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. Vice Chair Sonnier. Alderman Browning.

Present.

Alderman Aldred.

Present.

Chair Clark Hubbard. Here. Alderman Cohn, Vice Chair Sonnier, we have four present.

All right. With that, I will accept a motion to approve the minutes from Tuesday, June 9th, 2026.

I make a motion that we approve the minutes from June 9th, Tuesday, 2026. Second.

It was moved by Alderman Aldridge and seconded by Alderman Browning that we approve the minutes from Tuesday, June 9th, 2026. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Cohn. Alderwoman Schweitzer. Aye. Vice Chair Sonnier. Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard. Aye. Alderman Cohn. Vice Chair Sonnier. We have four aye votes.

Aye.

So noted. Five aye votes.

All right. We'll move forward. We're going to switch up the agenda a little bit and move forward with Board Bill 44. Alderman Keyes, you're recognized. She's not online.

Okay.

He's actually calling me, so I'm going to pass the phone to you, Madam Clerk. Just say hello. Don't put it on speaker.

OK.

I'm gonna give a brief pause for all the woman keys to arrive, as we know that you all wanted to go first. Thank you all the woman, Ms. Weiser, for allowing them to take a board bill 44 first. Anyone in the room that wanted to speak that's not with the department, you may need to sign up. Just make sure you signed up on the sign-in sheet over by Madam Clerk. I know we do have representatives from the comptroller's office here. So. I don't know if you all, you know what, why don't you all come on up and just make introductions that way whenever.

Oh, here she is. Good. Okay.

We were trying to roll it. Here she is. Okay. Yes. Board Bill 44, you are recognized.

Thank you.

for my lateness this morning. We are here for Board Bill 44. And if I could please have the Clerk to read the summary.

Board Bill 44, introduced by Alderwoman Laura Keyes. This city of St. Louis is the owner of certain real property located at 4052 Camellia Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, 6315. The property currently sits as vacant and will be a side lot for owner William Jarman. The sale price is $200. This proposed bill will have a positive impact on the community as it will help beautify the neighborhood and surrounding areas.

All right. Thank you. So the gentleman mentioned here, Mr. Jarman, has been caring for this lot for a number of years. This board bill actually was filed in the last session and somehow fell through the cracks. We didn't get a hearing. And so I am here today asking for us to continue that work on behalf of Mr. Jarman. It is a very small sliver of a lot. It's not very big at all, but he was thoughtful enough to continue to care for it and made the request to actually have that as part of his yard so that he could continue to care for it.

Thank you. Would you like your representatives to speak at all or just be here for questions?

All right.

We'll go through with questions. Alderman Cohn.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just curious. I heard you mention that the comptroller's office is in the committee room. Is the comptroller's office supportive of the sale?

Hello, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. Yes, Alderman Cohn, the comptroller's office is in favor of this.

And state your name, your title for the record.

Ryan Coleman, Deputy Comptroller for Finance and Development.

No further questions. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Alderman Slicer.

Thank you. No questions. Happy to support today.

Alderman Browning.

Thank you. I understand that this piece of land is just a small sliver of land that is unbuildable otherwise and appreciate that the buyer here has been taking care of it. And I don't have any questions. It was explained to me beforehand and I completely understand. So I appreciate you bringing this Alderwoman and we'll be in favor of it today.

Alderman Aldridge.

No questions.

Vice Chair Sangay.

Thank you. I, similar to my colleagues, have had a chance to kind of look at look and kind of see the bills and see some of the details. I was curious on the women keys about what the long term plans were, if there were any ideas around that. But I'm definitely generally supportive.

Well, Mr. Jarman, again, has been caring for this lot as a part of his frontage, but he just it didn't belong to him, but he cared for it anyway. So he would just be extending his yard for however many small feet that is.

OK, thank you, that completes my question.

Thank you. Thank you, Adam and Keith, for bringing this forward. I want to publicly thank Mr. Dorman for filling in the gap for the city. Many of us in these wars, especially in the northern wars, have these little glimmers where there's just a little bit not big enough to be buildable, but they could have been overgrown looking WAY WORSE THAN THEY LOOK THANKS IF NOT FOR THANKS TO NEIGHBORS LIKE MR. JORDMAN SO I'M DEFINITELY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS AND WE'LL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO EVEN MORE LOTS AND I MEAN SLIVERS WE'RE GOING TO CALL THEM LIKE THIS COMING THROUGH AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND REBUILDING ST. LOUIS SO WITH THAT I WELCOME YOU TO CLOSE I WOULD ASK FOR YOUR FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION AND VOTE YES FOR THIS BILL THANK YOU Thank you. With that, I'll accept a motion for Board Bill 44.

I make a motion that we pass Board Bill 44 with a do pass recommendation. Second.

It was moved by Alderman Aldridge and seconded by Alderman Browning that we pass Board Bill 44 with a do pass recommendation. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderwoman Schweitzer. Aye. Vice Chair Sonnier. Aye. Alderman Browning. Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard. Aye. We have six aye votes.

All right. With that, she successfully passed Board Bill 44. Congratulations. Thank you. Alderman and congratulations, Mr. Drummond, too. With that, I will move forward and recognize Alderman Swicer on Board Bill 43.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee. I appreciate you all taking the time to hear this bill today. This is a bill that is for American Rescue Plan Act reappropriations. We have a fact sheet in front of us that goes over where the recommended appropriations are coming from and also where they are recommended to go to. The fact sheet in front of you is taking the bill as we expect it to be amended in committee. We do have some amendments to get some of those numbers more squared away to be the most up-to-date as possible and things that are ready to move now. So this is a total of just over three million dollars of reappropriations going to Two places over two million with funds of going to the water infrastructure, repair and replacement, namely fire hydrants. They have a lot of need of fire hydrants that need to be service that need work. This is crucial infrastructure. We all know that, especially as it starts getting hotter. And then also, if we get the amendments through today.

She got one. Now we have two.

Okay, I've got a backup. Yeah, so just over 2 million for the water division regarding fire hydrants, infrastructure, and about just over 650,000 for food assistance with the Department of Human Services for a contract that we can extend. So those are the things that you're going to hear today. Caitlin Smith and the mayor's office has been diligently working. departments to be able to find out every penny that is not going to be able to be spent by the deadline, whether that's 18 cents of a project that has completed or whether that's hundreds of thousands of dollars that just can't be expended for the purpose that they were intended for with the original bills. So she has done a great job both preparing this bill and working with the departments to make sure everyone is here today to answer questions. So what I'd love to do is pass it over to Ms. Smith from Mayor Spencer's office to call up various speakers as we move through each of these items today. Thank you very much for your time. And then we would do amendments at the end, if that's all right with the chair.

That's fine, however you wanted to proceed.

And they will be prepared to talk about this and the amendments as well, since the departments might leave when we get to the actual amendments part. So just to make sure everyone knows they have that all in front of them.

Okay. Thank you. No need to be sworn in here. We all in this together, right? But when you come up before you speak, just state your name and your title for the record before.

Thank you.

Caitlin Smith, policy advisor to the mayor. As Alderman Switzer said, we're gonna go through the departments. We're gonna be bouncing around on the fact sheet, going through the departments in an order of who has less reappropriations to who has more reappropriations, so that way the departments that have less reappropriations can say and answer all your questions and then get back to their work outside of this. um so we're going to start with the medical examiner's office our rick is off yeah can everyone hear me yes if you can turn on your camera

Good morning, this is Tara wreck director of operations for the medical examiner's office. Thank you, Members of the committee this morning. For hearing me, am I okay to proceed. Yes. Thank you. So the medical examiner's office has a total of $22,533.37 in unspent funds from our total allocation, which was $100,000. On the document that you have, three of the four projects are completed. The unspent funds... basically total extra money that was left over after the project was completed. And then also on two of the purchase orders, the shipping costs ended up being lower. So that's what those remainders far. And then lastly on the Lynch supply project, we ended up not moving forward. That was for an embalming table that exceeded just a little bit over $9,000. And it was determined that the sizing was not going to work right. in the autopsy suite. So we did not move forward with that project. So that encompasses the explanation for those unspent funds. And if anyone on the committee has any questions, I'm happy to take those.

Thank you. Thank you so much for that presentation. That's just what I want to ask. If if any of our colleagues have any questions for specific directors, raise your hand, let us know. Otherwise, we want to just keep moving through again out of respect for the director's time. No question. Thank you so much, Ms. Root.

Thank you. Next is Greg Favor. He's also online.

Hey, good morning. Can I get a comms check, please?

We can hear you.

Excellent. Thank you. Good morning. I am Greg Favor, the Commissioner of Emergency Management for SEMA. We have $34,888.26 on a remaining balance from a contract with Reuben Brown. This was initially established to support the ARPA compliance team at the start of the award when it was unknown what sort of scope was going to be required. Those services are no longer required. The ARPA team that was working out of SEMA in fiscal year 25 is no longer assigned here. We have submitted the RCN to the comptroller's office last month to de-obligate these funds so that we can put them towards other uses in the city. Happy to take any questions or comments regarding.

All right. No questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have the director of public safety.

Good morning. My name is Sean Dace and I serve as the director of public safety for the city of St. Louis. I want to thank the committee today for their time. I'm happy to provide an update on our spending related to the CAD upgrades in collaboration with the police department. The company Central Square was procured to update the CAD system that is utilized by the police department. The contract had four important milestones. The most recent and final milestone was completed at the end of April. Since the contract was completed, there's a remaining balance of $30,489.44 of ARPA funds that were not expended for the project. The remaining balance was proposed to be reallocated to other projects in the city. We do not foresee any need to utilize the remaining ARPA balance for the CAD upgrades. Any questions?

Any questions? Any questions online? Thank you, Director Dase.

Thank y'all.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE THE ACTING NEXT WE HAVE THE ACTING NEXT WE HAVE THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. HEALTH. HEALTH.

GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES. YES. YES. I'M VICTORIA ANN WURY, I'M VICTORIA ANN WURY, I'M VICTORIA ANN WURY, COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IN THE CITY. IN THE CITY. IN THE CITY. WE HAVE 113, 88 cents to obligate for other uses for the city. One of the contracts was with an organization called Almost Home, which is not able to spend down their full amount. They've been we've been in communication with them and they have agreed and we've terminated their contract and we've received their final invoice. The second amount and that amount is eighteen thousand one hundred and sixty four dollars and 72 cents. We have another contract with ERISE Williams for behavioral health services. And they we've also been in contact with them about their slow spending. And it just came to the point where they are they don't have enough time to spend down that full amount. And so they also agreed to reduce their contract amount. And so we've we have an amendment that is already fully executed that reduces their amount. So that we're giving back or reappropriating $91,697.74. And then we have some animal care and control money in the amount of $3,280.42 that is just left over from a large bulk supply purchase that we did. And based on remaining supplies, these funds are not needed. So we are making them available for reappropriation.

Thank you so much. Any questions colleagues? Alright, no questions, thank you.

Next we have Connie Johnson with Slate.

Good morning, I'm Connie Johnson, executive director for Slate. We basically had a skill of challenge for CDL's where we were able to provide CDL training and the program was very successful, but unfortunately the contract ended prior to the expiration of funds. So we have the remaining $6,150.81 for the purpose that was remaining from the program.

Thank you, Director Johnson. Does anyone have any questions? Okay. Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. It was something that the director said that just caught my attention. He said the contract ended before the funds could have went out. So it's not that these funds could not have been utilized to continue to help people get their CDL license. It's just the contract ended.

Correct. The contract with the subrecipient ended and then that contract was not extended. At the time the contract ended, those funds could have paid for an additional person to get their CDL. But I believe, and some of this predates my tenure, but with the new contract system about to go online and there was just I don't know, I guess the final decision was that we probably were not going to be able to get the contract renewed in an expedient fashion that would have allowed us to then go ahead and move forward with enrolling at least there was that one particular candidate at the time. So yes, the funds could have been used if we had an extended contract.

Gotcha. And I guess maybe a question for you, Ms. Smith. How does that, I guess, process work if an ARPA contract is, I guess, done? But is that a board bill that would just extend that contract because it would be for the same purpose and use? Or how does that work?

It is not a board bill. It's able to happen through ANA. I'm going to have Nancy, the counselor's office, answer that question.

Good morning. Nancy Walsh from the city councilor's office. Generally, if a contract has expired, it cannot be extended. So I don't know all the details of the particular one, but I think that's what happened here is it expired and the obligation deadline had passed. So we could not go back and extend it.

No more questions, Madam Chair.

All right. All right, no more questions, thank you. And thank you, City Councilor Walsh.

Next is Director Jackson, Director of Streets. I know he was on the move this morning, so we might have to go to someone else and then come back to him.

I'm unmuted, Caitlin.

Perfect. If you're able to turn on your camera, that would be great and then you're able to go.

Yeah, great. Thank you. I appreciate that technological support. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the board. The streets department had a total of $561.31 left from our ARPA funding. The preponderance of that went to the LED street light conversions that dates back to 2022. We had $390 that were left that was unused administrative expenses for that project. Again, going back to 2022, we've been continuing to upgrade our LED streetlights. Throughout the city, and with the funding that we had available to us, we were able to utilize all of it except the 390 dollars, which would not have netted us much more at that point. Also. We had funding available for refuse trash task force cameras. That was an upgrade from 2022. We utilized all of those funds up to about $57. If we'd had more money, we would have done more. But with the funds that we had, we were able to get quite a bit done with the task force camera upgrades. Likewise, with the sidewalk improvements, we added $114. and 28 cents it looks like that were left from that and that again was due to unused administrative expenses with all of the funding that was provided with us to us we were able to again at least get online to begin identifying the need within the sidewalk improvement area with our 50 50 program and the need to identify exactly where we were and how we move forward. I'll take any questions at this time.

Thank you, Director Jackson. Any questions? Any questions online? I would love to hear the, not today, but I would love to hear the outcome from the task force work that was able to be done with the fund. So whenever time permits, it probably would be in maybe infrastructure committee, but I think we would all love to hear what the outcomes was of that work.

Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, we'll be available to you. Okay, thank you.

Great, thank you. Next we'll have Nancy Walsh come back up to talk about the city councilor's office.

The city councilor's office is offering back $472.60. This is the leftover from an outside council contract that we had for ARPA legal questions and compliance issues. We had a contract with Armstrong Teasdale. They were very helpful to us, but we have a little money leftover. And this will get us 100% spent for our department. Please let me know if you have any questions.

That's good. I love everybody's down to the penny. Any questions, colleagues?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, we have the Department of Human Services.

Hi, I'm Annalisa Stover. I'm the director of the St. Louis Area Aging. We are part of the Department of Human Services. We have $500 remaining in targeted cash assistance. These funds were for DHS administration and the project has concluded. We do have $688,436.98 remaining in the direct support to care workers category. The Department of Human Services created a new program called Project R&R as a result of this funding. The program was an employee retention and recruitment incentive project for direct care in-home service workers who provided in-home services to patients and individuals who are employed by nonprofit and for-profit in-home care providers. service agencies and companies. DHS and the provider forward sent letters to in-home service agencies to explain how the program would benefit the employees and help the employers to retain their staff. We held training sessions both in person and virtually We also sent out media blasts to publicize the program. In spite of these efforts, the funds have not been fully utilized and Forward does not plan to utilize the remaining funds. This program was active for three years. The next category is impacted tenants fund. We have $14.16 remaining. In board bill 161, $10,000 from the 100,000 of ARPA funds to employment connections for administrative costs were reappropriated. Since then, employment connections has created a more detailed projection that showed the actual balance would be $10,014 and 16 cents so that accounts for the additional 14.16 to be reallocated in this board bill there are 18 cents remaining in emergency shelter funds remaining from two contracts after project completion account for those 18 In terms of housing stabilization, there are 94 cents remaining. The funds remaining from the two contracts are from after the project completion date.

Any questions, colleagues? Thank you. Thank you for all you do.

Thank you.

I'm also going to have Annalise talk about the food assistance program so that way she's able to go after this. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you so much for your time today and for allowing us to discuss this. There was a question that was previously raised regarding those remaining funds. Would you be able to utilize those funds? The answer is wholeheartedly yes. We always will fully utilize the funds. We were not aware prior to this time that we could move those funds, so we asked that the funds stay within Department of Human Services, but be moved to the category of food assistance. For the movement of these funds, we are asking that the funds be added to existing ARPA contracts for food assistance through HOSCO, North Sarah Food Hub. and GA Foods. They will be prioritized for persons needing food assistance in the tornado zone. We have current contracts with GA Foods as well as with HOSCO. The current contracts for ARPA funds did expire and those funds were fully utilized for GA Foods in April and fully utilized for HOSCO's funds with the May invoice. These additional dollars would allow for additional persons to be fed. I will just mention that we as an agency provide food services on a daily basis to older adults and younger adults with disabilities across the city. This reallocation would include younger persons as well and households to be included. I will mention that federal Older American dollars are at risk. I would also say that state funding for food and nutrition services are at risk. The state auditors recently said that the state has a $2 billion shortfall in funding, and these dollars that could be reallocated to food would allow for more persons to be fed and for those funds to be fully spent down to the penny so we have a plan in place we're just asking for the dollars to be moved within the department thank you so much ms delver

uplifting it then and uplifting it now. That's why this work is so important, especially in committee, for us to be able to find gaps and fill these loopholes and then have amendments ready to be able to support this ask and fill in this need today. So again, thank you for all you do. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. And I believe this will be amendment number eight that this committee will be addressing to move $688,436.98 from, is it direct support care workers to this food assistance?

Correct.

Is the, and I know I stand in the same department, is the direct support to care workers contract expired?

so we have asked to extend the timeline for that so that we can pay down four remaining invoices that were submitted to us after the end of the time period so that contract amendment is being routed we asked forward if they would be able to utilize any additional dollars in that category and their response was no over that three-year time period we reached out to in-home agencies repeatedly we held the trainings we publicized the program they were not able to fully utilize those funds.

So I guess this is a question for Ms. Walsh, Councilor Walsh. I guess, is there a difference between extending a contract that is still open that is doable compared to if a contract is closed by reopening it? What is, what's that difference?

no i think we're talking about the same things but if i'm recalling correctly the forward contract amendment was put in process while the contract was still in effect so it's just a matter of getting through oracle um in that process so that um that amendment process was timely

Okay, and would Ford be doing, I guess, the food assistance? And to be clear, I support the amendment, and I support the food assistance. So Ford wouldn't be doing it? So I guess, and to be clear, I've seen you both shaking your head no, that Ford wasn't doing it. It goes back to when we did the reappropriation the very first time. One of the things I believe Ms. Walsh, you said, is that the only way money could be moved if it was going to the same purpose... this would not be it's in the same department but it's not the same purpose it's not the same contractor this would be a different contractor which would be the city so how we able to do it this way there

So we can add money to an existing contract that was in place by the end of 2024 as long as we are adding it for the same purpose that the receiving contract was made. So for instance, Hosko and GA Foods had contracts in place by the end of 2024 for food assistance so we can take money leftover money from any arpa project and put it into if it's reappropriated for food assistance which that's what this committee and the board of aldermen can do that would be required if it's reappropriated for food assistance we can put it into a food assistance contract we can't just change it into just anything we can't create a new project but we can add it into an existing contract as long as we're not changing the purpose of that existing contract.

And we are reappropriating the $688,000 from the direct support care worker contract with Forward and moving it or reappropriating it to the food assistance contract that currently exists in the Department of Human Services, is that correct?

Correct.

And that contract with the food assistance is still open, it is not closed?

Correct.

Okay.

And I will just say that both of the providers, GA Foods and Hosco North Sarah Food Hub have provided excellent services. Hosco North Sarah Food Hub is also working on job creation initiatives in the area. They're located off of North Sarah. They're currently delivering meals to older adults and to younger persons in need of food in the tornado impacted zone. So this would increase the funding to expand their capacity to serve the population.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Real quick, before we go to OVP, I'm going to go through a couple of the ones that directors had previous obligations for. Under Board of Public Service, there is the expanding broadband and public Wi-Fi. The contract originally, or their plan was originally to go through December. But all contracts need to end by the end of September. So this is just a salary So they were able because those last couple of months are not going to be able to be under ARPA funds It just is backing it up a couple of months and that is where that fund comes from And then you'll also notice under the recreation center pool renovation. This is actually a negative number this is from the last board bill when they were going back through everything and reappropriating the funds to the water division they found that a portion of the funds that was reappropriated was actually not ARPA funds because several different funds were put together for these pool renovations and they found that a portion of the funds were not ARPA funds so they're not able to be reappropriated through this so this is just a fixing that clerical error. Any questions? I have Simon online to answer questions if necessary for the broadband and public Wi-Fi.

No questions, thank you.

And then the other one is ITSA is $270. This is for the workplace modernization and enhancements. They actually finished this project ahead of schedule. This was money for the project manager consulting hours, so this is just what they had left over because they wrapped the project ahead of schedule. We will now move to the Office of Violence Prevention who has a presentation.

Good morning. I'm Cynthia Davis. I'm the Grants Manager for the Office of Violence Prevention. You want me to go without it? I can just talk through it if you want. You got it? Okay. Okay, we are the Office of Violence Prevention. We are here to present our reappropriation request. Next slide, please. Next slide. So currently the Office of Violence Prevention has 87 active contracts, 87 active contracts that represent 67 organizations. 32 of those are ARPA contracts. Over the course of the time that the ARPA funding has been in effect, we have tried to actively steward our funds. We've done that through our process of monitoring subrecipients, spending closely, We've discussed any underspending through direct check-ins, problem solving support. We've also approved allowable line item shifts, whether that be for higher need areas or just to realign the funds with the program. We have also worked with organizations to identify program enhancements or service adjustments and strategic purposes that would strengthen delivery to the same target population. Also, we have provided hands-on technical assistance to our organizations to try to get them to really spend this money in the way that it was meant to be spent. We met weekly with staff from the comptroller and city counselor's office to track our spending. And we are actively in communications with our grantees. Next slide, please. Just some highlights of what we have accomplished through our ARPA funding. Over the course of our grantees, we have served about 1,605 participants. There have been 24,748 sessions delivered with 575 events held and approximately 2,282 resources distributed. Next slide. This is just a breakdown of those numbers I just gave you, breaking them down by neighborhood, by topic area, and I won't read this whole thing. So next slide. So our reappropriation today is $831,803.19. That's represented of, I believe it's 10 organizations. This is broken down between our community violence intervention strategy summer and summer and year-round youth programs and youth and juvenile diversion, as well as our violence reduction.

I want to make sure that your context is meeting the slide. No, you don't have to. You just tell us because some of us are trying to follow what you say or what it's saying.

So these slides are representing the individual organizations that are having the funding appropriated.

Okay, so can we go back to make sure that we capture all of those, especially for those viewing as well?

There's not a list of all of them. We can go through these.

Was this the first one? Yes. Okay, all right, thanks.

Yeah, so BHR Youth Program, they provide after-school programming, Youth Excelling and Aiming Higher is their YAY program. It's focused on cognitive and behavioral health and social-emotional wellness. Next slide. Covenant House, Missouri. They are focusing on, they are our community, our youth and juvenile diversion program. There's $65,000 of their funding that is being reappropriated. All the other funds that they had were appropriate for ARPA. This would have been for a roof repair. Next slide. Ignite Hope, we're reappropriating $24,000. They are a program that provides evidence-based trauma and outreach services such as individual and group therapy, case management and referral services to people with specific and specialized needs. Next slide. Live Free USA, we are reappropriating $3,037.98. They have been one of our technical assistance providers for the St. Louis region's Community Violence Intervention Program. Next. Love the Loo, we are requesting a $7,687.52 reappropriation. They provide mentoring programs that's called LIFT that uses healthy relationships as an engine to drive revitalization from within. They serve youth ages 12 to 25. Next slide. Power for STL, also known as the BRIC, also known as the T, we are reappropriating $237,489, and it's actually 72 cents. They provide bullet-related injury. They're the Bullet-Related Injury Clinic, which is worth BRIC, the acronym. They focus on bridging care between emergency services and long-term trauma recovery for those suffering from bullet-related injuries. And ROCA. We are reappropriating $94,952. They are one of our other technical assistance providers. They provide the training for the ROCA rewire CBT, which is a simple skill-based approach to cognitive behavioral theory that frontline staff can implement as core behavior change interventions with their highest risk young people. And SSM, $120,000 of a reappropriation. This particular program provides a, they focus on engaging gunshot patients or patients suffering trauma while they're in the hospital, and then they follow them through the discharge phase and into the outpatient phase to ensure continuity of care. and St. Louis Artworks, $103,000. This is a youth apprenticeship program designed to offer comprehensive and transformative experiences for a minimum of 150 youth ages 14 to 19 who reside in the city. This program integrates art education, essential job training, exposure to new career opportunities, and social-emotional wellness components. and the Urban League, $70,000. This was for their neighborhood program. So this is what they were unable to spend. And I think that was it. So are there any questions?

This is always one of the toughest ones. Especially with us that are on the ground in our communities, I know we all feel like we know the need and we know the needs that these agencies are meeting. While I get the explanation of Covenant House, if you said that they said it was a roof, but the other ones I just, I struggle with. But what you're saying before I open up for questions is that you all talked to the agencies and these agencies told you all that they would not be able to spend this money.

Yes, Claudine Allen is one of our program managers. So our team has we met with all of these organizations, we asked them for spend down plans, they submitted spend down plans, we worked with them to make sure you know, you sure you're not gonna be able to do this. We they did site visits, they did all kinds of things to try to help them spend. And these were going to be the funds that were left unspent.

Yeah. And some of the names you named, this isn't even our first conversation about them. I know many of us advocated for some of them to follow back up and circle back with, so hating to see them still on the list. But if you're telling me that they said, you know, that they confidently told you all that they wouldn't be able to spend it, then that's definitely the difference it makes. I'll open it up for questions. Do any of my colleagues have any questions? All right. Well, thank you so much. Is the presentation in our drive? Okay. All right. Thank you.

I'm now, it's under CDA. I'm going to have Lauren from Slate talk about the North St. Louis commercial corridors grant. This is one of the amendments that we have is that there's $573,000 plus that are now available.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee members. So on the list of reappropriation.

Excuse me, can I get your name, please?

Oh, I'm sorry. Lorna Alexander, St. Louis Development Corporation.

Thank you.

On the list of reappropriations under CDA, because SODC is a subrecipient of CDA. There is an amount for $306,799. And this is the administrative portion of a $5 million grant where SLDC provided $5,000 grants to small businesses throughout the city. We broke the grant up into 4.5 million for the actual grants themselves and $500,000 for the administration of the program. We completed the program in 2024. We provided 900 grants to small businesses and we did not utilize the set aside for admin the entire $500,000, so the $306,800 is what's left from that subrecipient agreement we have with that can be reappointed. As we move over to our North City grant program, the North City grant program, currently the smaller components of the program have been terminated. Those are the loans for stabilization and operational expansion. What's remaining are the construction loans, the community enhancement loans, the bigger major construction loans, and the facade improvement loan, which range from $100,000 and under. We had a May 29th deadline for all the loans to close on their legal document. The three loans, the three businesses before you and their award amount, they were not able to close by the May 29th deadline due to various reasons. So there's $573,312 that can be reappropriated in this board bill.

All right. Alderman Aldridge.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, and thank you, Ms. Lorna, for being here. So for the small business grant that I'm seeing on the CDA, which is SLDC to go through, you're saying we're reappropriating $360,079 and some change, correct?

$306,000, yes.

$306,000. How much is still remaining in the small business grant fund total?

This fund, zero.

So that I'm clear, this is a Northside Corridor Grant Fund?

No. This was an earlier program where the $306,000 was remaining. That was the $5,000 per business grant program. It was early on. It started in 2023. It concluded in 2024 where we provided $5,000 grants to 900 businesses for $4.5 million. This was part of the set aside for the admin or program delivery that's remaining that can be reappropriated.

Got it. So the $306,000 you said is the admin fee for the program?

It was set aside for admin costs by SLDC. We didn't utilize all the costs.

So this is just admin, this is not any small business not receiving the grants, this is all complete admin?

Correct.

Okay. No other questions? Well, I'm so sorry, I do. Oh, okay, well, I guess we'll get into the North City Commercial Corridor at some point. Is that the Northside Business Grant? Yes. Okay, I'll send my questions to them.

OK, you want to just move on to that one?

So I spoke on it. I can speak on it again. So on the North St. Louis grant program, we had a May 29 deadline for all the businesses to close. There were, at that time, 37, 38 businesses that were approved for an award from our board. the May 29th deadline, they had to close all of their legal documents. These three businesses were not able to close on their legal documents, totaling 573,000 that can be reappropriated.

Thank you, Madam chair, members of the committee. Um, so with those businesses, From the Northside Corridor Grant Fund, it looks like we are reappropriating just roughly about a half a million, correct?

Mm-hmm, 573,000.

How much is remaining in the Small Business Corridor Grant Fund?

$23 million.

So I guess my question is, why are we cherry picking just doing the 500? And I'm going to be very clear. I'm speaking from the alderman of the 14th ward, that while when this process was being done, this was an independent process that was done by SLDC. We only passed it at the board of alder. No alder had influence in it but as the ultimate of the 14th i do know there is a business that have received scrutiny however was received the funding did everything right sodc granted them the funding and then pulled back the funding but i don't see that reflected here and i know there's other businesses that have been green light it from SODC to receive the funding and then funding will pull back. So my question is with how much you say is left,

$23 million.

$23 million. Knowing that there's other businesses that you all have approved and disapproved, why are we just doing half a million and we're not having a holistic conversation about the Northside Corridor Grant in full purpose instead of... Because I'm assuming that $23 million you all are going to reappropriate in another ARPA bill?

No, we expect to expend those funds.

So what about the businesses that you, so the businesses that, I mean, I'm just gonna go out there, like the Car Score Community Center had got approved and disapproved. So did you guys reappropriate that money to another business?

Well, it went back into the general pot. So initially for this program, there were conditional awards made in June of 2024 that totaled the whole 23 million that was set aside for the community enhancement and facade improvement component of the program. as those businesses were being vetted right um some of them withdrew on their own some of them through the vetting process were determined not to be eligible candidates for the program Along with that, going on at the same time, we had sent all the unsuccessful businesses communication saying that, sorry, your business did not receive a conditional award. However, if you would like to discuss why you didn't receive the award, you can make an appointment with our senior VP at the time over the program to discuss your scores, to discuss how your application was rated. Through that process, we realized there were some businesses where mistakes were made in the geographic scoring that we had to be mindful. There might be businesses that we would have to fund. So as the businesses dropped out from the initial 45 who received conditional awards, those funds were set aside so that we could then fund the businesses who may have, through no error of their own, been misscored or their application was reevaluated and they were determined to be successful. And we then used those funds from the initial 45 that were no longer in the program to fund the businesses now, what we call the reconsidered businesses.

Okay. Well, I personally do take a problem with the car square one because it does meet the requirements that is in the EGI areas. It was approved. You all came out multiple times and approved them. And from what you're saying, even if you didn't approve them, there was opportunity for other funds through this. Is that what you said?

Not through us, no. With Carr Square, we want to talk about Carr Square. In the meantime, along with all of this, there was particular interest, of course, in Carr Square with the media, along with the state of Missouri, who was auditing our records at the time. And so the appearance of a conflict...

There's not truly a conflict, just because the media write about it.

The appearance of the conflict outweighed I think the better good of whether or not we should continue on with the funding.

Yeah, I disagree. I do think that's baloney. How much money is left in that Northside grant again? 23 million dollars 23 million and you're saying to date all 23 million will be spent there won't be any reappropriation of one cent of that 23 million from the north side corridor grant is going to go out the door you will not be back in front of this committee in another arpa bill reappropriating one cent out of the 23 million

I think I'm saying that we are funding 36 businesses with that $23 million. They have provided to us their construction budgets, they've closed on all their legal documents, they've provided their construction timelines to make us believe that they will expend their award by September 30th. We are monitoring them closely, the cities, ARPA tracking team is monitoring them closely. We meet with them on a biweekly basis. We have spreadsheets to show where they are when they close, how much they've spent to date. If it appears come, say, the end of July, August, that some of the timeline marks are not being met and through conversation with the businesses, guidance, whatever it may be to take it, if we realize or we feel that they will not meet the expenditure deadline, yes, I will be back in front of the committee.

And what you're saying is with these three, St. Louis Metal, Recycle, The Camp, and Wellston Loop, you all feel that they won't get to a point in September or July, August that these funds will be utilized for them to spend?

For these three businesses? No, they've missed the deadline. So they've received communication that they missed the deadline and that their award is being rescinded. And they're for various reasons why they are here that we do not feel like that they will come back. Well, they haven't, so no.

Okay. I think $23 million is a lot of money, and I want to make sure every small business actually gets this money. I also don't want to make sure that some of the games that were played, not only with Carscore, to be clear. There's other businesses in my ward that had received and turned in all their documentation grant approval from you all where you actually have went out to these businesses and approved them and then turned around and then rejected them. And I would hate if that becomes the problem for these other three business or these other businesses that 23 million is still sitting out there that they don't get that full opportunity to be able to spend it down with any games being played. So I fully expect you all, unfortunately, to be back in front of us reappropriating these dollars as much as I don't want to see it go out the door. I wouldn't be shocked if you all be back trying to reappropriate these funds and I hope next time that if this comes back in front of us we don't reappropriate it to water we keep it for the same purpose and mission and we figure out a way to reappropriate these funds into North St. Louis and whatever that looks like if it is food assistance that will help the tornado area or whatever it could be that because clearly we reappropriate and move that stuff around that it goes back to North St. Louis and not to water.

And I want to say for SLDC management my staff and compliance i believe we've done everything that we could to ensure that the businesses who were eligible for the funds whether or not they were conditionally eligible at some point until the deeper dive into their vetting into their project into their capacity to complete the project until that was all that due diligence was done that we've held out hope and we continue to hold that hope. I hope I don't come back in front of you. I'm gonna do everything that I can. My staff is gonna do everything that they can so that these businesses are successful. We know more than anyone because we're working with them on a daily basis how important it is to these businesses and we've put in 100% effort to make them successful.

Yes, and I'm appreciative of the work that you all do at SLDC. I know this was a new program and the fact that the previous administration even thought about how do we use ARPA funds to help a corridor in an area that has been left out and disinvested in for a very long time. People can talk about it, but at least there was an attempt to put money where folks mouth was to try to invest in North St. Louis. I appreciate all the work that you and others do. And I know with new programs, as we're looking at some of these other new programs, there are sometimes hiccups. And that just goes with the process of doing something new sometimes. So I also don't want to see none of these dollars come back. I want them to go into Northside. But again, we'll see how that process plays out.

Any other questions? Thank you, Ms. Alexander.

Thank you.

I'm sorry. Vice Chair Sangay looks like she's online and has a question.

Hi. Ms. Alexander, I just wanted to ask, when did SODC become aware of the admin costs not being able to get spent? Do you know around what time SODC was aware of that gap?

So for the admin costs for the small business brands, we've been aware of it since we've been tracking our admin costs. The question was whether or not, one, it was going to be able to be reappropriated for the administration of some of the other programs that we were funding. And so it sat there until it was determined. that was not an appropriate use of the funding, and the Water Division was looking for funds to fill up these holes in the ground, right?

understood okay um that's my only question for miss alexander um i just what i'm about to say i've already kind of expressed to the mayor's office and i think it kind of echoes what ultimate audrey said um i do think it's important you know obviously the needs of the wire department are very apparent and very much in front of all of us and so i am supportive of these funds going there but i would like to see a stronger effort to see if there's a possibility that some of these funds can also go to you know, other programs on the north side, whether it's like the many development projects that have funding gaps or just a couple of $100,000 or whether there are other things going on. I can just say, like, the thing that I'm getting from my constituents and my residents is definitely wanting to make sure that we are putting every dollar that we can into the north side especially into the tornado impacted area so i'm very happy to see like that miss annalise was able to kind of amend some of those existing contracts that she has and get them to other things and i would just hope that you know that same type of energy is put into the spirit of these other dollars i have no issue with the water department getting funds their desperate need of funds but i also think that we should be making sure that we are also being as diligent as we can and making sure that we are not missing any opportunities to put additional funding into North City and specifically into tornado impacted communities or programs. Thank you.

Thank you. And respond to that. SODC has had conversations with the city councilor's office and the difficulty in trying to repurpose the North City grant program is that it's in a standalone board bill, right? It's not in a board bill for proactive development where you move it based on our December 31, 2024 commitment to treasury. that you could move it for other proactive development activities. It was standalone for the economic impact that the businesses on the north side were impacted by. So it was difficult. It was going to be very difficult to repurpose it to issue a new application and recreate a sub-grant for that purpose.

Yes, ma'am, and I think that's true for this fund, but I think there are other things in this bill and there are other allocations that we've discussed that are really not about you. That's why I geared my comments to the mayor's office specifically. We weren't towards you. It's to the mayor's office. There are other allocations and there are other things that I do think there are other existing contracts that exist within North City or the Tornado Impact Area that could be amended, that could meet the deadline, and that these funds could be moved to. I think they're only being moved to the Water Department, and I'm advocating to the mayor's office as a Board of Aldermen, again, not really about you in this specific fund, that we're being mindful of not just thinking of just water, especially since some of these funds and programs are coming from North City and are coming from programs that were meant to serve North City or the tornado impacted areas. So yeah, I just want to clarify, my comments are not really towards you. I think this is a special circumstance. Like the Alderman of the 14th said, this was a new program and had all sorts of new challenges that happen when you put new programs in place. But there are some other things within this bill and other allocations that we are doing that I do believe could be amended to purposes that will still be meeting needs within the North Cedar tornado impacted area. But they are just going to water. So I'm just putting it on record that I want to make sure that as a legislative body and even as the executive branch that we're being mindful of some of those other uses as opposed to just water. Again, especially because some of the things that we are moving are coming from North City and the tornado impacted areas. Thank you.

Think you're good now, Ms. Alexander. Thank you.

I'm now going to go through CDA. Matt Moak will be here in just a minute to also be able to answer any additional questions that you may have on any CDA reappropriations. Oh, perfect. You're up. Great.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm sorry for my WhatsApp. Good afternoon, everyone. Matt Moak from CDA. Sorry for the late arrival. I think I'm still within the time window though. If I may start.

Okay.

My remarks today are gonna be a lot less dramatic than what they were in February when I was faced with quite a few dramatically failing programs that needed to be terminated Not everyone was happy about that, but it was the reality of the situation. Today is a lot easier for me because generally speaking today, the items I'll be going through are what I would call sweeping the kitchen a little bit, where we've gone into all of the programs that CDA has funded, take another look at them and found many items that were dated or programs that were already completed where there was some money and some administration expenses previously budgeted or previously allocated that were not going to be used anymore. And so, yeah, I can go through each of the categories individually, but I'd say 90%, what I'm going to comment on today fits this bill. um meaning we had monies as far back as 2022 you'll see on the list a food assistance number for example those were all programs in 2022 begun in 22 and concluded in 22. and then we come forward to the present day however we went and looked at the amounts in the programs and we found i don't know 2 000 here 4 000 there that just didn't get spent before the completion of the program. So it was relatively easy to go identify those and say, you know, let's get them back and repurpose before we meet the upcoming deadline. So most again, most of this before you today is housekeeping. house cleaning but i would like to touch on two programs that were live programs that are ongoing as we stand here today but where we had met with the recipient and realized they were not going to be able to fully spend down all the money originally allocated to them so the first one of those on your briefing sheet is early childhood education one hundred thousand dollars um this was a two hundred thousand dollar program and after communicating back and forth with the non-profit we realized it was not going to be fully successful anyway so we reached a consensual agreement to take half of the money, $100,000 back and have it repurposed. And they would go forward with spending the other $100,000. So I'm happy with the way we did that. And I think, you know, it was back and forth with the nonprofit. We're doing a little bit of that every day still to this day. And identified this and was able to take at least a partial remedial action at this point that was consensual. The second one is the Neighborhood Beautification Program. And you see the amount 153-556-11. That was another program, College Health Foundation, where they were having some success going forward, but were honest enough with us when they met with us to say, you know, we're not gonna be able to totally spend down. so we worked through the numbers and we asked them actually in this case to give us the numbers of what they thought they could spend and what we could take back and head on a different route and this is the number we backed into this somewhat odd number based on their actual spending and then what they projected to future spent so those really are the only two programs on my list that are live programs we're still working with And we've reached an agreement on how we're going to go forward over the next several months. There are some other programs that are completed where we have estimated, we had estimated way back when, I mean, I'm going back to 22, I'm assuming, if not earlier, prior to me, we've estimated the amount of administration that would be necessary to carry out that program. and the program has successfully completed and there's administration left over wasn't spent so on this looking at this that includes almost all the other items i have here small business grants which was an slgc program is complete unused sldc administration 306 and change um the healthy home repair program i don't want people to be misled by this as i um the category itself would sort of lend to the belief that something has happened we're not spending healthy home repair oh we're spending it up and we continue spending it and we're having a lot of success with it it just so happens that these this number this small number 23 000 and change had to do with very old contracts. We were using Mission St. Louis where the project, again, had been completed and there was leftover admin. Maybe the actual cost was underneath the estimate that was previously projected, whatever it was. So these, again, it's cleanup and it's somewhat de minimis, but in my mind, here we are in June, and I mean, I can't clean these up soon enough. I don't want anything really left when we get to September. that's sitting there idle. And, you know, again, that's pretty much what's before you today. The second one, the home repair program is a little different. And that that relates to a contractor that was doing health or home repair that we weren't pleased with the completion of the work. And that relationship ended. And that money is left over because that original contractors no longer working. with us to complete healthy home repair. So it's a little different. Food assistance I talked about. Let's see what else is on my list. More admin. The affordable housing production number is in your list 2818806. I'm pretty sure that this was a concept predates me of developing a portal. The idea was to develop a portal that would coordinate the healthy home repair was taking place and affordable housing was taking place. And the portal really never got off the ground. It never got off the ground the way that it was visualized, say, four years ago. and i think there was some success with the portal but this money relates to this money is left over from that effort and again the effort is over and thus we're repurposing it um i don't know how many other comments i have i do see of course a couple sldc projects listed north city commercial corridors And I'm sort of assuming, I saw Lorna in Italy when I walked in, that she's spoken to those, right? And we actually learned those numbers yesterday for the most part. But since that money comes through CDA to get to SLDC, it lands on my list. So I don't think you would need anything else on that. I have more detail. But honestly, I don't think it would be necessary for the committee because it really relates to the individual contractors and the type of work that we ended up not funding or where the actual is less than the estimate, et cetera. But certainly if the committee wanted more detail, I do have a little more here with me today. Thank you. OK, thank you.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. No, not at all. I'm going to definitely say, because I know the things I'll hear back probably if somebody's watching right now, if you do have some additional context, I understand what you said about the home repair program, that contractor is no longer working for the $8,700, but if you have any additional context up there for the healthy home repair program that I get calls on daily, almost if not weekly, about people that are either in that process of the Healthy Home Repair or all of the different things and challenges with that program. You said you had additional context, so if there's any additional context about that one that we can share for the record and for the public, I would definitely want us to share that.

Sure.

I understand you said some of it was admin because when you talked, you said the only two were live programs, but to me, healthy home repair is still a live program, right? So that's why I don't want to be confused people with that.

Okay. You're right. Healthy home repair is very much alive. So I didn't mean to pollute it. Um, what we run into, and it's kind of a fiscal concept that, um, that I should touch on, which will provide some more context, is all the money that's going out for health care, for all these programs actually, is tied to what Comptroller calls a purchase order, or PO they call it. So when we get to this late in the ARPA program, when we're finding these dormant funds that are sitting there tied to a PO, the easier path to go rather than try to amend the PO or amend the contract try to do is to just zero the PO and repurpose the funds which is why you're seeing this way you're seeing today. One of the questions I got ahead of this meeting was well healthy home repairs going forward why isn't the money just going on to healthy home repair? And the answer is it's tied to a PO that we extinguish. That's the cleanest way to move the money forward. But thank you. It is an ongoing program with, oh man, millions of dollars still dedicated to it. We have plenty of work that we can do in the tornado zone and citywide. And we're of course working to spend it all down. I think we'll be able to do that, we have enough to accomplish what we need to accomplish in healthy home repair. Does that help? Okay.

Does anyone have any additional questions for Mr. Mote, CDA? All right, thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes all of the presentation. I'll now hand it to Alderman Schweitzer to go through it.

thank you so much colleagues and thank you miss smith for organizing that and to every department leader and everyone who came to speak to us today there's obviously a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes to make all of this money move out the door and so it's really important to have you here today to explain any money that needs to be reappropriated so with that i was hoping to move through Each of these amendments so that, as discussed here today, we have the bill that all of these folks kept giving us feedback on. So that's lined up with everything that they just talked about. If it's all right with you, I can start with Amendment number one, which should be in front of everyone. okay so the amendment number one to board bill 43 um it is the um you know page one line six a change so after the words ordinance number 72125 by reappropriating reappropriating certain amounts specified herein in an aggregate amount of then striking the following words and figures 2 million 520 and insert the following words and figures, $3,067,086.60. So this is just working through some of those amounts that would be increased through work that was done in the last week to really make sure all of these numbers were as accurate as possible. So with that, I would move to adopt amendment number one to board bill 43.

Okay, it was moved by Alderman Schweitzer, seconded by Alderman Browning. Discussion is up, so Vice Chair Hussaini.

This is not about Alderman Schweitzer, so my apologies if this is out of order, Madam Chairwoman. I'm just still confused by Director Mox's comments. He said that we have all the money we need to do healthy home repair. I Do my colleagues understand that in a way that I don't? I don't really, I just don't understand what that means. Are we saying then that we have all the homes that need to be repaired, have all the money that they need? Like, I'm just still really struggling with that, with that portion of it.

Can we, okay, we'll try to get him back, Vice Chair Sanya, so we can ask him additional questions.

Perhaps we can move forward with this amendment. Yeah. And then have him back. Until we see if we can. We have a motion on the floor.

Can we get a message to him to see if we can get him back while we do the amendments? Thank you. Very much so. So we are now on amendment number one. All in favor?

Aye.

All right.

Yeah, I'm moving on to amendment number two to board bill number 43 as amended. This amendment is to amend the board bill page one line 10. After the words replacement and repair projects insert the following words and figures $688,436.98 is appropriate for food assistance. So I don't know if Alderman Clark, Chairwoman Clark-Hubbard, if you wanted to make that amendment, I pass it to you.

I think my amendment is, yeah, so you're on number two.

Okay.

Okay.

It's the same topic. I want to be respectful of that. Oh, thank you. So I move to adopt amendment number two to board bill 43.

Second.

It's a move by Alderman Swicer, seconded by Alderman Browning that we adopt amendment number two. All in favor? Aye. All right. I didn't even look because I was.

Could you repeat who was the first and the second on it to adopt?

Alderman Swicer and Alderman Browning.

Thank you. These amendments are going through the bill in page order. And so that's why there's, you know, that kind of goes hand in hand with Amendment Number 8.

Absolutely.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. So Amendment Number 3 is to amend Board Bill Page 3, Line 5 as follows. After the words, Ordinance Number 71555, is amended by reappropriating the following amounts from the specified sources of funds. Strike out the following words and figures, $244,349.49, inserting the following words and figures, $217,343.49. And this decreases the amount reappropriated from the summer and year-round youth programming by $27,000. I would move to adopt amendment number three to board bill 43 as amended. Second.

Moved by Alderman Schweitzer, seconded by Alderman Browning that we adopt amendment number three with a call from the previous row with no objection. Please proceed.

Thank you. Amendment number four to board bill 43 is to amend the board bill page three, line 17 as follows. After the word sources of funds, strike out the following words and figures, $2,936.68 and insert in lieu of the following words and figures, $3,322.00. So plain language, that increases the amount reappropriated from monies previously appropriated to animal care and control by $382.32. With that, I would move to adopt Amendment Number 4 to Board Bill 43 as amended.

Second. Previous row.

Moved by Alderman Swicer and seconded by Alderman Browning that we adopt Amendment Number 4 with a call for previous role with no objection. Please proceed.

Thank you. Amendment number five to Board Bill 43 as amended is to amend the Board Bill page four, line 20. After the words, all of such sources of funds hereby are appropriated and set apart for the use of the zone in exhibit A, inserting the following words and figures. Section nine, ordinance number seven, one, is amended by reappropriating the following amounts in the specified sources of funds, $573,312 of the funds appropriate in that ordinance with the North City Commercial Corridors Program. All of such funds hereby are appropriated and set apart for the uses of funds shown on Exhibit A. So this is adding a new section to reappropriate the funds from the North City Commercial Corridors Program previously discussed in the presentation. So with that, I would move to adopt Amendment Number 5 to Board Bill 43 as amended.

Second.

Moved by Alderman Schweitzer, seconded by Alderman Browning, that we adopt Amendment Number 5. I haven't had a call for previous role yet, so all in favor? Aye. Aye. Please proceed.

Present.

Oh, I'm sorry. Let's do a roll call on this since we have a separate.

Alderman Cohn? Aye. Alderman Schweitzer?

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonnier?

Aye.

Alderman Browning?

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge?

No.

Chair Clark Hubbard? Aye. Alderman Cohn?

Just a point of order, but we already did take a vote, but aye.

We have five aye votes, one no vote.

Thank you. Amendment number six to Board Bill 43 as amended is to amend the Board Page five, line 15 as follows. After the words as allowed by the ARPA guidance for the revenue loss provision of the government service eligibility category, insert the following words and figures. The sum of $2,378,649.62. And this is appropriating the previously mentioned amount to the reappropriate ARPA funds to the Water Division. So with that, I would move to adopt amendment number six to Board Bill 43.

Second in the previous role. Objection.

It was moved by Alderwoman Swicer, seconded by Alderman Browning with an objection from the previous role. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderwoman Swicer.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonnier. Aye. Alderman Browning. Aye. Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

Chair Clark-Hubbard. Aye. We have six aye votes.

All right, please proceed.

Thank you. Amendment number seven to board bill 43 as amended is to amend board bill page five line 15 as follows. Before the words, the sources of funds on exhibit A is allocated to reimburse the water division for a portion of its expenditures that were made with water division funds. Strike out the following words and figures. The Water Division is directed to use the reappropriated funds and insert the following words and figures. The Director of Public Utilities or the Water Commissioner, as his designee, is authorized and directed to expend those aforementioned funds. So this is giving the authority to the Director of Public Utilities and the Water Commissioner to expend the appropriated funds. With that, I move to adopt Amendment Number 7 to Board Bill 43.

Second. Previous role.

It was moved by Alderman Slicer, seconded by Alderman Browning with a call for previous roll. With no objection, please proceed.

Thank you. I'll pass it over to you, Alderman, for amendment number eight.

Amendment number 8 to amend said board bill page 5, line 19, as follows. After the words repair and replacement projects, insert the following words and figures. The sum of $688,436. and 98 cents of the sources of funds on exhibit A, hereby is appropriated for food assistance. The director of the Department of Human Services or his designee is authorized and directed to expend those funds, excess funds by the amendment to a contract for food assistance that was obligated with ARPA funds by December 31st, 2024, The comptroller is authorized and directed to issue warrants to the treasurer. The payment of all expenditures authorized in this section provided that such warrants do not exceed the total amount of funds appropriated by this section. I move that we adopt amendment number eight.

Second. Yep, previous row.

It was moved by, I'm sorry, by, yes, Alderman Clark Hubbard, seconded by Alderman Aldridge with a call for previous row with no objection. I'm going to pass it back to Alderman Swicer for number nine. I also want to- I'm sorry, who called for previous row? Alderman Aldridge called for previous row with no objection. I want to make sure, Ms. Smith, if we are still trying to get Mr. Moki in so that we can circle back to Vice Chair Saye's question after we get through the amendments. Okay. I don't want Ms. Weiss.

Thank you. So Amendment Number 9 to Board Bill 43 is amending the exhibit with all of those new figures that we just discussed in the bill to make sure it's reflective. So that exhibit you should have attached in your drive. It is not printed here in front of me, but it's in the drive. So with that, I would move to adopt Amendment Number 9 to Board Bill 43. Second.

Moved by Alderman Schweitzer, seconded by Alderman Browning, with a call for previous role by Alderman Aldridge, that we adopt Amendment Number 9.

Thank you. Those are all my amendments. And I believe Matt Moak is on his way back, having a hard time reaching him. So yeah, so Ms. Smith will answer the question in lieu of Mr. Moak. And hopefully, we will get to the root of Alderman Sonnier's question. Thank you for your time.

I believe what Director Moak was talking about was that they have enough funds under ARPA for the Healthy Hair Repair Program, as in like if more funds were added under ARPA for this program, they wouldn't be able to spend it in time in the way that the program works. Obviously, the Healthy Home Repair Program can always use more funds, like many programs in the city, and as he was saying, the program is alive and well and receives millions of dollars annually. Does that answer your question, or is there anything else?

Don't we have our own home repair program? Like, I'm just finding it really difficult to believe that there was no other way that we could find a way to get these home repair dollars out. There was no other way. There was no existing contracts. We have a home repair program within the city. There was no other way that we could find a way to get these dollars spent when there are other programs that we have internally within the city or even other contracts that are in place right now.

Are you talking about the $23 million under CDA?

I mean, we have so many different programs going. I think we have like two or three that are going right now that are aimed at home repair. So I just... I just really am struggling that there was nothing else we could find a way to extend this money to in order to spend those dollars. Because the rule is that it has to be the same use, right?

So even if we were going to have a conversation about it going- Said, these are small items that were left on POs for projects that closed quite a while ago. And there are healthy home repair programs paid for with other funds. I think CDBG funds and things like that. And then there is the recovery office using RAMS funds for the very large home repair program, which is different. That's to get people back into their houses. Yeah, these are basically closing out some small POs where the dollars are left from projects that have been finished for a while.

Okay.

Yeah. Does that help answer your question?

Yeah, it helps. Okay.

I have one quick one.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Just one quick question. Is there a way we can get, I guess, how many contracts are actively open and how many are canceled? Because, you know, to hear like this one was canceled in 2023 or like the slate one was canceled, I don't know when that was canceled, but they're canceled. And I'm glad the money's going to it, but the human services one was not canceled. Who made the decision on the timeline of the contracts, or how long this contract went, how long this contract didn't go, how many are still out there active? And then my other question outside of once I wait on that one.

So it really varies. We have 450, I think, ARPA projects. And then under some of those projects, there may be 100 contracts for one project, like building stabilization or something like that. So, it really depends on the type of project. A lot of the contracts, they intentionally gave themselves as long as possible. In other words, till the end of September. A lot of the violence prevention contracts, for instance, were that way. Other contracts uh... for building stabilization they were expected to start the work within sixty days or within thirty days and be done within a year and if they didn't complete it then we could take the money and move on so it really just depends but decisions were made years ago to decide how long this program would be completed and for some of them they the department would decide we have additional funds we just need to extend the length or for some they ran out of money early and so they let the contract expire or terminated it early just there are varied reasons

Thank you, Counselor. And then my last question for whoever can answer this. If we pass Board Bill 43 as amended, we will be reappropriating roughly $3 million. How many funds are still left in ARPA to be reappropriated? And will we be having this conversation again? And with the timeline coming so closely, what does that look like?

There is 120 million left to be spent as of the end of May. I can't speak for the administration, but it's quite possible there will be more board bills because this is ongoing education as to bits and pieces that are left over as projects are getting wound up. And we have people working really hard to try to get For instance, those North City grants, some of those grants just closed. A lot of work needs to happen in the next few months to get the projects done. But if they can't get them done, then we need to take that money and spend it in some way so that we're not allocating it to Treasury, returning it to Treasury. But all the money is allocated for something at this point. It's just finding the leftovers or if something goes wrong, where it's possible that there will be some more cleanup bills.

And you say how much is left?

$120 million as of end of May.

and like you say for the record all of them have allocations or appropriations to work for those um i guess moving forward with this i guess this is more of an axe for the administration if there could be a little bit more uh collaboration or conversations when you all are doing amazing work as you're talking to department heads and they're like oh we have this much we have this much and then you all make a decision to file a bill like this one um i think kind of got noticed last week a little bit on it and thought some prayers go to i know our alderwoman had a lot going on and ran for her fam but this is very similar to how we did the last uh arpa reallocation bill that You all probably just picked a sponsor and then the board bill was filed, but there wasn't like a conversation, at least just with colleagues on this, just like we've been actively having those conversations with Rams and stuff like that. I would love to just see more of those holistic conversations happening when there is a moment that we know that there will be another reappropriation bill coming down the pipeline.

Heard. There more than likely will be a reappropriation bill sometime in October. All of the contracts are supposed to end September 30th. So going through, looking at which funds, if there's any funds left over, and sweeping it all in that October.

And by the guideline, when do we have to have all the funds spent?

December 31st, but we have to have all of the back, like Oracle and all of the finance done by then, which is why September 30th is the deadline to give three months to be able to happen, the possibility of seeing if a project needs one more week, seeing what we can do for that to not put us all the way to the very end where we could lose money.

Just a caution of that October date, knowing the process of how board bills move, they don't, unless we suspend the rules and do that all very quickly, and the board also goes down in November, December for the holiday. So October's cutting it close, but I understand that there are people in the city council office and the comptroller office smarter than me that have been doing this for the last several years, and I'm sure looking at October as a date that things can get through, but as we are in the month of June now, we did reappropriation months ago. We at least were giving ourselves a nice amount of time at this moment if we reappropriate those funds to get it out the door. My very last question, it is about the ARPA reappropriation, but not this bill. The last bill we did was what, seven roughly million, five million, I can't remember the exact number.

The last board bill was originally 6.7 million, but it went down to 5.4.

Okay. And those funds was for the water department for infrastructure needs. Have that 5 million got to the water department?

Yes, they have. I double-checked.

Okay, so they received all the $5 million.

Yeah, so it did take longer than we expected. So that's also why that September 30th deadline is important because you have to do individually pull over each fund. So even when it's $0.18, it takes quite a bit of staff time to pull that over.

No more questions. Thank you, Madam Chair.

We still have questions for Director Moak. He's calling me back.

Vice Chair, I had some additional questions.

I think this question might be just in reference to honestly, it might be for Nancy, but it's probably several can speak to it. I just want to make sure I was understanding correctly, is are we saying that it's not possible to shift the funds to existing current programs that are funded by ARPA?

the so you can shift existing funds to open contracts under arpa but also some of the contracts for example like healthy home repairs take several months from when the funds hit them to where they can do um contract out to a individual provider like habitat for humanity and then habitat humanity has to do that work um so that's the system if there's and then the other thing it can go to is revenue replacement which is what we're doing with water

So for home repair, are you saying like the issue with contracting for existing programs under ARPA for home repair is that the money wouldn't be spent in time? Or are we saying that there are no open contracts connected to home repair for ARPA?

Nancy's coming to answer the question.

I think it's more that they can't be spent in time. But with the ARPA home repair, I believe, and I don't get into this program regularly, but Mission St. Louis is generally used as the administrator. And they put together the homeowner with a contractor and have the paperwork signed and the scope of work determined. and then the work is completed and Mission St. Louis inspects and makes sure that was done correctly before the contractor is paid. So there has to be that process and then the actual repair work done and then Mission St. Louis is what I understand is then reimbursed for those expenses. So it does take a bit of time, and that process is still going on with ARPA money and with non-ARPA money. And this amount was... So I think this is about $32,000-something. It could be reappropriated for home repair. That decision wasn't proposed. Legally, it could be, but it would be tricky to figure out exactly what to do with it. We'd have to look at the possibilities of where it could go.

So what I'm looking at on our city's website, it looks like we have a new contract with Home Repair Mission St. Louis, January 7th, 2026. They have a contract. It looks like that's about $9,482. That's still open. There's another contract date that I see for January 14th, 2026. That is about $19,795. Like, I'm just putting this on record for the sake of my colleagues and for myself to be transparent that this is what I'm highlighting. This is what my concern is, is it doesn't, I'm not getting the vibe that there was a due diligence to make sure, and again, some of the needs I understand. The Northside Grant Corridor Program, that is, you know, that was a unique program that was, you know, that had its own special circumstances. As an SLDC board member, I got to see kind of a pan with some of the challenges were with their program. But right now, like, little bit less than a year out from the tornado at a time where there's a lot of pressure from the community i'm not understanding why every effort or every conversation to make sure that any dollars for home repair when that's the need that we're hearing over and over and over again even from our own office of recovery is saying that that is you know such a shortage there we have open contracts with mission st louis as early as january but we're saying that we haven't had any conversations about admitting those contracts and moving this money to there To me, it's seeming like we were just really interested in moving this money to water, which I understand, but that we didn't really take a look at, you know, if the original source was home repair and knowing the need that exists in our community right now, are there ways that those dollars could be amended? And I felt like in the beginning of this conversation or in my previous reach outs, I was being told, oh, you know, we can't do that because there's no open contract this restriction but i don't really see a legal deterrence from us able to have these conversations it seems like there was just you know perhaps a stronger political will to move these funds to water not the same strong political will to move it to home repair again other things in this bill i understand but when we're talking about a tornado i'm really uncomfortable with voting for legislation that takes money away from home repair When we know that there are thousands of people who couldn't do it. And also when like we're being told kind of different information in some cases where you can't do it for this, you can't do it for that. If we can move the money to contracts that are similar uses, there are contracts that were entered in just as early as January of this year. To me, it seems like there is no legal deterrence. It's just a question of what we have the political will to do here.

Thank you for all of that. I think there's a few things in looking through the contracts that are up for reappropriation. Some of them are projects that have finished and, you know, as small as three cents. The largest one is in the $9,000 range. This is a few different things. One, any contract that might be in existence now or that is in existence now is likely for a specific project, a specific already identified home, already identified project, and those are being carried out to meet the ARPA deadline. This is something that I can't, without Mr. Moak here to answer it, I am not sure if there are the abilities for these nonprofits that do have contracts, if they're looking to expand, if they're wanting to have the funds to do that expansion. So, you know, if it works for you, I'm happy to have these conversations over the next you know, two weeks while this moves from here into the conversation of actually, you know, on the floor, if there are ways to move these funds to contracts already open for, and that works for the recipients of the contracts and for the department. I just can't speak to whether that is the case or not to make any amendment today. Maybe Caitlin Smith can.

Yeah, because I would say that $9,000 in a range of home repair is quite significant. That can meet a lot of need in a range of home repair. Certainly there are people where it is a couple of thousand, they need a couple more thousand dollars for a wall. They need a couple more thousand dollars to do some, you know, like $9,000 is extremely important. I think in home repair, again, people's entire homes are ruined. I think every dollar is needed there. I'm happy to definitely have further conversations on the floor, but I just think to be honest, given all the questions and honestly, I want to be honest that I feel like I haven't been given complete like transparency, even on some of the options of the money being moved. The bill was filed Friday and then it was today kind of having a hearing. I do appreciate Kayla and I think she's made herself available. We've had some conversations, but this has been something that that I've been trying to read up and study and have conversations on real time with just a matter of days. And so for me, I just can't in good conscience take a vote that would take money away from home repair without knowing for a fact that every due diligence was done to make sure that there was no way that we could reappropriate that money to the same use, given the need that's in our- And from what Mr. Moog said, it doesn't look like that was the goal with what he was doing when looking through-

these numbers it sounded like they were contracts that were either you know had completed and there was need to move the money out of that specific contract and um as he is his own words that it made sense in in his mind and administrating the funds to um instead of reopening or changing or expanding to to reallocate these funds um you know definitely not minimizing the need of home repair but that's the decision made within the department Is there any feedback that you're getting from Matt Moog on this option or anything that you're wanting to do here?

Yeah, I just wanted to add, I think some of this is coming to the early on flaws that were made with ARPA and that each individual contract for each home on healthy home repair is a separate contract. So you talked about how one was for $9,000, one was $19,000. We can't just simply add more money to the $19,000 one because that's for that specific home. So that's just an early on flaw that was made with the Healthy Home Repair Program specifically, is that it's for each individual home, so it's not simple to just add $50,000 to the program, be able to help several different homes, because it's individually contracted for each home and you can't change, my understanding is changing the contract to be for any home, I don't think that's within the realm of what is possible.

I think my challenge is just all of the, we don't know. We're not sure if possibly, you know, I like, I think too, because we're expected to take a vote today. So I can't even say that we've necessarily had the time to have the due diligence conversation. If the bill was just filed Friday, we're expected to take a vote today. And there still are some of these questions hanging in the air. i think like i said i think just my personal opinion um that i will be reflected with my vote is that i just can't say for a fact that every due diligence was taken to have all the conversations to make sure that there was no way to put this money back into home repair i will speak for my experience with working with these various departments that they are doing everything they can to make sure that not a single dollar goes back to the federal government and that we are able to spend this money

in the city of st louis on things that matter to the city of st louis so i would push back on that a bit but i would also say that if this committee is not comfortable we do have time to have another committee hearing if you have more questions um i think um over the years that i've been your colleagues i've always tried to make a space for these conversations and never have wanted my colleagues to feel rushed during committee if there are outstanding questions. So I think Ms. Smith did a great job explaining why there was not an ability in this case to just have a lump healthy home care program that continued to add houses to it, that they were for specific homes. And so I'm comfortable with that answer, but if my colleagues here on this committee are not, I do understand holding this and having Mr. Moat come back next week if we're able to have another hearing and still get this out by the end of June. So I guess it's up to the members of the committee what you all want to do today.

I don't know that there's something that I would just ask outright. I want people to, I mean, I'm comfortable with voting on it today, but I wouldn't put anybody else in that position if they want to mull it over, so.

Yeah, I'm not trying to put anyone in any position. It's more of just the, this is where we do the work. And if there's more work to be done, I'm certainly not going to be the one to force something through if people are uncomfortable. I'm comfortable. I would be voting yes. And every member of the committee would have the right to vote how they want to vote today. And I always appreciate the time and really thoughtful conversations we have here in HUD.

So you as the sponsor can make that call if you want to hold it, or if you want to call for the vote, or if you want to take a second and discuss it, it's up to you.

OK. It looks like other people might want to speak at all.

I would say I will. I will be voting for it. I do understand where the Alderman from the 7th is coming from, and this is kind of the second go-round. We did this ARPA reappropriation where the bill was filed, and then I do believe the Alderman from the 1st always is Trying to make sure that if there are questions that those kind of get answered and you always do your due diligence working with the committee. I do think this is more of a second go around with the mayor's office again, knowing that there will be another reappropriation. to actually engage the full board and not just engage the sponsor and send out fact sheets and all are amazing, but within less than 24, 48 hours for people to digest it. I do think, I get where the all women from the 7th is coming from, the timeline of the turnaround with the bill being filed Friday and having the hearing Tuesday. but i will only reason i'm voting for is because i know that you as a sponsor will work with uh the alderwoman from the seventh uh to be able to get some of those questions answered and that we do not do this process again this way where it is filed and then have a committee here and expect to move uh these funds so quickly which they do need to be moved quickly

but clearly these conversations are already happening with the administration and as a legislative body we are due that same respect to be part of those conversations sure and i i hear that and that's the work we do in committee i believe the last um arpa reappropriation bill we heard in committee for three times um so uh certainly um you know in that bill when people had questions we took pause many of the organizations were spoken to directly And that, you know, we did take the time. So, you know, I think the question was answered as to why this contract is the way it is. And with the specific properties that are assigned to contracts, why it can't be expanded in a way where it could have been had the contract been done in a way that was less property specific. So I don't. I don't have any remaining questions. So I do hear you though. And if I'm carrying the bill the next round, I will ask for the bill to be held at least a week before it's introduced for conversations to happen behind the scenes to make sure people have that time. So I appreciate the feedback. Thank you. And with that, I would, if there's nothing else for me, I would close to ask for your favorable consideration and do pass recommendation for Board Bill 43 as amended.

I move that we pass Board Bill 43 as amended with the do pass recommendation.

Second. It was moved by Alderman Browning and seconded by Alderman Clark Hubbard. And we passed Board Bill 43 out as amended with a do pass recommendation. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Switzer.

Aye.

Vice Chair Sonnier. No.

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

No.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

Chair Clark Hubbard. We have five aye votes, one no vote.

All right. With that, you successfully passed our Board Bill 43 as amended. Madam Clerk, were there any resolutions for review?

We have none.

Any additional committee discussions?

We have none.

Any written testimony?

We have none.

Any announcements from our colleagues? All members were present this morning, so with that, I'll accept the motion to adjourn.

Second.

It was moved by Alderman Browning, seconded by Alderman Aldridge, that we adjourn. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Thank you. Everyone have a blessed day.