, is the worst downtown of any American city, period. Our airport is one of the worst of any American city, period. our city, north southeast city and north neighborhoods in North City, or the worst of any city. And that's due to bad leadership. That's due to fumbling the ball. And which is part of the reason why we even are talking about this money, because it's been a fumble after a fumble after a fumble. And we lost multiple football teams because of leadership fumbling the ball. So can we please come up with a solution, have conversations, hold off on just throwing money at problems that we don't even know what we're solving, because we can't, I haven't even heard anybody say what type of problem we're solving. We don't even know what problem we're solving. You know, we're just like throwing money at North City, throwing money at North City, but what specifically?

Mr. Coleman, that's your time.

Okay, let's think about strategic planning, please.

Can I have Karen Yang, please?

All right. My name is Karen Jalian Yang. I'm a resident of Ward 9. I work for Forward Through Ferguson as the Senior Director of Storytelling and Communications, but I am here speaking as a resident and someone who did following the tornado last year in consecutive days. I have the dirt, the grime, the sore shoulders from those times and those memories to prove it. I want to start with a quote from the Ferguson Commission report. Just take us back a decade. Our commission strongly believes that a better, more unified, more equitable St. Louis is not only possible, but worth pursuing together. And we hope that you will understand that what we have come to understand. We have discovered that once you know, you can't unknow. Once you know there was an EF3 tornado that ripped through a whole heart of St. Louis, you can't unknow it. Once you know that there are people whose houses have whole sides of them gone, you can't unknow it. Once you know that people were picking up the pieces and there were activists and organizers who had whole other jobs and also regular residents who made a whole grocery store for days and days and... put together box trucks full of immediate assistance. Once you know, you can't unknow it. $150 million, as we heard, is the bare minimum of what we owe to North St. Louis. Thank you, Dallas, for doing the calculations. It could be more. We need to sit down and really understand what we need to invest. And I appreciate Ahasa for telling us it's not just about stabilization, it's about revitalization. So if we have already accepted as a city 2,550 home repairs to stabilize and it takes 150 million, if we don't give them 150 million, which homes will you decide not to repair? How will you deliver that news? Will someone from the city tell it to their face? Or will we send an email that they won't get because they don't have Wi-Fi or technology or a stable roof over their heads? Or will they get a colored sticker on their home? Gray, your home was denied. We need to value people over profit. Are we going to give money to people wearing ill-fitting Brooks Brothers suits and tired Ann Taylor Loft outfits who are here to keep their six-year jobs? Or to real residents who have made their homes here, whose grandmothers kept walls full of real printed photos? Remember that? Walgreens, those printed photos, four by six. There was a resident who had them just taped on, scotch taped on to her walls because that's where she lived for generations. What are we gonna tell her grandchildren, their grandchildren who don't understand why they can't return to the north side yet?

Ms. Yang, that's your time. Thank you. I have no more guest speakers.

Is there anyone left online? Can we check online?

There's no more online.

Okay, great. President Green.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I definitely want to thank everyone who's come out today and shared your thoughts on this bill. As I said, this is the beginning, not the end of discussion here. At this point in time, I'd be willing to open it up for questions from the committee. And I know that there's several directors here from city departments that are willing to answer questions, and if they're not here, they're willing to come back in order to answer whatever questions the committee may have.

Thank you. Speaking of that, we will announce already we have another meeting scheduled for next week, even more accessible to community. It'll be at Julia Davis Branch Library, so if there was something that you didn't get a chance to say here, Please know that there will be other opportunities. I appreciate people taking the time. I don't take that for granted. I talk about this all the time. This is the only part of our legislative process that we get to hear from you all directly. So it's very important that you be here. It was very important that we tried to accommodate you as best we could in accessibility and timing. And just know that in my tenure down here, I've seen a change. I've seen a change in community. I've seen voices matter and make difference in not just legislatively, but in implementation, which sometimes is even more important than the legislative side. So again, thank you all for being here. And I'll open it up to my colleagues, Ottawa and Ms. Weiser.

And I do, before Alderwoman Spicer chimes in, just for everybody here to let you know, we have a couple of other committee hearings that are also happening at this time. So we've had a few people have to step in and out for votes on that. So it's not a slight for this hearing. It's just to make sure we have quorum in other places as well.

Thank you, and thank you, everyone, for being here. It's always just so important to hear from the community and hear feedback on what's in front of us. President Green, thank you for being here. How old is little Theo now? He is 26 days. 26 days. I appreciate that. I am blown away that you're here standing in front of us in person. So I don't know whether to say thank you or just say that you're crazy for being here to do that. Probably a little both. Yeah, maybe a little bit of both. Well, lots in this bill. I know that everyone's been working really hard to get to the point that were brought up that are important. The few questions I have, mostly around the water infrastructure funds, it's written in there as potentially forgivable. Potentially forgivable. Can you speak about that specific language?

So my understanding is Dr. Patel still here, not doctor, director, if you want to come back up.

All right. Hi there. Hi. So, yeah, you know, obviously the language in there, you know, does put it out there as a loan. You know, we would have access to $30 million immediately to use. You know, our plan is to leverage that for debt service, but we also have to be... in a position where we can go acquire debt. And as the comptroller spoke to earlier, acquiring that debt, whether it's on the private bond market or through the state revolving funds, does come with making sure that you're fiscally responsible to pay it back. I do feel like immediately the funds would be available to use for debt service, as is laid out there, but in 2036 it does have the water division paying that money back, either by that maturity date with zero interest or it can be forgiven. Certainly as a public utility, as a municipally owned utility that serves the public and tries to keep rates affordable and low, I would hope that that forgiveness would be there if we are financially not able to pay it back or struggling again with concept of another increase to continue doing the cip work uh you know that we would be heavy into by that time period so i don't know exactly the terms around that but again as a public utility i would think that it would be weighed heavily uh the forgiveness factor at that time

I appreciate what the comptroller talked about at the beginning during her comments. I don't think it should be a loan. I think it should just be direct investment into the water division, into water infrastructure. Potentially forgivable just means the rate payers are going to have to shoulder it, which is all of us, the people who are paying for their water. So I didn't... And then the words are being potentially forgivable is an interesting choice that it could or couldn't be because you're saying that it might be forgiven, but that's not what forgivable means. Forgivable means it could be. Potentially forgivable means it may or may not be possible to forgive it, which isn't the same as just forgivable, if that makes sense. So that was a bit concerning for me. I think I'd like to talk a little bit more to the sponsors about that as we continue these conversations. Thank you. That's all I have for water division. Oh, I do want to say there's some public comment about the Water Division, about why the city is not considering bonds instead of using this money. Please go back and watch the town halls that the Water Division has been doing and look at the conversations around the rate proposal. There are so many sources of funds that the Water Division needs to meet the $700 million of capital and bonds are very much part of that. That is just a really important piece. I want to make sure anyone watching at home is wondering why use these funds for water. It's to be able to borrow, to Director Patel's points, to be able to borrow a lot more money for water. The piece in here about the rec centers, you said that they're specific economic justice index locations chosen, which, you know, in the first war we have Cronulla Park rec plex, so that would not be a potential site for receiving any of the rec center money?

I'm not sure what EJI track.

Yeah, I was looking at the map, but I couldn't tell if it was either EJI 3 or 4, and I can't tell on the map. We can look that up. Yeah, because I was just interested, like, is that the only rec center that's not included? Because I was thinking about where the rec centers are, and if that was just the one, that wouldn't be picked. And Gondolet Park Rec Center does serve an incredibly diverse population of the city, and so I would hate to see it being... the one rec center that's singled out from being included. So I'd like to look at that. I'd like to see the match language for downtown included more specifically in the bill. That I found, you know, we've talked about it a lot. It's in the public conversation, but it's not explicitly written into the bill that the funds can only be accessed through a match, which, while not something that would alleviate all the concerns expressed today, might... I think would be an important piece to talk about. The Event Attraction Fund, I would like a little bit more information about how that works with the state funds and that we talked about in previous board bills. We had a board bill that allowed the city to accept some of those funds, and I'm just trying to understand how that all plays out. I wasn't aware that we had to provide an additional match to access those funds, so that was confusing to me.

Are you talking about the entertainment district? Yes, thank you. Okay. Entertainment district is a separate entity from the sports authority or the sports commission. And that is a special designation that was given through a state law. that allows for things like security and beautification and things like that for downtown. It does not go into a specific bucket for entertainment purposes, even though it is called an entertainment district. It's basically seeing the entirety of downtown. as its entertainment area or an entertainment district, but it's not specifically focusing on the recruitment of different events and things like that into our downtown.

Got it, so it's just completely different. Correct. Funding needs, okay, interesting. Okay, those are my questions for now. I think that my other members of the committee will have a lot of questions, and we have more time, thankfully. I'm glad we have so much committee time to keep talking about this. Thank you. Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Sorry, was Alderman McKee online?

Is she still on the committee?

She had asked to drop this committee.

Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Adam and Aldridge.

Thank you. And thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. First, congrats being back, Madam President. You're like a few weeks out.

I am semi-back is the way that I'm saying it. I'm here for Rams. I'm not here for everything.

Yeah. Yet. Good for you for even just, yeah, I think it shows how important this is to you and clearly to, like, you know, the rest of a lot of people out the city. I'm going to save my comment towards the end, but I want to get, I guess, a little bit more into the detail of the bill. Just to piggyback on the conversation that you and all the women twice were having, yes, so the entertainment district bill is more for, like, infrastructure, sidewalks, lighting, kind of stuff that SIDS do, and I think... the entertainment is trying to attract like Figure Four and NCAA and all those where they put down money when they go out for these bids to then kind of attract them. But I know those reps are here to be able to talk with you about that. Going back, so I want to, and maybe this is a question for the comptroller, if you can figure this out. You know, she started off saying, you know, she did this brief that she did send to the board, I think, last week, and that she's not telling the board how to spend the money, but she is saying $40 million is what, like, the water division need to be successful, which is kind of interpreting that she is telling us how to spend it. But I'm more curious on her saying only leave 10,000 in reserves will mean that we would have a healthy fiscal analysis when currently the city of St. Louis have more in our reserves than typical agencies would actually recommend for a city to have in reserves. It would be interesting of where she's getting that 10 million.

10 million.

The 10 million that she believes should stay in reserve for RAMS for healthy when right now the reason our credit rating has went up under the previous comptroller was due to, in previous administrations, was because we have technically more money in reserves than most agencies would want us to have in reserves. Like, the city isn't hurting for money. I think we got, like, over $100 million in our general revenue reserves. So that would be helpful. For me, I think I want to go to the downtown bucket. I also agree with all women's rights. It would... You know, I'm unique because I got downtown and north side, right? But for the last, this is a second Rams bill that this board is now looking at. And I know for several conversations, there has been comments that there would be match. First, it was a one-to-one match. Then it was a two-to-one match. And now we're at a three-to-one match, you know. it would be, I think, helpful for us to know from the downtown leaders what will be matched, because there's multiple buckets in that, and where is that match coming from? Are they matching the riverfront funds? Are they matching the strategic capital funds? Are they matching the infrastructure funds? Are they matching the tourism kind of fund? Which one? Which I think brings me to my concern with one of the buckets and the downtown one is the infrastructure. The 15 million of infrastructure, are they going to match us? I think about the 50-50 sidewalk. Are we going to use some of that money for sidewalks and then they're going to match some of the sidewalks or they're going to match repaving of the streets? And if they're not matching that, I can see where the match comes in with the strategic capital and other spots. But if they're not matching infrastructure, which infrastructure is important, I think some of those funds for infrastructure, and I've been on record of saying that Those can be done by city dollars. You know, I mean, I'm committed to using like war capital to do some of the work for infrastructure. And it'd be great to see kind of maybe that be repurposed to like the north side bucket if clearly infrastructure is something that. isn't going to be matched so just i think having more clarity on what is matching and what is the plan for the downtown infrastructure um would you like me to see if somebody from gsl can speak to that is anybody willing jeff anyone willing to speak to that I know I rumbled off so much I forgot as a question and answer.

Thank you, President Green. So first question about- Could you state your name, please? Yes, I'm sorry. It's Jeff Mazer, Greater St. Louis Inc. Yes. Thank you. So the first question about the nature of the match, will you lay that out for me one more time?

Yeah, I mean, I think myself and all the women whites are asked about this of like, what does that match look like? And maybe maybe tighter language in the bill that those funds can be access into the match. But what? Yeah. What is what are you thinking when you think about is it three to one match now?

So I want to dissuade you from the three to one match notion. That was a thing that I know our CEO, Ron Kitchens, said in the context of the press event when he was asked a question about the match. Is it a two to one match? I'm sorry? Is it a two to one match? So what he's committed to and what we've committed to very clearly is that the $55 million in the bill, we believe we can find and facilitate private sector match for that $55 million investment in downtown. Now, I think where he's talked about three to one and all that was the idea that... I'm sorry?

If you can let them answer on record, it's good to just get them on the record.

Sure. This is all uncertain, right? We have to go out and find private sector match that will bring this money in, and that's what we're committed to do.

So... You're committed to the 55. If it did drop to 50, is GSL still committed to, I guess, matching

GSL is doing everything we can to find money to match the downtown investments in this bill. We want to understand what's included in the bill. That's very important, right? To your point, I think it's much harder for us to find private sector match for infrastructure investment. It may be much easier to find private sector match for catalytic projects and development in downtown or matching funds for the riverfront projects.

And so out of the buckets, and like I said, I'll be transparent. Like, you know, I do want to see more funding go to Northside. And as somebody who represents downtown, I'm not saying that funds should not go to downtown. But I also need to just understand, you know, this is, again, like the second iteration of these Rams conversation we've been hearing matching. I think the last go-round when you all talked about matching funds, it was matching funds of projects that, like, the city was already working on. what is the it sounds like you say you guys are committed but clearly there's no fleshed out plan which one of the individuals talked about what the bill is like it if we're going to be putting money let's make sure it's a plan there's no like flushed out plan that if this was the past by next week 55 to gsl that you guys could identify we have three four people that are ready to match a project and are those projects identified?

Well, there's projects that are included in the bill, right? Like those are fixed.

So if we start with the bill, the first project of $15 million, I think, is the strategic capital project, which would be like railway exchange building. You guys would be willing to match that?

We believe there's private sector investment that's ready to flow into downtown once that building has been acquired and prepared for redevelopment.

And the riverfront... is not necessarily something you all be matching. Is that a different organization?

Again, I want to be clear. It's not Greater St. Louis Inc. that has a pile of $55 million. We don't have that kind of money. We're a nonprofit organization that exists to represent civic leaders and the business community across 15 county footprints. So there's not $55 million sitting there waiting to be deployed in some bucket. What we're committed to doing is going out there and finding philanthropic givers, finding folks in the business community who want to bring a match against some of these projects. So it's hard to know until we know exactly what the projects are. And I think to Ron's point at the press conference that you're referencing about the three-to-one match, it might be that it's very challenging to find even a one-to-one match for the infrastructure piece, but it may be that there's a two- or three-to-one match on infrastructure. riverfront investments or on catalytic properties, strategic properties downtown. So that's why there's just this question about the match and what it goes towards and how we want to structure that.

And I just want to, like I said, I'm not trying to be the bad guy, but I want to make sure that, you know, we've challenged during this committee, the budget committee, even the north side recovery office on the lack of and some alders of lack of way that those funds get out the door. Even though I would like to see more, there's clearly need to be some hard questions answered, you know, as we probably move forward with this bill to make sure that those dollars actually get out the door because we don't want to be selling people dreams up here. And when it gets to downtown, yes, I represent downtown. It would be great, again, being almost 365 days after a previous bill where different leadership. But we heard the same matching thing. And I can't point to what that looks like. And the only thing that I'm hearing is that we believe. So if we put this pot of money and then that belief doesn't happen, what is the consequence? Or how do we make sure that there is communication between the legislative branch to be like, actually, that matching fund is not coming, or again, or don't even know what the project is to match.

Sure. So last time around, there was a letter that committed the nature of the investment or the nature of the commitment from the private sector to the Board of Aldermen around the match. And I think we're happy to have a conversation about what that looks like, how we can commit that in writing again.

Okay. And then, so with some of the last thing that I guess question for you, and I appreciate you being up here, Jeff. Of course. Have you had, I mean, clearly the infrastructure bucket seems simple. You know, are y'all looking at matching infrastructure?

Again, it's very hard to go out and find people who are willing to put cash on the barrelhead to commitment of a project that isn't firm yet in the bill, right? There are these buckets in the bill. But there's nothing, like the board hasn't passed that. We don't know. So I think what we need and want to do is be in conversation with you all. conversation with the president and the mayor to understand what that commitment looks like, how it works mechanically, like you just mentioned, how that money rolls out, and be clear on that as we move forward here. We're ready to have that conversation. We think the time is right for it and it's appropriate. We want to see an investment in downtown by the city that we know we can go out and get funds from the private sector to augment. That's our goal here.

Yeah, and I would say it's not that I don't want to see investment. I just want to make sure, again, you know, I would assume with the conversations that's been going on for a year with Match that we would have had a little bit more idea. You know, we got 10,000 or 10 million on the table from Enterprise because they're ready to match X, Y, and Z. Like, you know, that we would have a little bit harder of a commitment instead of being kind of at square one of we're just looking.

We saw the allocations in this bill two Fridays ago, Alderman. So, you know, that's...

So the allocation, I guess, you say you've seen the allocation two weeks ago. So you find with that, I guess...

Okay.

Okay. Kind of a little bit of a problem, I think, even with this RAMS process that's going around. But I will say I do appreciate how the president has been in conversation with Alders and stuff. And I know things are moving quick. But it would be good before we just put numbers on the table, maybe 55. isn't enough, or maybe 55 is too much if we don't have the idea of how we move in forward. And I think that's critical, not just for your bucket, but also hard questions we need to ask about other buckets as well.

Like other folks have set up here today, there's a whole design downtown plan that has hundreds of millions of dollars of projects and things that can be funded that will help drive towards a plan that's already been developed by people in the community. So we know there are projects out there in the downtown bucket that we can find match toward. I think the question of how we do it mechanically is an open question. It's one we should explore, one we should figure out. I understand we lack certainty just like you do about all this. We wanna understand how we move forward so we can maximize the match, maximize the spend downtown and the impact.

Yeah. And I'm not being again, I'm not trying to be adversarial. I just want to make sure that and if need to have conversations, definitely willing to have conversation to figure out what that looks like and being at the table to be able to make sure that, you know, as this move forward, that it's a comfortable vote and not just. going out on a limb for an area that I represent, and to be clear, live downtown, but I'm a Northside born and raised individual. But that would just be helpful as this process moves over the next few weeks. And then I guess I appreciate you.

Of course. Appreciate you, Mr. Mays.

I guess no more questions for downtown. Thank you. It looks like Julian.

And Julian will have to go soon, so if there are questions for him, if we can do that. Oh, is he here? He is here, yes.

Yes. Hello, sir. Hello, Julian. So you was in front of the budget committee weeks ago. And am I not mistaken that the money that we are allocating currently through the Ramsville for Northside, you had mentioned that you had a different figure of what Northside would need, especially with housing recovery. And I think the limitation of doing one home is like $50,000. But your number was much different from what is in front of us. How can 110 get you through the work that's necessary? And I think you was looking closer to like that 150 or what you had mentioned, which is on record.

Yeah, so what I said on record, and I'll say it again, similar to all the other buckets, if we wanted to fund every single application, which includes individuals, it includes entities, it includes occupied and unoccupied dwellings that were damaged by the tornado, which is around 2,500 applications at 50,000, that would be closer to that larger number. So how much the Board of Aldermen decides to allocate into that bigger bucket is ultimately up to the Board of Aldermen. The number that's been proposed was a way for us to start to make a major investment for the work that would take place over the next year into home repair to make progress there. But if you're asking if it fits the full need, no. There's a $2 billion hole in North Carolina for the tornado, and this is a very small start in that much.

And I agree. I think if we put all the Rams money to the north side, you know, we are talking about a billion dollar hole. you know, disinvestment outside of the tornado. So I don't want to sell no dreams. They're like, oh, if we put it all there, it's going to be whole. But I just want to be clear of somebody who's been boots on the ground yourself that's been doing the work in the Office of Recovery, the number that you mentioned to at least not necessarily make St. Louis whole, but start to address some of those homes, it's a little different from what is being proposed.

Yes. So what I said is if we put in all 2,500 applications for private property systems, includes individuals, entities, and occupied and unoccupied structures at the time of the tornado, that total number would be the 2,500 times 50,000, which would be about 125 million. So that's the full kind of need if we wanted to fund every single home repair application that applied. And so what our work is from our team prioritizing how depending on how much the Board of Aldermen decides to allocate because I recognize that water needs more like everything needs more whatever the Board of Alder allocate we will come up with how we prioritize that work and continue to work with our state and federal partners to try to bridge the dollar the capital gap for remaining homes okay appreciate you I know you got to go maybe other people got questions for you one question on the 50-50 is that in the Northside bucket Sorry, which one?

The 50-50 sidewalk program.

No, 50-50 sidewalk is all in the city infrastructure bucket.

The city infrastructure here?

So the thing that we would fund out of the tornado recovery is just sidewalks that were damaged by the tornado, specifically by uprooted trees, which is about 90 sidewalks.

Gotcha. We can go back to the 50-50. I do think 50-50 program is outdated, and I can't flake that. The fact that we'll be even putting money to it instead of trying to look at a new process, I don't know if that's the smartest. That means that we as alders would have to use ward capital for the 50-50 and what that plan looks like moving forward. Due to limited time for you, Julian, and I don't know if others got questions, I appreciate it. I appreciate everybody who came out. I would love to see more additional funds going to Northside, and I do also think that our water infrastructure is critical as well.

I'll just ask a quick question. Outside of this, if this wasn't on the table right now, I thought there was already funding or a plan or process for the sidewalks that were tornado damaged.

So there's only funding for the sidewalks that are deemed FEMA eligible. So there are other sidewalks that are, so for example, if you have one slab that was uprooted by, and this is FEMA guidelines, if you have, for example, a tree that's fallen on the cityscape side that's on the street side that's fell, one of those sidewalks may need to be repaired directly because of that damage. That's FEMA funded. But let's say, for example, there are two or three that are similarly right beside it that are cracked or messed up because maybe it just never got fixed in the past. we don't want to come and just do one spot leaving three broken sidewalks right beside it but those other ones aren't female eligible and would require an allocation to be able to fix those in one swoop so that's what the additional funding would be for it before the additional ones that go alongside the broken eligible sidewalks

And is there a figure on that already, or you all are still?

Yeah, so we roughly estimated that the full sidewalk repairs were about 2 million, which about 500,000 of it funded. But I need to check with my team to get you those final numbers so I can get you what those updates are.

Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Sanyo?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Real fast, just answer his question. Take two seconds. On the 50-50 program, so there are 4,000 people who are currently on that program. And so what this funding would do is fund those 4,000 that are currently on the list, but then it would be kind of Pilot money to move us to the block by block program that director Jackson talked about so we'd be essentially clearing the list of who exists now who's been waiting on it and then helping to transition to that new program and

Only thing that I will say about 50-50 and jump, I know I could see a lot of those sidewalks probably being south. I know a lot of folks in my ward don't entertain the 50-50 because it's just the funding that mechanism is not there. So that's why I say it don't work because it doesn't equitably work for every ward. But I appreciate the, yeah.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. I really just want to start out by thanking all the members of the public who are still with us, folks who are watching us online. I know that this is during a workday. There is a lot going on. I also just want to acknowledge my part. I've had a lot of conversations in community and moving about, and I know that there's been a lot of anger from residents of the Seventh Ward and honestly across the city about a sense of political malfeasance. on our behalf and so I just think it's really important as a part of this board to just kind of acknowledge that there's a righteous anger, that this process is moving slow, that funds are moving slow, and that there are folks in need. So I just want to start off by making sure that I attest that I think that's true and I'm glad we have finally gotten to this conversation. I do have questions, and some of these may be requests. I would echo the comments that have come before about matching funds and having some clarity within the legislation about what that looks like. I think that someone or, you know, folks can stand in front of a mic and say anything, but I think as legislators, our juice and our teeth, what we put into the legislation, there is some language within the bill that, you know, says matching funds, but I think now that we're officially having these conversations, we should get in and figure out what that looks like. You know, are we going to have matching funds for the entire bucket. Is there a desire to do matching funds for the bucket withstanding the infrastructure things? I just think that that's important to have. You know, clarity-wise, I can say, as I've said in several meetings, that for me, and as we've seen today, many of my residents understand that a bulk of these funds will not be necessarily directly benefiting them beyond the infrastructure funds. But in that case, the response that I get from residents is like, well, if you expect us to, you know, pass up on dollars to come to ours to go to downtown, we want to see what those partners have on the table. So that would be really helpful for me to have to go through my community lane. This is the commitment that's there. And then, you know, as we discuss an amendment, I think there needs to be something within the legislation that speaks to what that can look like that I can point residents to. I also would just like to see any specific plans that are available for the downtown bucket, whether it's event action, whether it's the riverfront, as specific as we can get to explain like tangibly what these things will look like for folks. I know I mentioned this in meetings before and I haven't necessarily received the specifics, but it would be nice to be able to point out this is what the access is for and this is what we envision with this amount, this is what we would get. And I guess for questions, I would actually start with the water department, if Ms. Taylor's here.

Do you have any questions for Julian before he goes?

I mean, Mr. Nix, I know you got my email today. I pretty much put it on the table. I just have a desire for the tornado-impacted area or for the long-term plans. I really do think that the Affordable Housing Commission should be the department to take the lead on that. I think it could be in consultation with the Office of Recovery. I think they shouldn't touch anything that we're expecting, like FEMA reimbursement. or Office of Recovery funds on, but I think for a new construction process and for other things, they've been doing it for decades. They have relationships with the developers. They have a portal where they show before and after some of the things that I think are necessary, but I don't necessarily expect you to respond to that today, but I just do want to put on record to the public, to my colleagues, that I do plan on having that conversation about the option of really looking at their role and how it can be expanded with your office to deliver on some of the housing outcomes.

Yeah, no, and that's a great point. And so I do have conversations set up that April for affordable housing commission this week. So there's kind of two areas where affordable housing commission will or could play a big role alongside SODC. One of them is the neighborhood implementation. That's where the majority of new construction related projects and things like that would go. And then there's the affordable housing preservation, which is a subset of the overall tornado recovery fund program. Of course, the neighborhood implementation would come back to you all. That's not being allocated directly to the recovery office for oversight. That's being allocated into that fund. And then once a resolution is proposed, which won't be my office leading, but it will be SLDC, Affordable Housing Commission, depending on how that rolls out. So that would come back. to the Board of Aldermen, specifically the amount of dollars tied to affordable housing preservation. What I can promise is that whatever we bring back for how that money gets allocated between my office, SLDC, Affordable Housing Commission, we will make sure we're all on the same page around what's the best way to get those dollars out. And of course, if that's through the Affordable Housing Commission for that preservation dollars, that's good for our office too, to not have to take on that extra work. So I haven't gotten an answer back, but I'll get you an answer once I have my comments.

Thank you. Thank you. That's it. My other questions are really for just Mr. Patel. I just want to start by saying, obviously, we've had many conversations about the need for the water department for infrastructure. I know I've been on a at sometimes 11 PM, sometimes 5 AM around water main breaks. I don't think there's any of us that have any question for this. I do just want to preface some of my next questions, whether it's for this bucket or for the downtown bucket, with my core concern being that this has to be an equitable conversation and why I do think that absolutely you need money and you need funds for the water department and for infrastructure. The concern that I have for this legislation is for this funding pie is that there are other funding sources and opportunities for the water department. There are other funding sources and opportunities for downtown. The same cannot be said for North City. And so I just want to preference that for my questions that are coming, that while we're talking about the water department, absolutely, it's a need. But I know we just approved a data center. And there's supposed to be a large water. And that's supposed to help with our sales. I know that we just gave leftover ARPA money that we have from the water department. We've moved that to the water department. I know that any ARPA money that we have on table right now that is not going to be moved, that literally won't meet the deadline, that's going to be moved to the Water Department. And I know that there's legislation right now that is proposing a water rate increase for water. So that will go to the Water Department. So I just want to make sure that as we're having these conversations, I'm prefacing my questions with like the understanding, not a minimization of the need, but the understanding that there are folks in our city and areas of our city that don't have any of those opportunities. So for me, I think we do have to have a very strategic balance of how we leverage these dollars because there will be other opportunities for some of these other things. When I've tried to have conversations about what abundant opportunities look like for North City or what are other opportunities, I'm usually pointed back to the fact that those opportunities don't exist because of the economic bottleneck of certain neighborhoods. I just want to make sure that's preference. For you, my question is really if you can speak to how you envision that $30 million being used. I know that we've been talking about a range of anywhere from 30 to 60. from last conversation, so if you could speak to kind of how that $30 million was leveraged, and if you feel like that helps you to sufficiently do what you need to do, especially with the other opportunities for the water department on the table.

Sure, no, you know, there are funding options that are out there. I've mentioned the state revolving fund loans, that's federal money for water infrastructure, you know, that we can access and get a subsidized interest rate. Our plan with the Rams funds is to obtain state revolving fund loans as debt. They would purchase bonds. We would have access to those funds to do project work. We've done them before. Back in 2013, we did about $10 million worth of SRF loan that got 14 projects, you know, built. Two new pumps at the Chain of Rocks plant, you know, several water main projects that were, you know, installed, replaced water mains, you know, a valve assessment that was done that went out and exercised all of our valves and did a condition assessment on them, found many of them, you know, failing in need of replacement. The level of debt that we're going for now with the $700 million CIP that we have will certainly put a stress on water rates. And water rates are number one form of revenue that supports the operations, the capital work that will go on. What the $30 million in RAMS funds would allow us to do is immediately access funds to leverage against those bonds. It would act as a reserve that would be coupled with the rates, coupled with ongoing improvement of the rates to support the CIP, but we would pay down debt service in state revolving fund loans that we would acquire. Over a hundred million dollars worth of SRF loan is in our 10-year CIP coupled with you know a little over 200 million dollars in Traditional revenue bonds that we would go for when we were in a fiscally viable position to go after that debt again all of this comes together as a strategic plan to utilize whatever funding sources we have available, but immediately This would bring funds in to support going after those SRF loans and debt service. The projects would be over 30 water main replacements that we've identified. We've applied for this to the state. We have to show that we have rates and show that we have a reserve. that we are lendable and right now we do not have a reserve even with the ARPA reallocations. Certainly we still owe money to the city for the franchise tax. We are upside down and have been for several years not able to go after debt to do this work. And so now we have this strategic plan, this comprehensive master plan that we're working on, this rate sufficiency study. The RAMS funding piece allows us to start going after that debt immediately rather than waiting until when our reserves are able to go after that debt later on. when our rates are able to go after that later on. And the rates are going to be a strain on the ratepayers. We understand that. We've built in an affordability rate that will have people who qualify paying less after all of the increases than they are today.

And you use the term fiscally reliable positions. So does $30 million put you in the fiscally reliable position, or do you feel that you need additional monies to be in a fiscally reliable position?

So the amount does control the amount of debt we can go after. The $700 million that we know is in our CIP cannot be supported with one funding bucket alone. The more money that we have available in the bank to act as O&M reserve, to pay down debt service, the more aggressively we can go after that CIP. I think there's over a billion dollars actually needed in the water infrastructure that we have. 1,300 miles of water main, you know, on average at least a million and a half per mile. The treatment plants are huge in scale, and from 1894 and 1929, you know, a new treatment plant could cost easily $500 million on its own. That's aside from the water mains, and we do have two treatment plants, and so I think, again, any funding that we have, we will put to good use to leverage, but The whole piece of being fiscally sound to be able to go after that debt does require that we have O&M reserve in the bank at least 90 days. The comptroller earlier mentioned that that is bare minimum. We would like to see closer to maybe 120 days of O&M reserve in our reserve. in our funds so that we can go after a significant amount of debt and that rams piece you know at 30 million will allow us to start but uh you know we'll need to build a reserve back up with rates as well and so we can aggressively go after that cip based on the amount of money that we have to start

So 30 million does give you enough to aggressively go after the CIP?

It gives us a start.

Okay. Because, you know, again, I know that our water department has about a billion dollars in needs, and I think that's also what the estimated damage is in North City. So I'm just trying to get the numbers on the record. I think that's it for water. I just wanted to clarify that number. I don't really know who is responsible just for speaking to the downtown bucket, but that would be my next question.

Is Steven Westbrook still here? Steven's joining online, so he'll be able to speak to more of those questions.

So I just wanted to talk a little bit about we have $15 million specifically for infrastructure in the downtown bucket. I think everything else has a pretty specific use. My question around this is I know that there are several SIDS and special business districts and innovation districts and entertainment districts and several other things that have the purpose of being able to meet this infrastructure need. There are also two alders that cover it, so there were capital options. I'm just trying to understand, is there a specific vision for this specific portion of the $15 million in infrastructure, and is it believed that there are not other existing entities, as we celebrated something else passing last week, that could also make these investments into the infrastructure downtown?

I can speak a little to that before Steven gets online, but what I would say is I think a big portion of the downtown infrastructure funds are to get us ADA compliant. The city does have an ADA accessibility plan. We are, if you could, 7 million? 4 million of it is just for getting us within compliance for ADA accessibility. So if we see folks downtown all the time in wheelchairs who are riding in the street, not on our sidewalks, obviously a very unsafe environment to do that. And so four million of that would be getting us compliant. And then the rest would be for pedestrian friendly infrastructure. So making it more easily accessible to walk, bike, all of that downtown. But you do have a good question. There are other mechanisms as well that can pay for infrastructure-related costs, whether that is Ward Capital or some of the SIDS or the Entertainment District. And so there are potentially other buckets of money that can be pulled from My understanding is that these infrastructure funds are also intended to be used as matching funds So a lot of times when we're going after larger state Infrastructure funding we have to have a local match that's anywhere from 10 to 25 percent and so the goal is to be able to use as much of it as possible to leverage additional funds

Okay. You know, I really do support ADA compliance. I know many Seventh Warders do too, but I do want to uplift. Again, yes, ADA compliance is important, but we know we could go to North City and see blocks with no sidewalks at all. So, you know, as we have this conversation, I'm just... Again, for me, my vote on this legislation is going to be really content on us having very specific youth. We have to justify either to residents that literally were just homeowners a year and a half ago and that are now homeless. These dollars are going to go to them. I have to go justify to my residents these dollars are not going to go to them. I really want to see a tone in on not having any duplicated uses and really thinking about, like specifically in this bucket, that's really what catches my eye is just the infrastructure things. Pedestrian friendly things I would love to do. But I know when I go back to my ward and I just have to be honest, I just have to be honest and speak on behalf of my residents and tell them about pedestrian friendly infrastructure. I can think of one neighborhood meeting that when I tell them that, they're going to probably have a lot of laughter and maybe some criticism because they're going to point to very recent examples downtown where infrastructure that was put in was removed. So these are just going to be, you know, I just think these things have to be a part of the conversation that we're having that, yeah, that's important, but ADA compliance versus a block A mother not having a sidewalk at all to push her toddler in in the stroller. An elder not having a sidewalk at all. I think that's really important. And again, as we sit and have this conversation where there are several underfunds that could do that, there are war capital funds that could do that. And truthfully, I think a part of that conversation might also, not just to downtown, but even to just all elders, I think As a body, we should also have a conversation about those of us who may also be sitting on funds that could be used for some of these things. And I'm just saying this because as we get closer in the conversation, I got to be able to go back and explain it to my residents. And I know that these are things that come up. So I would definitely appreciate any specific plans for the downtown pocket. If it's $4 million that is supposed to go into ADA compliance, I think that is something that matters. But if you're talking about needing more funds to go to North City and you're talking about areas with no sidewalk at all, I think that's pretty important to have in that conversation. And also pedestrian-friendly infrastructure. If I was able to get any specific plans on ideas, even if it's a menu, these are all the things we're thinking of doing and putting in downtown that are pedestrian-friendly, that would be really, really helpful for me. And I know you just mentioned kind of one of my questions is you said that also maybe they will leverage it for state and federal matches in that bucket. Can you expand upon that point?

So throughout the bill, you'll notice that there's language for each of these funds that prioritize being used for state and federal match. Whenever we have access to additional funds and can use these funds to help leverage additional TO DO THAT. AND SO THERE HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN STATE FUNDS WHETHER IT'S THE TAP GRANT WHICH IS THE TRANSPORTATION ACCESS, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, REQUIRES THAT LOCAL MATCH AND FOR SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT MATCH JUST OUT OF WARD CAPITAL IS can take two years, three years of award capital budget. And so being able to have funds on hand to go after some of those grant opportunities and know that that local match exists is the thought behind it.

Excellent. I did also want to put on the record that I know we had a lot of testimony today about the recreation centers. I've said constantly that that's kind of the thing that I get asked about a lot from behalf of Seventh Waters is, are you guys going to spend a quarter of a billion dollars and not give any money to the youth? And so I am glad to see the inclusion of recreation centers here. I think that it is helpful for us to get clarity on what that could look like, because I do think it's important for us to set expectations on the front end. I feel like we've learned that from other pieces of legislation. So I think to all the women Schweitzer's question earlier, it would be good for us to have a good idea of what recreation centers are eligible according to the EJI one. And also, you know, to be, even me personally, I want to be able to tell my constituents, yeah, I know we have Buddha Park recreation, but based on this, I don't know if these funds will actually reach that, which I'm okay with so long as recreation centers get it. But I do think it's important that we,

expectations that early on, we can get a list that exists within EJI 123 for those recreation centers. And we also have a list of the capital needs that are currently outstanding for them.

Excellent, and then that really actually completes my question, and I would just wrap this up with saying I really do wanna see the Affordable Housing Commission take a lead in some of the work that happens. I consistently get questions about are we contracting this out, are we contracting that out, I can't follow the money, I don't know what's going on. I think involving the Affordable Housing Commission and some of those long-term housing efforts will help us to be able to be transparent We'll take some of the work, Office of Recovery have a significant work to do based on funds they've already been allocated and they're working to get ready to launch those things out. So I think it will kind of share or lift the burden in that way. But that really completes my commentary. And also, Madam President, I don't know if I really like seeing someone who just gave birth 26 days before of us, but I do commend your service, but I also... Moms could, like, give birth and then actually just be a mom. We don't live in that world. We have ramp settlement, but I commend you for being back. I hope Theo is doing well, and I hope that you go home right after you leave here.

Yes, I will be doing that.

Thank you.

I don't want Ms. Weiss to...

Thank you. I had one note that I didn't get to talk about. I have some concern about language around business funding only because we've had such an issue with American Rescue Plan Act funds for business funding. And I think that... When there are issues that are huge and very public and embarrassing, frankly, the city, it makes me concerned to see that similar language show up in another bill. So I need a lot more comfort around that topic in order to support that aspect. I understand the need. Believe me, I think to the points that we've been making here, there's not anything in here that's not... Mostly everything in here seems like a real need for our city. I am concerned about that language. Interestingly enough, unlike my other colleagues with the downtown fund, the public infrastructure piece is my favorite part of the downtown fund. I think that when I think about what we should be using this money for, it's things that the city's responsible for doing. And the city is responsible for a lot of, the city's responsible for the public infrastructure, more or less, at least finding the funds for it, getting the match dollars. So that is a portion of this bill that I really hope doesn't decrease at all. So thank you for your time and for the extra time, Madam Chairwoman.

And I know, I don't know if Steven was able to join or not, but he was, we can arrange him to come back because he was planning on walking through some of the kind of safeguards that they've put in place and what they're thinking for small business support going forward. because I think all of us recognize that. I think the figure that I last had was that there's 300 Northside businesses that have closed since the tornado. I mean, when we're talking about economic impact in our city, that is a huge economic impact to have that many. that are no longer in existence. And so many could not go after the SBA loans because they had no money to pay back a loan. And so we've been in, I think, a pretty dire situation when it comes to a lot of those small businesses. But we can get him back here at a later date to talk through some of the safeguards and what they're looking at going forward to make sure we don't replicate some of the mistakes of the past.

Okay, is there anybody, any other speakers that you have for yourself online that wanted to follow up? I think that today it was a good starting point and a good catch up for you, right? Coming back. And I'm glad that you were in a position to be able to, because I know how important this is for all of us to have this kind of leadership in place and this commitment in place. I think for me, when I say starting point, I say that wholeheartedly because I do believe that there's some things that can be CHANGED IN THE NUMBERS. I DO BELIEVE THERE'S SOME REDUNDANCY. I DO BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS SOUND LIKE VERY WELL-NARRATED PLANS, AND US AS AUTHORS HERE ALL THE TIME ABOUT WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER PLAN. WE KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. PEOPLE ARE DOING THE WORK. SO AT THIS POINT, WHAT I TALKED ABOUT, THE IMPLEMENTATION PIECE, I MEAN, IF THEY CAN'T SEE AND FEEL THIS MONEY, THEN IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL. in any part of it and all other parts are important but I do believe that some of these parts can be moved around and I think it was very good for all of us to hear from the residents today on what that can look like. Even though we have heard some of these things for so many times before, I mean, it's heartbreaking to continue to hear these stories. Now today puts us a step closer to getting it right, not being caught up in some of the false narratives and the misinformation. misunderstandings that people get up and talk about. But the real part of it, making sure that people know how this is going to directly impact and directly get down to the ground where it needs to. So again, we are going to have these continued conversations. This was not the only chance. Not only do you get to participate in hearings this way, you can also participate virtually. You can participate by sending written comment. You can participate by calling your alder or any alder for that matter in the president's office at any time. to talk about this because we don't want a rematch of what we had last time. I see today, I'm going to be honest, I heard some things today that to me sound like people are trying to disrupt it more than work collectively to get it done. And that's okay. That's always part of it. But we have a responsibility now more than ever to get this done. So... Again, we'll announce it in announcements when the next meeting is, but if that, I want to make sure if you didn't have anything. Did you want to repeat about your portal that's still open?

I will just, for anybody who has not gone online and participated in the portal, it's stlewis.govocal.com. Please give us feedback on the bill. It has some pretty specific questions to get that feedback along with the feedback that we've gotten here today. As I said, this, from the very beginning this bill has to build trust is one of the things that it has to do and that's one of the reasons that we started the rams engagement process you know two years ago was to make sure that community was deeply engaged in the formation of the bill and that whatever these funds are actually spent on it is deeply reflective of what community is saying while recognizing that there are multiple needs across our community. And so I think this is a good start to a bill that puts forward a deep commitment to community engagement and a lot of what we're hearing, but we know the work doesn't stop at the end of today's hearing. So I look forward to hearing more from folks next Wednesday evening and going forward. And we will continue the work on the legislative end you know amend and change and do all the work that we need to do to make sure that at the end of the day this is truly reflective of community and the survey closes tomorrow at midnight and we will give those results at the being on june 3rd to the public so just note on that as well

Thank you. That portal and that information all goes out once it gets in. They do a great job of getting that to all of us here, not just at the HUD's committee, but our entire board. In a drive, speaking of that, when you send in the written comments that I talked about, even if you come and speak and you didn't get to say everything you wanted to say, I still encourage you to send in written comments. One of my constituents, Lisa Potts, texted me and said, hey, I sent in written comments today. Those written comments go into the drive, and they go as our record, public record, as minutes of this meeting. So these are ways to really capture and make sure that your voice is heard. I'm making sure that's SLDC. If they didn't want to say anything before we closed out, they just popped in. Okay. Madam Clerk, do we have any resolutions for review? We have none. I know I already talked about Ms. Potts' written testimony, but did we have any additional?

We had four more.

Four more. Okay, thank you. The announcement, I'll make it here, but it'll also be on the website, and you can reach out about it again if you need any additional information, is that our next HUD's committee hearing on Board Bill 22 will be on June, I'm sorry, yeah, already June 3rd, 26th at Julia Davis Library. I'm very excited that they're back open with the Cavendish Branch Library that we reopened last week after the tornado. It'll be 6 p.m. Again, you'll be able to come in person or participate virtually thanks to STL TV and all the work that they do. And then we will also have our regularly scheduled 11 a.m. on Tuesday hoods meet. Well, so with that, I don't have any excused members, so I will accept a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

It was moved and seconded with a previous roll that we adjourned. Thank you, everyone. Have a blessed day.