Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

Alderman Aldrich. President Green. Present. Alderwoman Velazquez. Alderwoman Sanye. Alderwoman Keyes. Alderwoman Boyd.

12 present. A quorum being present will be led in an opening reflection by Tiffany Lacey-Clark with a behavioral health response.

Good morning. I'm Tiffany Lacey Clark. I'm the president and CEO of Behavioral Health Response. Just coming this morning to share with you a little bit about our organization. Behavioral Health Response is St. Louis, Missouri and the state of Missouri's largest provider of 988 Lifeline crisis response services. We also partner with the city of St. Louis in the mayor's office. Police Department to provide crisis response support for people who are in crisis so they receive help instead of handcuffs, and we provide diversion support services. We are here to help and provide crisis response services so that people are able to get, and the citizens primarily, are able to get the response and support they need 24-7 without barriers to care. We provide health equity. We provide tornado relief support. We provide the immediate barrier-free access to responses and to trauma that all the citizens in this area deserve to have without any barrier, without any restrictions to that response and to that care. We really want to focus on making sure that all of our students receive that same equity and access to care at this time. And so we're also launching Response, which is a platform that allows students to receive at their fingertips and at their school devices a platform to be able to use resources, receive care, to have access to peers who are trained, students, other students, other teens who are trained to be able to respond to those students. Also having access to 24 hours to clinicians who are trained to respond to them if they're having big feelings that they don't know how to manage. And so we're just here to provide that level of support and care and resources and we're here to thank the city of St. Louis, and to thank you all for providing the resources that we need to take care of the city and take care of the community in the way that we are able to do that. And we want to thank you for being able to provide us that resource to take care of the community. So thank you.

We will dispense with line item four, any introduction of honored guests. Any introduction of honored guests. Alderman from the 9th.

Wander until I find one. He needs a light that works. Thank you. There we go. I'd just like to have members of our St. Louis Water Division as my honored guests this morning. Today we're going to be perfecting a rate increase that will help them become fiscally solvent for generations to come, and we really appreciate the work that they've done to uh be there for our city and continue delivering a safe clean drinking product for us that is really a requirement for all life so thank you to the members of the water division for their amazing work and we look forward to supporting them any further introduction of honored guests any further introduction of honored guests seeing none older woman from the 10th you are recognized on the approval of the minutes from friday june 5th 2026.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we approve the minutes from Friday, May 10th, June 10th. You didn't let me finish.

It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th, that we approve minutes from Friday, June 5th, 2026. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Report of city officials.

Report of city officials can be found in A, B, C, and D of the agenda, and a copy has been placed in a Google Drive. Dear members of the board, I have the pleasure to submit the following individual for appointment to the Grove Community Improvement District, the appointment of Jess Watson. I respectfully request your approval of these appointments. Sincerely, Kara Spencer-Mayer.

Alderman from the 9th, you are recognized on Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Grove Community Improvement District.

I move that we accept the Mayor's appointment of Jess Watson to the Grove Community Improvement District. Second.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 9th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Grove Community Improvement District. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Does anyone wish to take any bills or resolutions off of any of our informal calendars? Anyone wish to take any bills or resolutions off of any of our informal calendars? Seeing none, Alderman from the 11th, you are recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing Board Bill 44 for first reading.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam President, and welcome back. I would like to ask that we suspend the rules for Board Bill 44.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 11th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing Board Bill 44. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you. I renew my motion.

It has been moved by the Alderwoman from the 11th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing Board Bill 44. This is a non-debatable motion. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderwoman Schweitzer. Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan. Aye. Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Alderwoman Velazquez. Aye. Alderwoman Sanye.

Aye.

Alderwoman Cox Antwi. Aye. Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard. Aye. Alderwoman Keyes. Aye. Alderwoman Tyus.

Aye.

Alderwoman Boyd. Alderman Aldrich.

Aye.

President Green. Aye. Alderwoman Velasquez. Alderwoman Boyd. 13 aye votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion of the Alderwoman from the 11th. Madam Clerk, if you could place Board Bill 44 at the end of the first reading of Board Bills. So noted. First reading of Board Bills.

Board Bill Number 38, introduced by Alderwoman Keyes, pursuant to Ordinance Number 70333, as amended by Ordinance Number 71394, to calm the flow of traffic, to calm the flow of traffic on the 4400 and 4500 blocks of Morning Avenue. Board Bill Number 39, introduced by Alderwoman Keyes, Pursuant to ordinance number 70333, as amended by ordinance number 71394, to calm the flow of traffic on East Prairie Avenue between the intersections of East Prairie Avenue and Natural Bridge Avenue and East Prairie Avenue and Dr. Martin Luther King Drive. Board Bill Number 40, introduced by Alderwoman Schweitzer, an ordinance to amend the geographic boundaries of the Loughborough Commons Community Improvement District. Board Bill Number 41, introduced by Alderwoman Sanye, an ordinance establishing the definition of community development corporation and certification framework containing a severance clause and emergency clause. board bill number 42 introduced by alderwoman cox and tweed an ordinance recommended by the board of public service to conditionally vacate above surface surface and subsurface rights for vehicle east question and pedestrian travel in marion street from 10th street to his terminitis and i-44 abutting city blocks three eight eight and three eight nine in the city of st louis missouri as hereafter described in accordance with charter authority and in conformity with section fourteen of article twenty one of the charter and imposing certain conditions on such vacation Ward bill number 43, introduced by Alderwoman Schweitzer, an ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, amending ordinance number 71393, ordinance number 71494, ordinance number 71554, ordinance number 71555, ordinance number 71561, ordinance number 71591, ordinance number 71592, ordinance number 71650, ordinance number 71840, ordinance number 71864, and ordinance number 72125. By reappropriating certain amounts specified, hearing in an aggregate amount of $2,520,436, 86, $100 for water infrastructure replacement and repair and with an emergency clause. Board bill number 44 introduced by Alderwoman keys and ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor and controller of the city of St. Louis to execute upon receipt and of consideration of the sum of 200 and. $200 and other good and valuable consideration. A quick claim deed to remiss release and forever quick claim unto Willie Jarman, certain city-owned property located in city blocks 4411A, which property is known and numbered as 4052 Camellia Avenue in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, and it containing an emergency clause. That is the extent of first reading of board bills.

Madam Clerk, please assign board bill 44 to the HUD's committee. So noted. Reference to committee of board bills.

To the public infrastructure board bill number 38, 39, 42, and 43. To the HUD's committee board bill number 40, 41, and 44. That is the extent of reference to committee of board bills.

Second reading report of standing committees.

The following board bills were reported out of a HUD's with a do-pass recommendation. Board Bill 22 as amended in committee, introduced by President Megan E. Green, Mayor Kara Spencer. An ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimates and Apportionment, appropriating a sum of $230 million of land settlement funds for a deposit into various new special funds to rebuild North St. Louis from the May 16 tornado and decades of This investment support infrastructure and neighborhoods citywide and revitalizing downtown to increase revenue for the entire city with the amounts as described herein and containing a serability clause and emergency clause. The following Board Bill was reported on personnel and administration with a do pass recommendation. Board Bill 37 as amended in committee. Introduced by Alderman Aldrich, President Green, Devotee, Alderman Boyd, and Alderman Cohn. An ordinance pertaining to compensation for employees of the Board of Aldermen and authorizing a one-time supplemental payment. The provisions of this ordinance shall be effective upon approval by the Mayor. The following board bills reported out of budget and public employees with a do pass recommendation. Board bill number eight, introduced by Alderwoman Schweitzer, Alderwoman Sayeh, and Alderman Aldrich. An ordinance relating to the appointment of and salaries of certain employees in the Collector of Revenues Office pursuant to Section 82.610. Revise statutes of Missouri by repealing Ordinance Number 71966 of allocating certain other employees to a grade-width rate and including an emergency clause. The provisions of the sections contained in this ordinance shall be effective with the start of the first pay period following approval by the mayor. That is the extent of second reading and report of standing committees.

Alderman from the 14th, you're recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of moving Board Bill 37 as amended in committee to the regular perfection calendar.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the committee. We'll go back up at the dais, Madam President. I make a motion that we suspend Board Bill 37 as amended in committee to the regular perfection calendar.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alderman from the 3rd, that we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving forward Bill 37 as amended in Committee to the Regular Perfection Calendar. This is a non-debatable motion. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderwoman Schweitzer.

Aye. Alderman Oldenburg.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn. Aye. Alderman Ryan.

Aye.

Alderman Devotee. Alderwoman Velazquez.

Aye. Alderwoman Sonnier.

Aye.

Alderwoman Cox and Tweed. Aye. Alderman Browning. Aye. Alderwoman Clark Hubbard. Aye. Alderwoman Keyes. Aye. Alderwoman Tyus.

Aye. Alderwoman Boyd. Aye. I told you, I got you. Alderman Aldrich. Aye.

President Green. Aye. 14 aye votes. I'm sorry, Alderman Cohn.

Go. Go. Aye.

15 aye votes. By your vote, you sustain the motion for the alderman from the 14th. Madam Clerk, if you could please place Board Bill 37 as amended in committee at the end of the regular perfection calendar.

So noted.

Report of special committees.

We have none.

Condispense with line item 15, perfection consent calendar.

Board Bill Number 15, introduced by Alderman Aldrich, an ordinance relating to the appointment of and salaries of certain employees of the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners, pursuant to 115.045 and 115.049, Revived Statutes of Missouri, by repealing Ordinance Number 71887, allocating certain other employees to a grade with a rate and including an emergency clause. The provisions of the sections contained in this ordinance shall be effective with the start of the first pay period after approval by the mayor. Board Bill number 16, introduced by Alderman Aldrich, an ordinance to regulate employer and employee working relationships between the City of St. Louis and all employees under the Medical Examiner's Office, including a compensation plan, terms and conditions of employment, benefits, leaves of absence, and authorizations for deferred compensation plan, revealing ordinance number 71970, allocating certain other employees to a grade with rate and including an emergency clause. The provisions of the sections contained in this ordinance shall be effective with the start of the first pay period in which this ordinance is approved by the Mayor. Board Bill number 26 as amended in committee, introduced by Alderman Aldrich, the board bill repeals ordinance number 71965 relating to the position classifications and salaries of the treasurer's office employees and enacting in lieu thereof a new ordinance dealing with the same subject matter and containing an emergency clause. The provisions of the sections contained in this ordinance shall be effective with the start of the first pay period following approval of the mayor. For bill number 31, introduced by Alderman Clark Hubbard and Alderman Aldrich, an ordinance making appropriation for payment of the operating expenses, capital expenses, including lease purchase agreements and debt service expenses, Of the parking division of the treasurer's office for fiscal year, July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027, and the sum of 21,037,966 dollars, including 1,475,768 dollars for capital improvements containing an emergency clause. board bill number 18 introduced by alderman devotee and alderman browning an ordinance authorizing the honorary street name sister felicita cola avenue pursuant to ordinance number 68604 which shall begin at the intersection of wilson avenue and macklin avenue and run east on wilson avenue to the intersection of wilson avenue and edward street Board Bill number 23, introduced by Alderman Devotee, pursuant to Ordinance number 70333, as amended by Ordinance number 71394, an ordinance directing the Director of Streets to install speed humps to calm the flow of traffic on various blocks in the Fifth Ward. That is the extent of perfection consent.

Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adopt the board bills for the perfection consent calendar.

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

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we adopt the board bills for the perfection consent calendar. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Board bills for perfection.

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

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

Thank you, Madam President. Members of the Board, please place Board Bill 10 on the informal calendar.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that.

So noted.

Board Bill Number 25, as amended in committee, introduced by Alderman Browning, Alderman Cohn, Alderwoman Boyd, Alderwoman Cox-Antwi, Alderman Devotee, Alderwoman Schweitzer, Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard, and Alderwoman Velazquez. An ordinance pertaining to water rates, finding, determining, and declaring that an increase in certain water rates is necessary for certain purposes, defining certain terms, repealing and replacing Parts of Ordinance 71683, which are presently codified as Section 23.06.130, 23.16.025, 23.16.040, 23.18.015, 23.18.070, 23.20.015, 23.20.020, 23.20.030, and 23.20.040 of the revised code of the City of St. Louis. And amending parts of Ordinance 71683, which are presently codified as Section 23.16.020 and 23.04.220 of the revised code, all having as their subject water rates and charges and containing an emergency provision.

Alderman, from the 9th, you're recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 25 as amended and committed.

Thank you. I would move that we perfect Board Bill 25 as amended in committee. Second.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 9th, seconded by the Alderman from the 3rd, that we perfect Board Bill 25 as amended in committee. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you. I appreciate my colleagues engaging with me over the past several months, really, on this bill. The Water Division is an incredibly valuable public asset of the city. It is the lifeblood of our city, running through 1,300 miles of water mains. It has two treatment plants, two reservoirs, and also 15,500 fire hydrants. And they're all publicly owned and operated by our water division and supported by the rate payers of the city of St. Louis. As a public utility and an enterprise fund, it is those rates that really pay for the daily operations, maintenance, and capital improvements. But for the last seven years, it has not had sufficient rates to keep up with the cost of operation. And that has meant deferred maintenance on our infrastructure, as well as running the water division at a deficit. In addition, there was a moratorium on water shutoffs that was for delinquent accounts, and it occurred at the same time as rising costs. And the result has been the complete depletion of the Water Division's contingency fund. Late last year, the moratorium was lifted, and earlier this year, there was an emergency reallocation of American Rescue Plan Act dollars to help keep the Water Division from going bankrupt. But without sufficient rate increases, and without additional funds, it will not be possible to operate through the next fiscal year or replace and repair our aging infrastructure proactively or when it breaks. While we raised the rate two years ago, it was the first time rates had been increased in almost 15 years, and we knew at the time that it would not be enough. With over $700 million worth of capital improvement needs, the Water Division engaged in a rate sufficiency study to determine the path to financial solvency. This study looked at the cost of running the division, the available sources of income, the capital improvement plan, the need to rebuild the contingency fund, and the need to create a rate sufficiency fund. And it determined that the solution is a combination of rate increases for the next several years, cash from the RAM settlement fund, and bonding and loans. Without the rate increases, bonding will not be possible. And without the RAM settlement funds, bonding will not be possible. It will take a combined approach to put the Water Division on the path to financial solvency. Today, it will take the courageous action of the Board of Aldermen to raise the rates to ensure that this public utility stays public and can continue to deliver safe, clean water to every resident and business in the City of St. Louis for generations to come. There has been extensive public engagement on this critical step, and so whether you attended the town halls hosted by the Water Division at the O'Fallon Rec Center, Uter Library, and Archwell Health, or the first, third, ninth, and fourteenth ward town halls, and soon the fifth and tenth ward town halls, or the Public Infrastructure and Utility Committee meetings on January 14th, March 4th, May 13th, May 27th, and June 3rd. Director Patel and the Water Division have been showing up and answering our questions and concerns. And we know that when a pipe breaks, our Water Division is there doing the work to bring us the one thing we cannot live without. The last thing I'll say today is that we know that this increase comes at a time of increasing costs for everyone. And it's common sense that when it's more expensive to buy groceries and it's more expensive to buy gas, it's also more expensive to run the water division. But that doesn't mean that the cost can be shouldered equally by everyone. And we needed an equitable solution to make sure that those who might not be able to afford these increases can do so. So that's why this bill includes an affordable rate for the first time, helping mitigate the impact of higher rates for customers with lower incomes. A class cost of service study is also going to be on the way, which will address disparities in how different customers are charged. So we have an amendment today that will add language about when that class cost of service study will be procured and add reference to a planned ordinance to ensure transparency and accountability going forward in rate review processes. So I'd like to take up that amendment at this time, first thing, and then I'd be happy to discuss and answer questions about board bill 25. So I would move that we adopt amendment number one to board bill 25 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 9th, seconded by the alderman from the 3rd, that we adopt Amendment No. 1 to Board Bill 25 as amended and committed. You may proceed.

Thank you. So this amendment should be on everyone's desk. And as you can see, it just simply adds language to reference when we're going to procure a class cost of service study that will happen by June 30th, 2027. And it also adds language to refer to an ordinance that we will be working on to really build out a structure of a rate review process. We don't want to be doing this every single time we have to raise rates where we rush because it's an emergency. We want a very clear and transparent process. And we were able to do that this time with the rate sufficiency study. And I think the Water Division has been excellent at going out and answering people's questions and being very publicly available. We won't always have these two champions that we have in Spencer Gould and Naresh Patel. We won't always have the same people down at this board. And so we want to make sure that any process going forward is just as clear and transparent. And that's something that we've been asked to do by the Consumer Council of Missouri. And we agree with them that this is an important part of this process because this affects everybody who uses our water in our city. So with that, I renew my motion to adopt Amendment No. 1 to Board Bill 25 as amended and committed.

Is there any discussion on the amendment? Any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, it's been moved by the alderman from the ninth, seconded by the alderman from the third that we adopt amendment number one to board bill 25 as amended in committee. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Alderman, you may now proceed on the perfection of board bill 25 as amended on the floor.

Thank you. Happy to answer any questions at this time on this board bill.

Alderman, we need a motion to perfect now.

I would move that we perfect board bill 25 as amended on. Second.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 9th, seconded by the alderman from the 3rd, that we perfect board bill 22 as amended on the floor. Is there any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, then alderman from the 9th, you are recognized closed.

Thank you. I have talked long enough, so I'll just say I ask that we help keep this public utility public and ask for your favorable consideration.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the Knight, seconded by the Alderman from the Third, that we perfect for Bill 22 as amended on the floor. There's been a request for roll call. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. I'm sorry, you said 22? Or 25, sorry.

Alderwoman Schweitzer.

Aye.

Alderman Oldenburg. Aye. Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan. Aye. Alderman Devotee. Aye. Alderwoman Velazquez. Aye. Alderwoman Sanye. Aye. Alderwoman Coxanne Twee. Aye. Alderman Browning. Aye. Alderwoman Clark Hubbard. Aye. Alderwoman Keyes. Aye. Alderwoman Tyus. No. Alderwoman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich. President Green. Aye. Alderman Odenberg.

12 aye votes, 2 noes. By your vote, you sustain the motion of the Alderman from the Knight to perfect Board Bill 25 as amended on the floor.

Board Bill No. 28, introduced by Alderman Devotee, Alderman Schweitzer, Alderman Cox-Antwi, Alderman Browning, and Alderman Velazquez. An ordinance requiring the installation of water meters on certain service connections in the City of St. Louis, providing mechanisms for enforcement, including providing authority to deny or withhold service, or denying compliance, and delegating authority to the Water Division to administer, implement, and set technical standards for meter installations. The requirement applies prospectively to new service connections and mandates the installation of meters only on certain existing service connections. The ordinance also includes a serrability clause.

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

Madam President, members of the Board, we just heard the summary with respect to Board Bill 28. I will say that this particular bill was born out of experience in the Public Utilities and Infrastructure Committee, listening to residents, listening to constituents, I will get there. Listening to constituents with respect to how we bill for water, which of course is a flat rate. The summary, and I believe what we have done is we've... Okay. I move to perfect. Board Bill 28. Second.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 5th, second by the Alderman from the 3rd, that we perfect Board Bill 28. Alderman, you may proceed.

Yes, so we were talking about Board Bill 28, which again bears out of my experience within the Public Utilities and Infrastructure Committee. This has been borne out over, similar to what the alderman from the night said, multiple hearings over many times, listening to constituents talk in terms of how we bill for water. I believe that the bill is self-explanatory. I'm, of course, happy to answer questions before we get there. I do have an amendment to the bill that talks in terms of when it becomes effective. It's in the drive and on your desk as Amendment 1. And I would move that we adopt Amendment 1 to Board Bill 28.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fifth, seconded by the alderman from the ninth that we adopt amendment number one to board bill 28. Alderman, you may proceed on the amendment.

So what Amendment 1 does is, again, with respect to the effective date of the ordinance, is it indicates that it shall become effective on a date certain. And in this case, November 1, 2026, the purpose of the amendment is to give a date certain to the Water Division with respect to planning for effectuation of the ordinance. And again, at this time, I would move for adoption of Amendment 1.

Any further discussion on the amendment? Any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none, it's been moved by the alderman from the 5th, seconded by the alderman from the 9th, that we adopt Amendment No. 1 to Board Bill 28. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Alderman, you may now proceed with the perfection of Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor.

Yes, Madam President. And again, I would now move to perfect Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 5th, seconded by the alderman from the 9th, that we perfect Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor. Alderman, you may proceed.

I'm happy to answer questions at this time with respect to the bill.

Any further discussion? Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board, will the Alderman from the 5th yield for questions? I will.

The Alderman from the 5th yields questioning from the Alderman from the 14th. Yes, I will. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Good morning, Alderman. Good morning, sir. First, I will say some of the questions that I'm going to ask. We've had these questions in your office. I don't like to do the getcha, gotcha. You know, I think when it comes to this bill, I am hesitant to support it for various reasons. Can you explain how we received or how do we get to this point You know, with the water rate increase, we knew that that was coming down the pipeline. We knew that the study had happened and a lot of engagement had happened with that legislation. I believe they even had two hearings in the committee. I know you had one, but how did you come to a place of bringing this bill forward?

Absolutely, and that's a fair question. We have been hearing from the Water Division with respect to its various challenges during my entire tenure on the board, which, admittingly, is only about 15 months. But it has been through that entire period. Over the course of numerous hearings, we have heard not just from the utilities director and the water commissioner, but we've also heard from members of the public. One of the consistent common themes throughout that entire period is the manner in which we bill for water. And in the vast majority of instances, with respect to residence, that's under a flat system. And you're familiar with that. It's a matter of how many toilets, how many showers, how many tubs, frontage with respect to property, how many rooms in a particular residence. historically that's the way our system has developed and that's the way most of our residents are built today a common theme again over the course of the last fifteen months no matter the issue is that rate and listening to residents who are critical of that who believe that they are unfairly being charged for the water that they use or the lack of water that they use This idea was born. I asked questions of the utility director with respect to the installation of meters and the discussion was that the most fair and equitable way to charge our residents would be through the installation of meters. Now, let's be real about this. We've got a lot of residents in the city Looking at a retroactive or looking backwards and requiring all of those homes would be a near impossible task. So the thought was, let's take a baby step forward. Let's take a very, very small step forward. And let's talk only in terms of new builds or major renovations. Major renovations defined in two ways, meaning that the building division, the plumbing division is issuing permits and on-site, requiring the digging of a trench, the accessing and replacement of a water line. or where there is an issue with a water line and there's a partial replacement needed from the lockbox going to the water main. So those vary to limited instances. So again, this is a baby step forward and that is essentially how we got to this spot alderman.

um what you know if this bill were to move forward what uh again with the water bill i will say you know i voted against it i do know it was it's essential and i appreciate director patel and the staff and all the great work that they have done by going war by ward uh by opening up that invitation so that people could be educated on the potential increases of the water rate i wish we probably not could have got up explained or asked for the breakdown of that as the public is watching this and maybe the news carrier what is going to be the education piece um for residents to know on new builds or major renovation which your bill is uh have that if that is to happen then now they have to install a water meter because not everybody watches the board of aldermen or know what's going on down here and then they have to get major renovation and then they're hit with, oh, by the way, you need a water meter. Has there been any conversation between you, bless you, and the water department to do that engagement like they did around the water rates on this new item that will be needed for new builds or major renovations to people home?

I think one of the things that we can be very proud of with our water division is the way it educates. both in terms of information accessible online, information that the division puts out on a regular basis through social media and other means, and then through the attendance at neighborhood meetings and town halls. The thought is that that education would continue along those same ways. When we talk in terms of builders, or a major renovation project. But remember here, we're also talking about situations that require permitting. So that education would also happen during the permitting process. The idea of walking through the building division to obtain that which needs to be done to either do a new build or the renovate.

So that wouldn't necessarily be education. They would go to the building division and figure out that an ordinance was passed at the board, and now they have to install a water meter. Compared to with the water rate, what we've been seeing is our water department, which is, I think, doing a great job, going towards explaining what these water rates are, which now I'm thinking maybe I'm sure that you've been working on this legislation to talk to the water department in those conversations. If this was coming down a pipeline, that probably should have been also part of these conversations as they've been out there talking to residents about the water rates, also saying that there will probably be an additional cost on top of the rates with these water meters if it did get passed. But I wouldn't consider, in my opinion, that being education to the level that we have seen the water department go ward by ward, not just put on social media, because grandma and grandpa, some of them not on social media or have access to the internet, but was curious of what that education looked like, either from your end having conversations with the water department if this were passed, To make sure that residents was aware that this would be a new requirement for them when it comes to major rehabilitate or rehab or new builds.

Perhaps perhaps you're right. I do think when we talk in terms of education and you and I have talked about this quite a bit. both in my office and outside of that. I think it's very important that we are clear with residents, whether they're watching these deliberations today or we are communicating to the public, that this is not a retroactive application. This is not going to force any resident who is living right now to go out retain a plumber, and install a water meter. The installation of these meters is in an extremely limited situation. So, again, when we talk in terms of education, I think right here, right now, we've got to be very, very clear about the circumstances, which, again, is talking about a new build or a major renovation project as defined in this, in Board Bill 28.

And I think that gets to my next point, and I'm glad that you're very clear this isn't. If this bill were to pass, I'd lean to hopefully it don't. But if it were to pass that. water meters won't be installed instantly. I'm glad you brought that up. But we do know that there is a swath of North St. Louis that just went through a tornado, that a lot of rehab is needed, a lot of major rehab is needed. And I know your effective date pushes it back to November. So even if this does pass, it's not an immediate thing with a lot of people that are doing rehab right now. We need to do that. But that is my concern that we are putting, while $500 may seem small to some, that we're putting an additional burden on communities that are already trying to figure out their insurance process, trying to rebuild, and then there is a nice size of a city that this would ultimately affect because you're mandating that water meters go in if they do major rehab on their home.

I'm glad you asked that question, and I think that's a fair question to raise. I don't want to minimize the thought that a cost of a meter is $500. And I truly am not trying to minimize that. What I would point you and other members of this body to, as well as the public, is the ordinance itself. And that is Section 4, Subsection B that talks about installation requirements. And in those requirements, while the cost of the installation is on the resident, the builder, the developer, there is a phrase, and this is very, very important, that says, unless otherwise provided by water department policy.

I can't hear you. Use it again. Okay.

Yes, unless otherwise provided by water division policy. So that's the language in the ordinance. This was a question, and again, I thank you for bringing this up. This was an inquiry made by the older woman from the 10th, the older woman, Clark Hubbard, during the course of committee. It was a question raised of Director Patel. The answer to that was, remember with respect to water division, that we understand the challenges. And to the extent that there needs to be relief, we are working on policies. Now, we've talked about this, and you said now, Alderman, have those policies been written?

They are. Yes, and to that point of... And to that point of the policy, and I think when me and you talked about it, I think we got a great director now. But who knows? Maybe the director get an amazing job and leave and we get a new person come in where you're not putting it in ordinance to make it clear of what the relief is. And I've when me and you was talking, I still don't understand. what the relief is. I see the potential relief with the water rate. If you're under a certain income, you can pay less amount. But what I asked you yesterday, as we was talking, what is that relief? Not just saying, oh, it's up to the director to put in a policy that they would relieve residents that can't afford it, but what is the hard language in the bill that is clear that is there going to be an abatement? So if they have to get a water meter and you live in zip code 60106 or zip code 1112 that was impacted by a tornado that you, on top of getting your water meter for I don't know, a year or two, would be able to get $100 off of your water meter to be able to some of that financial income instead of just saying it would be in policy without what is that help that we're giving all power to the director to just put in policy.

We are providing the authority to the water division. That is correct.

We're providing, I can't hear you.

We are providing that authority to the water division with the idea that by it not being in ordinance, that provides the division with flexibility. The flexibility to deal on a case-by-case basis. You are correct.

So in those conversations with you and the water division director, what, I'm assuming you guys talked about what that policy could look like unless you just granted him the, we are granting him a full authority, but was there any conversations of what that relief is gonna look like on the water meter side? I think it's very clear what that relief looks like on the water department with the increase of water rates, but what is that relief? of water meters for residents, but we just put in blanket language as saying we're giving the department authority with no clarity of what that authority is.

And again, at hearing, the testimony was it would be consistent with that relief provided and indicated in the water rate increase bill. That's exactly what he said.

In a water rate increase bill, they provide, if you have a certain amount of income, you pay a little less. Am I correct? That's my understanding. Yes, sir. How does this, so if you have, if you're on low income, is a water department going to provide meters to residents at a cheaper rate?

it would be consistent with, the relief would be consistent with that indicated in the water rate increase bill.

So I'm not trying to be funny. I think clearly, well, you're a lawyer. So I think you kind of play on words. It's funny you say that because I feel like you're doing that to me. Well, actually, I just want to know direct. And I don't think when it comes to this part of the bill, you actually have the answer. I want to know directly. You keep saying it's in the same line of the water rate. We know what water rates, if you make a certain amount of income. that you pay less on your water bill. What I'm directly asking you, if you make a certain income, because you are talking about installing water meters, will you pay a less amount on that water meter that will cost $500? That is a yes, no, because these are two different legislations that are not the same Bill.

Yes. So again, thank you for extending our conversation. I think by beating this horse, I've had an opportunity to receive clarification. And I am told that under the circumstance that you have put forth, there would be no direct cost to customers per meter. If they...

Wait, I mean... Okay. So if you make a certain income, you don't have to pay for the water meter now?

And I think the other important point to make... Wait, wait, you just said... Correct. And I think the other important point to make that is getting lost in this conversation in the manner that you and I are having it is that not only will the water meter be installed, but that customer will be charged for the water that is being used. In many, many situations, not only will their water bill go down, but their sewage bill, their MSD bill, which is tied into how... water is spilled will also go down.

Let me go back because you just dropped something on me that you just received information. I just want to be very clear. You're saying, do you know the level of income that a person would make where they wouldn't have to pay for a water meter? I mean...

As I sit here right now, I don't know the level of income. I don't.

And that was not conversations that you had with the director? If you make $40,000, you get a free water meter?

Actually, it was a conversation. It was a conversation had in committee. But if you're asking me as I'm standing on the floor, can I recite what the director said, I cannot. That's a matter of record consideration. But you're asking me as I'm standing here, do I know that level?

I'm asking because it is your bill. And if you are saying in the bill that residents will get relief to a swath of people who need that relief, I would know like this is what the program is going to be. And we're not just going to say, hey, there will be relief out there for you as we work on this and we pass this out and not have the clear response. understanding what the relief is. And what you're now saying is if you make a certain income that is on record, if you make a certain income, your water meter will be free. Is that what you just said? I'm saying there won't be any cost to you for the meter. So your water meter will be free?

There will be no cost to you, correct.

Okay. I yield my question. I do appreciate the conversation, Alderman, and I know we talked about this yesterday. Like I say, my biggest concern is that on top of doing a water rate increase, we're going to be sending a message from the Board of Aldermen that we are also going to be charging individuals Especially just a year later post-tornado, an additional cost when we know the majority of the people in the tornado zone will need rehab. And it is not spelled out why, with all due respect that I appreciate, I think we have a great water department, I think we have a great director, but... You do not do, in my opinion, you don't get on the floor and say there will be relief for residents, but we don't know what that relief is. It's not spelled out in the bill. We leave it up to the director. We never know who's going to be the next director or if the director end up actually making sure that there is a program so that people who need that relief could be able to get it. That's why, while we're the legislative branch, let's codify it into law by putting it in the bill and we don't even know the income amount of who would get a free water meter all of this that is still questions out there without i think answers to them is not the way in my opinion like we move forward on it especially as we're about to tell folks a large swath of people that not only are we going to raise your water rate, but we're also going to, if you need rehab, which a lot of people in North St. Louis that are in the 10th and the 11th and the 12th Ward will need this major rehab, that you will be charged, or maybe you won't be charged, because there's no clear policy that lays it out if you get a free water meter or don't. In my opinion, I can't support this, at least not at this moment. I don't think that we shouldn't be doing this moving forward, but to drop a rate increase and also to drop another increase on residents when it comes to a water meter attached to their home now, I think is, in my opinion, a little tone deaf to people that are just trying to figure out how to bounce back from this tornado. I did ask Alder, would he be in favor of a carve out for those areas? I do not think he is, but I do think that would also send a message that while we want to install meters, we also understand that there is a part of the city that is struggling and to just move forward with another increase without the education, without giving them true support is, it's a, I wouldn't, I wouldn't be supporting this bill. And I would ask my colleagues just to ask a little bit more questions before we move forward on this bill, especially when it's not clear in the legislation, what that relief looks like. I yield my time, Madam President.

Alderwoman from the 12th. President members of the board, the ultimate fifth yield, the ultimate from the fifth yield to questioning by the other woman from wealth.

I will. Yes.

Thank you for this bill. Been here for a long time. I am a supporter of water meters, but the devil has always been in the details. The studies that you all are talking about, we've done several studies and the water department rate increases of what should happen. Things didn't happen the way they were supposed to. People didn't apply for certain aquafunds that were set aside for water. We didn't use our aquafunds more wisely for water when we cooked that. All those things have happened. But I still am a supporter of meters. I have questions about this bill. Already right now, if you have, what is it? It's four units or five units more, you have to have water meters. If you we have a building and you and you have 5 units, 6 units, you have to have water meters. I have 6, several 6 unit flats and we have water. The thing is great about that is when we raise the rate. Our bill didn't go up because it was metered. Also, we didn't get that fake MSD bill that they put out because both the water bill and the MSD bill are really fake bills. They're not based on any usage at all of people. That's why people are very upset with them. And through the years, the city of St. Louis has had a chance and as a Bush at 1 point offered to pay for us to go to meters and to put a deal together for us. And we foolishly didn't accept it. So there's been a lot of ways we could get meters devil in the details about who pays for the meat on most public utilities. The public utilities pay for your meters, be it Spire, be it Ameren or who else, they pay for the meters. Now, do they pass it on to the customer and cost? I am very sure that they do, but you're not struck with that large amount of cost. payment that you have to do all of a sudden if you are doing a major rehab or you have a situation or whatever. So they pay for the fire meter and so does airmen. So, but saying all of that, I also discovered just recently that part of the cost for having the meter is because we have it out in the tree line and I'm reading about it and I finally discovered, discover that there are actually houses in the city that are older that have the meters in their basement. Well, of course, water department and everybody else went away from having basement meters. Laclede Gas did that years ago because they had to get into the basement. They had to see the people. I guess when I moved into my house four years ago, they had to make an appointment with you once a year to read the meters. Sometimes it was hard. But over these 40 years I've lived in my house, they've developed meters that you can read driving by. It used to be you couldn't close in the space between the two houses because Amber needed to read the meters. Now they just drive down the street or I don't even know if they even drive if they're not able to read it from from where they sit, but they don't need to actually physically come on your property. So I started asking questions about why we would have to have, if we have the ability to read meters remotely, if we couldn't put meters in the basements again, which would be a lot cheaper. And some people said we probably could, and it would depend on what our ability was. So I don't have an exact answer for that. But I just want to understand what your bill says. And I have questions. Although I will follow up with what the alderman from the 14th says. I do agree with him with a number of things. He made some very good points, and I do agree with him. And I'll get back to that. But I want to get... My answers 1st, and that is so when you talk about a major bill, you said there's 2 ways that you have to install a meter. 1 of them is if you're building a new, right?

You then you have a meter. Is that correct? Alderman, you are breaking up on me a bit. I'm sorry. As I heard the question, and I'm going to repeat it, and then you tell me if I'm right or wrong, it's, Alderman, in what instances would a meter need to be installed? Is that the question? And I asked if one of them was when you had a new build, right?

New build, yes ma'am. Okay, and then the other one is if you had major you put a

It would be a major rehabilitation, which is defined as a project in which the plumbing division requires the replacement of a water service line. So for instance, and let's use the tornado zone as an example. There was loss of roof. There were windows blown out. There was damage to an exterior wall. But a water line would not be replaced. Necessary renovation would fall outside. It would fall outside of this bill. So this bill would not require the installation of meter.

Okay, but so all the houses in my area in the 4,900 blocks, including the one I live in are 100 years or older. Soon as I moved in my house in the 80s, first thing we found out, we had to get a new water sewer line. And the next year, we had to get a new water line. Had we known, we would have done them both at the same time, but new homeowners anyway. So if I was putting in new water, would that be required for me to put a meter in?

Alderwoman, I hate to ask you, we had a little tech glitch here. If you could restate your question. I'm sorry.

Okay, I'm sorry. I don't know. I'm trying. I've turned it up. I don't want to be screaming. Okay. If I had to put a new water line in my house, which is 100 years old, and most of the houses, in fact, all the houses on my block but one are over 100 years old, and the adjoining blocks in the 4900 block, would... all required, which we're all going to have to, because when your houses get to be 100 years old, would we be required to put a water meter in?

If the plumbing division would require replacement of the water line, yes. Water line meaning the service line between the main and your home.

So when your water line collapse, then the plumbing division is going to require that, okay? So my point is that almost every house up and down in the 4,900 blocks, if something happened, would have to put in water lines. And they're gonna happen pretty, because they were built as a subdivision. So lots of them will come into a play at the same time. And not only the 4,900 blocks, In my 47 and 4800 blocks, we have an older established community. So all of those people would have to go in and apply and pay for a water line, which when I got mine, it was cheap at that time. Not cheap for us, but it was cheap because it was $3,000. And now it's $6,000 sometimes to dig those lines. Every one of those people would have to put a meter in. And the city would not pay for any of the costs, right?

Not necessarily. Remember when you look at your water bill, there is that surcharge, and I'm talking about a residential water bill, there is that surcharge with respect to the water line repair fund. So when you talk in terms of a collapse, so think in terms of that space between the meter and the lockbox, if that closes, that's covered And I hate to use the term insurance, but remember that service line repair fund that each of us has hit up in our bill. So let's remember that, too, because you were talking in terms of collapse. Fair point, fair question, but let's not forget that particular fund that is itemized on a water bill.

I promise you I won't. I used to be the chair of public utilities. Okay. So, but that's a small, that's like, that's not the major cost. It's because we know that's covered. If you have had water on, because there's a caveat to that. There are some people fighting that because they buy a house that wasn't in water and they haven't had continuous payment for a long time. And so there's a... There's been a finding from the water department that they were not able to get that paid for. But I am talking about your major line. And for us on Baffet Place, ours is in the front. For many people, it's in the back. Ours is in the front of our house. And from the front of my house into the sidewalk, I am responsible for that, as are all of my neighbors. That's what I'm talking about. And we would have to get a meter because that collapsed. And that was a major problem. adjustment or a major rehab, and that will require a meter. Is that correct?

Yes, but remember, if you've got a plumber coming out to replace that service line, the major, major, major cost... digging the trench, hiring the professional, all of that's going to be incurred by the resident no matter what. So in the illustration, the example that you're discussing, all of that expense is going to be incurred by your constituent, by your resident. I think my point is, is there not a better time to install the meter than when that kind of work is being done? We're talking in terms of efficiency, application, and from an economic standpoint. Again, water line is collapsed. Work must be done. Trench must be dug. Plumber must be. That resident is going to incur that expense every day of the week. Without respect to the city. And that's my point with respect to the bill. That's why this is such a narrow, narrow step. I mean, this is literally a baby step moving forward in getting water meters installed on houses.

OK, and I do understand that. So my question is, what is the cost of a meter additionally? So if because now it's six thousand dollars, it's not three thousand when I paid it. OK, so now it's six thousand dollars. What additional cost is it for a meter?

But but again, it's not it's not six thousand dollars. I don't have this personal experience, but I knew my parents, because this is something I asked a lot of questions about. My parents just did this within the last 24 months, two years. The entire job, retention of plumber, digging of trench, taking care of sidewalks, All of that was six grand. And again, that is work that is going to be incurred no matter what.

And that's just what I said. I said that six grand. It was three grand when I got my house, but that was 40 years ago. Okay, so now it's $6,000. How much is the meter in addition? Because that meter was not included in it because we didn't have a meter. What is the cost of a meter?

My understanding, a meter runs about $500.

So that's going to be $500 more, right?

No.

Because I couldn't. Yes, it is, because I could just repair to my property line, and it wouldn't be the meter, but you're requiring me, no, to go ahead and install a meter there, which would be in the tree line.

That's what I'm hearing. This particular bill, correct, does require the installation of a meter. Agreed. In the situation that you've just identified. We're on the same page. I agree. A meter is required.

Right. So what I'm saying is I didn't have to have a meter and it cost $3,000. Okay. Now I'm talking to people and it's costing them $6,000 and they didn't have to have a meter. So in addition to we're going to add a meter, that's $500 more. Some people that makes a big amount, some it doesn't. I would pay it because I hate that I get billed for something that is not accurate. I have made... I've made every commissioner that's come before me in the last 30 years say, of course, the bill is not based on anything in factual. And they have to say it because it's not. It's made up how many showers, how many bathrooms you have. If two people live in a house, whether I have four bathrooms or I have. Two bathrooms, one bathroom. Pretty much my husband and I use the same amount of water, okay? So that is ridiculous to me. And I don't like that MSD then bases their bill off a ridiculous bill that the water people submit to us. So I have not liked it. I would pay it. But everybody is not me. Everybody does not have the funds that I have to do it. So I'm not talking about me. I'm talking about the people that I represent who are calling me all the time because they can't even afford the money when people start telling what the plumbing bill is. So that's my first thing, okay, is we're going to add something to it. And did you ever think about maybe letting them, if they have to add it, pay it in installments? You could pay it in, you know, $50 or $100 a month. month or every month or $50 a month or whatever until you could pay it off, which I still think is unfair. I think the water department ought to install the water meters. And if they then bill us as part of our bill, that's the way it should be. But when you have to come up front for the money, sometimes people just don't have the money up front. So a better way for me would be billing. And that's just how I think.

Let me make two points based on what you've just said, because I want this to be crystal clear. There is no direct cost to customers for meters, number one. Number two, the Water Division purchases the meters. Number three, we're talking about situations where the work, the labor is otherwise being done. In other words, the resident, the developer, the builder, that cost is being incurred. And number four, when this process is done, when this process is complete, The resident will be paying for the water actually used instead of paying the flat rate, which goes to one of the complaints or one of the items, your observations, which goes to not just with respect to the water bill, paying the water actually used, but also, and I think this is important when we talk about context here, MSD. And that's how we pay on our sewers. So there are multiple benefits, multiple financial benefits in passing this ordinance. Anyway, I've said enough and I'm repeating myself. I apologize, all women.

No, no, no, I'm trying to understand. So I want to hear it again. You're saying that somebody sent you and said, because I'm looking at you, look at your phone, that we do not pay for the meter, that it's just that the meter has to be installed, right, at that time. Is that correct? There's no cost for the meter.

Correct.

Okay, and is there an additional cost for installing the meter?

There wouldn't, besides the labor... the plumber, and the effort needed to dig the ditch, to bring the tradesmen out to do the job, which would again otherwise be incurred.

I've been rehabbing since 1979. I really do understand, okay? But my question is, when I got my itemized bill, would there be an item, even though I didn't pay for the meter, would there be an item that said, this is the additional cost for installing the meter? That is my question.

I don't know that. I don't know how the trade would bill for that aspect of the insulation. I admit my ignorance on that.

no no we're all in a learning curve okay um so um i know that uh i own an apartment building that's all electric several years ago in in new year's all our electric went out and we had to bring somebody out to put in all new electric meters on new year's day which we thought we had gotten away with and it's six years six uh different boxes but it cost uh just to install those meters It cost for us to have those installed. So I think that someplace in that bill, there is going to be an additional cost. I don't know how much it is. And that's what I'm asking you. What would be the cost? Because you're right. Everything else that I had to do, I was going to have to do anyway. And that's why I always tell people when you get one. If your sewer collapsed or your water collapsed, get them both done at the same time. Because the biggest cost is hiring that backhoe, getting that stuff dug up. They're usually close enough that you can do both. It'll save you a great amount of money. We didn't know that. We didn't learn that lesson until afterwards. But I do tell people to do that because it is going to be that cost. I just want to know what the additional cost of the meters. And again, I'll tell you, I'm a meter supporter. My other question I had was, let's see, where is it? Here it is. So just to make sure, if you already have plumbing and everything, but you just are a customer and you just bought a house, but it already has everything in place, you wouldn't have to put a meter in then. You're just turning your service on. So that is not a meter.

You're talking, ma'am, about the instance a resident purchases an existing home, takes over an existing home, Correct. Correct. In that instance, a water meter would not be installed under this bill. Correct.

All right. That's OK. So and so and also just to make it clear. So if you've got your service turned off for some reason for nonpayment and you got it back on, that would not be included in this bill. And I'm saying this because I want the general also. Correct. Correct. Okay. All right. Now, let's go back to the alderman from the 14th because he really made some good points. Can you tell me why you were, he said, and he made a statement and you didn't say it, that you would not be willing to carve out tornado impacted areas for, say, three years, five years. Why are you hesitant to do that?

The discussion that I had with the alderman from the 14th before our debate today had to do with a total, complete carve-out. And I was reluctant to do that. I think that that's too broad. And here is my concern. And that is, let's say, for the sake of argument, that we have a developer that is putting together a tract of homes. Let's say ten homes, eight homes, whatever it might be. We can think of any developer that any of us know. And they come in. Under the bill as written, that developer would pay for the labor, the installation, they would bear that. And a water meter would need to be installed. What I'm concerned about is an extremely broad carve-out, which is what the alderman from the 14th proposed. And I admit I rejected that. What I did say, Alderwoman, is that if you would put together a carve-out, something very specific, for instance, you're concerned about the individual, the individual who needs to do particular, whatever it might be, I will gladly consider it. But I think just saying because work is being done within certain zip codes, our neighborhoods, I believe that's too broad. Again, the goal of this is to begin the process of metered water. That was my statement.

I agree with you. I don't think that people who are building new builds should be carved out. But what about if it's a person who already had their home and they're struggling to try to get back into their home? Could that be a carve out of this established water customer? I can get back into.

I can I can see that instance. Yes, ma'am. And I think if we're talking about an individual who who isn't entailing work. In other words, they're compelled to do the work because of a natural disaster, this tornado? I get it. I understand that. That makes sense to me. I will gladly consider that particular carve-out. Yes, ma'am. And I think that's reasonable, by the way.

OK, right. OK. And going to what the Alderman said, and I don't know if you're willing to do this or not, because I can help write something with you that would address that. What he said is that he didn't like giving a director. I don't like I agree with him and I agree with him. Even when they voted on stuff, I like things to be spelled out. And you and I have talked about this. so that we are all on the same page from the beginning. When we give people too much latitude, it doesn't end up being a fairly applied. So any kind of things that the director would have that would help people in the tornado area or even help, I don't know other people who cannot afford to put the sewer lateral in. I actually have some research. I was doing about a 50-50 sewer lateral. That's how we came up with 50-50 sidewalk years ago. And so some cities have things that they help, not sewer lateral. They help people put their sewer lines in. And I have that research because I've been working on it for years, just trying to figure out how when I start hearing people say it costs six thousand dollars to get a new sewer line. And as I said, most of the homes over my neighborhoods are very old homes. And so they're going to have to do that. So anything that the director would do, I would prefer the director have it upfront and it be in the board bill and not have it be at the discretion of the director. So would you be willing to put your bill on the informal for a week and then us try to see if we could come up to something we could agree on? And if not, okay.

I'm sorry, Alderwoman, I am listening to you. I was just handed an amendment that the Alderwoman from the 7th, I believe, is working on. And I was just reading that. I apologize. I was listening to you.

All right. I was just saying, would you, if you are open to a carve out, not for, and I'm not talking about new build, which I'm going to have a lot of new build in my ward because the 12th ward was hit really hard. And we're going to have new build. And I knew that from the beginning that we were going to have meters and I support. that we have meters, okay? That's good. I think when people start looking at their bills, they'll be pleasantly surprised. And the people who buy the new houses will not have to pay that. That'll be a developer cost. So I'm much more concerned about the people who are already in their houses or are out of their houses trying to get back in. Every little house, would you be open, I said, to maybe putting your bill on the formal calendar for a week and see if we could... carve out something that is more in with what you and i just discussed it doesn't track though

Alderman, actually, I think that is a good request. I'm being presented with two amendments. Frankly, they're not tracking as I see it. And I think under the circumstances, Madam President, I would request that Board Bill 28, as amended, be placed back on the informal calendar.

Madam Clerk, if you could please place Board Bill 28 on the informal calendar. So noted. Thank you.

Board Bill number 37.

Other woman from the 12th.

Yes, I'm going to ask for Bill 119 be removed from the consent calendar and put on the regular calendar, please. For Bill 19. Yes, that's only consent third reading in that 19. Yes.

Yes. Madam Clerk, if you could please make note of that.

So noted. Board Bill number 37, introduced by Alderman Aldrich and President Mayer-Green.

Point of order. Madam, please state your point of order. Didn't we already adopt the perfection consent?

Yes. She was talking about third reading.

Okay.

Yeah.

Gotcha.

Board Bill number 37 introduced by Alderman Aldrich, President Green, Alderman Devotee, Alderman Boyd, and Alderman Cohn. An ordinance pertaining to compensation for employees of the Board of Aldermen and authorizing a one-time supplemental payment. The provisions of this ordinance shall be effective upon approval by the Mayor.

Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 37 as amended in committee.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we perfect Board Bill 37 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the 11th, that we perfect Board Bill 37 as amended in committee. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Board Bill 37 as amended in committee is a one-time lump sum for the Board of Aldermen staff. We recently at the Board of Aldermen passed the one-time lump sum that would have been for civil service. It did allow for any department throughout the city of St. Louis to be able to opt in. So we decided during the personnel committee to be able to opt in. This will be coming from the 2026 budget. It's a budget that is still open. The Board of Aldermen has some extra funds in that account. To be able to pay staff, there's a fiscal note about $37,000. So this would only go for the staff. This would not go for alders. This would not go for the president either. And with that, I will open up for any question.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th.

This is more of a statement. So I actually got notice from the employees who got their bonuses. So I want to warn the staff at the Board of Aldermen that taxes and other things will come out of that bonus. So do not expect it to be the full amount. That's my statement because I have a number of complaints to people saying we didn't get the full amount of the bonus we thought we did. Uncle Sam comes to visit you whenever. I have no further statement.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Alderman from the third?

Thank you, Madam President. Just to echo the sentiments of my colleague from the 12th Ward, not only would it be taxed, but it would be taxed at a supplemental rate. So don't expect it to look similar to what you get taxed at on your regular paycheck. Just FYI.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, Alderman from the 14th, you're recognized to close.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. It will be taxed, but I'm sure those employees are going to be happy to see the extra money in their checks. Amen. And I renew my motion on Board Bill 37 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the 11th that we perfect Board Bill 37 as amended in committee. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. That is the extent of Board Bill perfection. Report of engrossment.

Board Bill number 19, 21, and 29.

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

Board Bill number 21, introduced by Alderwoman Cox-Antwee. Board Bill 29, introduced by Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard, Sonnier, Alderman Cohn, Alderman Aldrich, Alderman Schweitzer, and Alderman Browning. That is the extent of third reading and final passage of board.

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

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

by the Alderman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 3rd, that we adopt the third reading and final passage of board bills on the consent calendar. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clark, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer.

Aye.

Alderman Oldenburg.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn. Aye. Alderman Narayan. Aye. Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Alderman... Alderman Velazquez.

Aye.

Alderwoman Sanye.

Aye.

Alderwoman Coxanne Twee. Aye. Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard. Aye. Alderwoman Keyes. Aye. Alderwoman Tyus.

Aye.

Alderwoman Tyus.

Aye.

Alderwoman Boyd. Aye. I can't, thank you. Thank you. Alderman Aldrich. Aye. President Green. Aye. Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Fifteen aye votes.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the alderwoman from the tent to third reading and finally pass the aforementioned bills. Third reading and final passage of board bills.

Board Bill number 19, introduced by Alderwoman Cox-Antwee, Alderwoman Sanye, Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard, and Alderman Aldrich. An ordinance amending ordinance number 70767 to extend the sunset date of the Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprise Program for the City of St. Louis to December 31st, 2026.

Alderwoman from the 8th, you are recognized on the third reading and final passage of Board Bill 19.

Thank you, Madam President. I move that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 19.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 8th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 7th, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 19. Alderwoman, you may proceed. Thank you, Madam President, members of the board.

This board bill extends the MWBE program to year end. Per the original ordinance, the program was scheduled to sunset after eight years of duration, which would be in 2026. This bill just extends that to allow the sunset date to be December 31st, 2026, to allow the program to remain in full duration until a new program is passed. It doesn't make any changes to the program. It just extends the sunset date for the program. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions. Any further discussion?

Alderwoman from the 12th.

Madam President, members of the board, if the alderwoman from the 8th would yield.

The alderwoman from the 8th yields questioning from the alderwoman from the 12th? Yes, I do, Madam President. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you. I'm not opposed to this. The reason I asked for it to be taken off the consent calendar, because the copies I had and what I saw in the... Drive, I didn't see anything attached from the old ordinance that you were amending. And the charter asked you to requires you to attach the old ordinance and or set out in full that part which you are changing, none of which I saw. And I was wondering if that was done or if it was an omission because it wasn't done. uh under the charter your ordinance will not be legal so um i wanted you to make sure that you attach those things um before passing it so either attach the ordinance or the part that sets out what you are amending was that ever attached it to your knowledge

Okay, thank you, Alderman from the 12th, for that clarification. I believe we're happy to add the text of the previous ordinance as an attachment. We do reference in the ordinance the section and just adding that December 31st, 2026 clarification, but I think we can certainly add the full text as a reference exhibit before we pass it today.

Exactly. That's what I wanted because, and I don't know, so a question, point of order, if we have to send it back perfection to do that or not, but it should be added because it's incorporated by reference and it's supposed to be added per the charter. I'm fine if we just add it now. I just don't want it to come back and it's not legal.

Okay, Alderman, I think we're working to get clarification on that from the clerk right now to see if we need to move it back or if we can just go ahead and add the exhibit. So I will hold as the clerk works to get that clarification for you.

We are going to need to send it back to Perfection in order to add it. Okay.

Thank you.

So what I would do at this point in time is a motion to reconsider having voted on the prevailing side, and then that will allow us to send it back to the perfection calendar.

Okay. So I move to reconsider third reading finally passing board bill 19, having voted on the prevailing side.

It's been moved by the alderwoman from the ace, seconded by the alderman. that we can reconsider Board Bill 19. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer. Aye. Alderman Oldenburg. Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Aye.

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

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark Hubbard. Aye. Alderwoman Keyes.

Aye.

Alderwoman Tyus.

Okay.

I'm sorry, Alderwoman Tyus. Aye. Thank you. Alderman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldrich.

President Green. Aye. 15 aye votes. By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderwoman from the 8th to reconsider Board Bill 19. With that, we can go back to the perfection calendar. And Alderwoman from the 8th, you are recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 19.

We're perfecting it today?

Point of order?

Alderwoman from the 12th, please state your point of order.

So I know she didn't motion to reconsider, but did she, she didn't do a motion to send it back to Perfection, so you're not requiring that?

Oh, you are correct, Alderwoman. Sorry, I skipped ahead. Alderwoman from the 8th, would you like to make a motion to place Board Bill 19 back on the Perfection calendar?

Yes, Madam President, I'd like to move to place Board Bill 19 back on the Perfection calendar.

Second. It's been moved by the Alderman from the 8th, seconded by the Alderman from the 15th, that we place Board Bill 19 back on the perfection calendar. Is there any discussion on that? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Alderman from the 8th, you are now recognized on the motion to perfect Board Bill 19. All right. Thank you, Madam President.

I move that we perfect Board Bill 19.

Second. It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 8th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th that we perfect Board Bill 19. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

All right. Thank you, Madam President. Again, this Board Bill just seeks to extend Ordinance 70767, the sunset date for the Minority Women-Owned Business Program. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions on Board Bill 19.

Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Would the alderman from the ATL for questioning?

Alderman from the ATL for questioning from the alderman.

Yes, Madam President.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Good afternoon, Alderlady.

Good afternoon, Alderman.

My new downtown partner. Could you explain what I guess the MWBE program is and the need to extend it or why we're extending it? I think there's been some resolutions and stuff, but could you explain what the program is and the intent of this legislation?

Yes, absolutely. And that's a very great question. So the MWBE program basically just allows for minorities and women-owned businesses to have certain protections when it comes to being able to maintain equity in contracting. And this is really important because, as we know, there are a number of organizations, both minority-owned firms, women-owned firms, that do provide great businesses to the city of St. Louis. And if we lose this program, we lose a lot of the protections to make sure that those individuals and firms have the same access to opportunities that other majority-owned firms do in our city. So I'm a big supporter of this program. I know many colleagues in this chamber are as well. And we want to be able to keep and retain that program so that we can make sure we're still protecting those business owners. And so by being able to pass this today, it just allows us time to make that program even stronger in the future and hopefully maintain it in the future for more subsequent years.

Gotcha. And I know you and other alder folks have been working on this legislation and a working group to and working with the community on it to make it better than and stronger than what it typically has been in the past. Is there, I guess, a date that why we need to extend it, that it was going to either sunset or be gone, that this is why we need to extend it so it continue to stay intact?

Yes, so per the original ordinance, again, the previous ordinance said it would sunset after eight years of being in place. And so eight years ago during this time was when the original ordinance was created. And so now because we are back at eight years from that prior time, we need to extend that deadline and so really just to keep things simple i just made the last day of this year to give us as much time as we need to get it right to work with community to finish all the stakeholder engagement that i know many of us have been a part of um and so rather than needing to rush perfecting that the work on the ordinance i wanted to give us as much time as possible that's why i want to push the deadline out and that's why we're trying to get it done right now because again we don't want to be in a place where we have to rush doing anything to make this program as strong as possible.

Yeah. And I'm glad we, or that all of us from the 12th caught the attachment. I learned that with one of my legislation, the food truck bill, that I didn't attach something the first go around. And that bill will be coming back next week. So that's going to be some fun. But I didn't attach the ordinance, the previous ordinance to the bill, which we kind of got to the point where it needed to be held. Can you talk about, I guess, if we don't do this, what would be the impact of not having a MWBE program in the city of St. Louis?

Yeah, I think if we don't have this program, again, it would just mean that a lot of the folks out here doing great work running the businesses that they do wouldn't have the fairness and the landscape to compete in their business, right? This program is in place for a lot of the construction industry, the contracting industry, and as we just spent a lot of time talking about all the new construction that needs to take place in our city, right? We want to give everybody the best chance to be able to go out and do that work. And so if this program sunsets, it means the city doesn't have the tools in place to make those protections within those industries. So I think that would be a really bad place. I know hopefully we don't get to that point today and we can go ahead and perfect that bill today. And I agree with you. I thank the alderwoman of the 12th for even calling out just the missteps in this bill. Y'all know I'm a freshman on this floor, so I'm trying to do everything i can to get this done right and i know this is a very important program for many people in our city so i'm glad i'm able to carry this i thank everybody that did co-sponsor it um and i look forward to getting it in place um and hopefully perspective today so that we can make sure the program stays in place at a moment when we truly need it the most in the city yeah

Well, I do want to thank you and the old woman from the 10th and 11th and the 13th and the 6th and the 7th. And myself, I've been part of these working groups and collaborating to try to make sure that we get it right. So thank you for your leadership on this. And I think the attachment to your bill is now in the drive, ready to go. Thank you, Alderwoman.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 7th.

Madam President, members of the board, I just wanted to stand up and thank the woman on the record for her work on making sure that we continue this. Obviously, there are lots of conversations to be had actively. And I know you mentioned that you're newer, but I actually think that you did a pretty solid job here. And, you know, that's how we all start. So I just wanted to stand up and make sure that I add that I'm in strong support of this legislation and also for folks who are watching. I want to make sure they understand that we know at the board we have a lot more conversations to have about MDWBE, and we don't look at this as the finishing or end, just something to make sure that we have something in place as we have those further conversations.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 8th.

Thank you, Madam President. Again, I just want to thank all of my colleagues who gave remarks today. As was mentioned, I think this is a really important program that the city has in place that provides a lot of protection in our city for minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses at a time we truly need it. We know those people are doing great work wanting those businesses. Make sure we provide them every opportunity to compete well. as they can in their industries. Again, this bill just gives us more time to get that work right. I'm glad we were able to get it in the place that it needs to be to be perfected on the floor today. And with that, I ask for your favorable consideration of Board Bill 19.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 8th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th that we perfect Board Bill 19. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries.

That is the extent of third reading and final passes of board bills.

Report of the finally passed and signed by the president.

Board bill number 21 and board bill number 29.

All other business being suspended, the president shall in open session affix her signature here to that these may become law. First reading of resolutions in reference to committee.

We have none.

In dispense with line item 22, second reading of resolutions, committee reports and adoption.

Report from the Public Safety Committee, mayoral appointment of Dr. Mark Mullen to the Detention Facility Oversight Board.

Alderman from the fourth, you are recognized on Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Detention Facilities Oversight Board.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we approve the mayoral appointment of Dr. Mark Mullen to the Detention Facilities Oversight Board.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the Forest, seconded by the Alderwoman from the Tent, that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Disability Oversight Board. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you. Dr. Mullen came before the Public Safety Committee. He has a very impressive resume. He's already doing this type of work, and I think he would be a great fit. He came out of committee unanimously, and I'm certainly in support of him in this role. I'm happy to answer any questions if anyone has any.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved by the alderman from the 4th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 10th that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Detention Facility Oversight Board. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion carries.

That is the extent of second reading resolutions committee reports and adoption.

Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar.

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

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 11th, that we adopt the Courtesy Resolution Consent Calendar. Is there any discussion? Alderwoman from the 10th.

May I please be added as a co-sponsor to Resolution 39? So noted.

Any further discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 11th, that we adopt the Courtesy Resolution Consent Calendar. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Miscellaneous and unfinished business.

We have none.

Announcements.

Tuesday, June 16, 2026, HUD's meeting at 11 a.m. in the Kennedy Room. Thursday, June 18, 2026, full board meeting at 10 a.m. in the chambers. Friday, June 19, 2026, the office will be closed in honor of Juneteenth holiday.

Any further announcements? Alderman from the 3rd.

Thank you, Madam President. I wish to ask for a moment of silence. Today is the 10th anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando, where 49 members of the LGBTQ community were murdered. And I as a A person who has a lot of friends and family in the Orlando area woke up that morning in complete and utter shock. At 6 a.m., the shooting had taken place just a few hours earlier, and I was calling through my friends and family to make sure that they were alive and OK. And I think it's just another example of the senseless gun laws that we have in this country, the homophobia that's still very pervasive throughout this country, and that we all need to stand in solidarity with one another on all of those issues and uplift all of our communities throughout this city and the world. And I would humbly ask for a moment of silence and recognition of those that were slain 10 years ago.

Please stand and bow your heads for a moment of silence.

Thank you.

Any further announcements? Alderwoman from the 11th.

Hello? All right. So I neglected, forgot that my husband celebrated a birthday on June the 10th, and I didn't want to pass up the opportunity to say that I am very happy to still be in love with the man that I met when I was 19. Thank you.

Other men from the 14th. Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I want to wish our office manager a happy belated birthday, Ms. Tracy Billups. While her name is Tracy for the young kids that know Lotto, some also may call her Big Mama. And she also just got engaged, so it is an extremely great time for Ms. Billups. Congratulations and happy birthday.

Other woman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I'm sorry my announcement is not quite as exciting as the past two, but I did just want to announce that the DeSales Community Development Organization is hosting a health fair tomorrow on June 13th from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., At the St. Francis DeSales Oratory Gymnasium, there will be Zumba, yoga, food, even some help with navigating medical debt, as well as several health screenings for A1C, blood pressure, and so on. And so I just want to make sure I put that on record for folks who are interested in that, that they know that that event is happening. And also tomorrow is the Black Girls Golden Ticket Gala. Alderwoman Shamim Clark Hubbard has been an awardee before. And I have the honor to be joining that group, and that event is tomorrow as well. Thank you.

A further announcement, the woman from the 11th.

You know I always have to do this multiple times. So Beaumont will be celebrating its 100th birthday tomorrow at Fairground Park. So if you all are available, put on your blue. And I'm not quite sure what shade of blue that is, but Aura is wearing that color today. That's that Beaumont blue. So Beaumont blue jackets. We look forward to seeing you tomorrow.

Any further announcements? Seeing none, Alderwoman from the 10th, you're recognized on the motion to excuse.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. All members are present this morning.

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

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we adjourn until Thursday, June 18th, 2026.

It's been moved by the Alderman from the 10th, seconded, was there a second? Seconded by the Alderman from the 9th that we adjourn until Thursday, June 8th, 2026 in the Board of Aldermen Chambers. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We are adjourned.