Board of Aldermen - Regular Meeting

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

Alderman Odenberg. Alderman Cohn. Alderman Narayan. Alderman Devotee. Alderwoman Velazquez. Alderwoman Sonnier. Alderwoman Cox-Antwi. Alderman Browning. Alderwoman Clark Hubbard. Alderwoman Keyes. Alderwoman Tyus. Alderwoman Boyd. Alderman Aldridge. President Green. Present. Alderwoman Velazquez. Alderwoman Sonnier. Alderwoman Cox-Antwi. Alderman Browning. Alderwoman Boyd. Alderman Velazquez. We have 11 present, we have a quorum.

Before we proceed, I just want to make an announcement. The folks on Zoom can hear us. We cannot hear them at the moment. STL TV is working on that. But for the interim, they are voting through the chat, and their votes will be recorded that way, and hopefully we get this remedied soon. Right. A quorum being present, we will dispense with line items three and four. Any introduction of honored guests? Alderwoman from the 10th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I would like to have local government executive Mr. Jim Nicholas of Amherst, Missouri as my guest this evening. Thank you for being here. Welcome to the board.

Any further introduction of honored guests? Holder woman from the 7th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I would like to have my special guest in the gallery today are several individuals from community development corporations. I've had to make a list because there are so many folks who are present today. So we have folks from Northside Community Housing. Mr. Burns, hello. We have folks from DeSalle Community Corporation. Hello, Ms. Reinhart. We have folks from Old North St. Louis Restoration Group. I think both Gloria and Tom Brofalski are here with Old North STO Restoration Group. We have someone from Tower Grove Community Development Corporation. Hello, Ms. Gross. We have folks from the Wilson Loop Community Development Hello, Ms. Jane. We have folks from the Carondelet Community Betterment Federation. Hello, Mr. Hassel. We have folks from Dutchtown South Community Corporation. Hello, Ms. Adams. And we have folks from Lutheran Development Group as well, Ms. Hambrick. I also want to give a shout out to the St. Louis Realtors, Bryce Community Development, Community Builders Network of Metro St. Louis, and Home Repair Network who are also here in attendance with us today in anticipation of Board Bill 41. Thank you.

Pass it to me, La. We got to share that.

Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. The Alderman from the 7th took some of my individuals. I do have some residents from the Old North Restoration Group that are here, and so glad that they're in the building. If you can make them feel welcome from the 14th Ward.

Any further introduction of honored guests? Any further introduction of honored guests?

Am I on?

Oh, thank you.

Good morning, and thank you, Madam President and members of the board. My guest today is my son, Joshua, who is celebrating a birthday today. Additionally, just as I was getting ready to leave my house this morning, I learned of the death of a longtime family member, which is really family. You know, we have these people who become parts of our lives very early. They seem to stick around. And after a while, they cease to be just friends. And so Mrs. Lucille Sims passed away just yesterday evening. And so I would like to request a moment of silence.

We could please stand and bow our heads for a moment of silence.

Thank you so much.

Any further introduction of honored guests? Any further introduction of honored guests? Seeing none, Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized on the minutes from Friday, June 26, 2026.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we approve the minutes from Friday, June 26, 2026.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th that we approve the minutes from Friday, June 26, 2026. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Report of city officials.

The report of city officials can be found in A, B, C, and D of the Google Drive, of the agenda that has been placed in the Google Drive for your review. That's the extent of city officials.

Sorry, I am having a really difficult time hearing you.

The report of city officials can be found on A, B, C, and D of the agenda and has been placed in the Google Drive for your review. That's the extent of report of city officials.

Does anyone wish to take any bills or resolutions off of any of our informal calendar? Anyone wish to take any bills or resolutions off of any of our informal calendar? Seeing none, we can dispense with line items 9, 10, and 11, first reading of board bills.

First reading of board bills. Board Bill 56, sponsored by Alderwoman Keys, an ordinance authorizing and directing the directive streets to permanently close, barricade, or otherwise impede the flow of traffic on the 3800 block of Olive Street by blocking said traffic flow on the east curb line of Vanderbilt Avenue at the intersection of Vanderbilt Avenue. VENVENT AVENUE AND OLIVE STREET FOR BILL 57 SPONSORED BY AUTUMN ALDRICH AND ORDINANCE APPROVING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN DATED AUGUST 26, 2025 FOR THE ST. LOUIS PLACE AND OLD NORTH SCATTERSIDE AREA IN THE CITY OF ST. LOUIS. Board Bill 58, sponsored by Alderwoman Schweitzer, 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 in the first ward. That's the extent of first reading of board bills.

Reference to Committee of Board Bills.

To public infrastructure, board bill 56, board bill 57. To HUD's board, I'm sorry, board bill 56 and board bill 58. To the HUD's committee, board bill 57. That's the extent of reference to committee.

Second reading and report of standing committees.

The following board bills were reported out of a HUD's committee, but they do pass recommendation. Board Bill 50, committee sub as amended in committee, sponsored by Alderman Aldridge, President Green, Alderman Velazquez, Alderman Sonnier, and Ordinance Repealing the Ordinance 7-1 and Alderman Keyes, An ordinance repealing 7.1212 as codified in Chapter 8.108A of the Revised City Code of the City of St. Louis and any other ordinance or portions of the ordinance codified Chapter 8.108 that are inconsistent with this ordinance and establishing updated regulations for... and operations of mobile food vendors, including designated commercial vending markets, predetermined vending locations, permitted displays, requirements, and administrative oversight by the street department. Or Bill 55 sponsored by Alderwoman Sonia, President Green, Alderwoman Schweitzer, Alderwoman Clark Hubbard, Alderwoman Velazquez, and Alderman Aldridge, and Alderman Narayan. an ordinance that amends Chapter 3.160 of the City of St. Louis Revised Code of Ordinances to add definitions and a section prohibiting the award of tax incentives to data centers containing a severability and containing an emergency clause. Out of the Budget and Public Employees Committee, with a do-pass recommendation for Bill 32... sponsored by Alderman Cohn, an ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, authorizing the Office of the President and the Board of Aldermen to execute and accept a subaward from the Bloomberg Philanthropies American Sustainable Cities Initiative for the grant purpose of its Youth Climate Action Fund, specifically to activate youth in leadership roles as they participate in climate solution consistence with the city's sustainability goals, appropriating such funds to the Office of the President of the Board of Aldermen and authorizing the expenditure of said funds to fulfill the obligation of said grant to the extent such funds are received and containing an emergency clause. That's the extent of second reading and report of standing committees.

Alderman, from the 14th, you are recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of moving Board Bill 50 to the regular perfection calendar.

Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Board. I move to suspend the rules to move Board Bill 50, Committee Substitute, 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 7th, that we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bill 15, committee substitute as amended in committee to the regular perfection calendar. This is a non-debatable motion. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderman Schweitzer.

Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Ryan. No. Alderman Devotee. Alderwoman Velazquez. Alderwoman Sonia. Aye. Alderwoman Cox-Entwee. Aye. Alderman Browning. Aye. Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard. Aye. Alderwoman Keyes. Aye. Alderwoman Tyus. Aye. Alderwoman Boyd. Alderman Aldridge?

Aye.

President Green? Aye. Alderman Tyus?

We have 12 aye votes, one no, and one present. By your vote, you sustain the motion of the Alderman from the 14th. Madam Clerk, if you could please place Board Bill 50, Committee Substitute, as amended in Committee at the end of the regular Perfection Calendar. So noted. Board Bills for Perfection Consent.

Board Bill 34... As amended in committee, sponsored by Alderman Velazquez, pursuant to Ordinance Number 70333, as amended by Ordinance Number 71394, an ordinance directing the Director of Streets to install speed humps to climb the floor of traffic on various blocks in the 6th Ward. Board Bill 42, sponsored by Alderman Cox and Twee, an ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to conditionally vacate above-surface, surface, and subsurface rights for vehicles, equestrians, and pedestrian travel in the Marion Street from 6th From 10th Street eastwardly, 154.5 plus or minus 119.5 feet. to its terminus of 144, abutting city blocks 388 and 389 in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, as hereby described in accordance with the Charter Authority and in conformity with Section 14 of Article 21 of the Charter and imposing certain conditions of such vacation. For Bill 45, sponsored by Alderwoman Clark Hubbard, pursuant to Ordinance Number 70333, as amended by Ordinance Number 71394, an ordinance directing the director of streets to install speed humps to calm the flow of traffic in the 5,500 and 5,200 blocks of ridge. Board Bill 46, sponsored by Alderman Aldridge, an ordinance... Amend Ordinance Number 71302 and authorize the execution of a First Amendment lease agreement between the City of St. Louis, Missouri and the United Fruit and Produce Company for certain land at or near 5 Clinton Street under certain terms and conditions for a period of five years at a rate of $1,192.50 for the first year and increasing by 3% each year thereafter with three mutual options to extend for five years. Board Bill 52, sponsored by Alderman Cohn, an ordinance pertaining to the transit sales tax imposed pursuant to Section 94.660, as adopted by the voters of the City of St. Louis on August 2nd, 1994, pursuant to Ordinance 61364, creating the City Public Transit Sales Tax Fund, directing the Treasurer of the City of St. Louis to deposit funds received pursuant to sales tax into the City Public Transit Sales Tax Trust Fund, Account 1, appropriating $13,529,000 904, the sales tax for the period of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027 to the bi-state development agency for certain purposes containing the severability and emergency clause. For Bill 53, sponsored by Alderman Cohn and Alderman Narayan, an ordinance pertaining to the sales tax imposed pursuant to section 94.660 as adopted by the voters of the City of St. Louis on November 4, 1997, pursuant to Ordinance Number 64111, creating the City Public Transit Sales Tax Fund, directing that the Treasurer of the City of St. Louis deposit funds received pursuant TO SET SALES TAX INTO THE CITY PUBLIC TRANSIT SALES TAX FUND, ACCOUNT TWO, APPROPRIATING $13,529,900 FOR THE SALES TAX FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2026 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2027 TO BIDEN STATE DEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES AND CONTAINING AN EMERGENCY INSEVERABILITY CLAUSE. THAT'S THE EXTENT OF THE

Perfection Consent Calendar. Alderman from the 10th, you're recognized on the motion to adopt the board bills for the Perfection Consent Calendar.

Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move that we adopt the board bills for Perfection Consent Calendar.

Second. It's been moved by the Alderman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 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. Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Due to technology difficulties, and we have some very important votes that we are going to be voting on, I want to make sure that all the people on Zoom can be heard. I'd like to take a motion that we go into recess. Second.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the 10th, that we go into recess to fix the technical issues. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderwoman Schweitzer. Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan. Aye. Alderman Devotee. Aye. Alderman Velazquez. Aye. Alderman Sonnier. Aye. Alderman Cox-Antwi. Aye. Alderman Browning. Aye. Alderman Clark-Hubbard. Aye. Alderman Keyes. Aye. Alderman Tyus. Aye. Alderman Boyd. Alderman Aldridge?

Aye.

President Green? Aye. Alderwoman Keyes? Aye. Alderwoman Tyus? Aye.

We have 15 aye votes. By your vote, you sustain the motion from the alderman from the 14th. We are going to have to close down the system and reboot it, and so give us about 10 to 15 minutes, hopefully not even that long, to take this offline and bring it back on. Board bells for perfection.

Four bills for perfection. Or Bill 41, as amended in committee, sponsored by Alderwoman Saunier, Alderwoman Velazquez, an ordinance establishing the definition of the Community Development Corporation, CDC, and the CDC certification framework, and containing an emergency clause and severance clause.

Alderwoman from the 7th, you're recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 41 as amended in committee.

Thank you, Madam President and members of the Board. As I mentioned earlier, I would like to make a motion to perfect Board Bill 41 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 7th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we perfect Board Bill 41 as amended in committee. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. As I mentioned, there are several folks from our community development corporations and aligned organizations that are in our gallery today in support. Board Bill 41 does some key things that are pretty critical. Essentially establishes a definition of community development corporations. And the purpose of the goal is really so that the city can be able to begin conversations on sustainable sources of funding for grants and loans and other funds. A couple of key components of Board Bill 41. Number one, it defines a definition that aligns with state law. So a majority of what is in the definition from state law, which is RSMO 135.400. The difference that is different with this bill from the state law is that there is a component that says that you have to be a place-based organization with a clearly defined service area. That can be a neighborhood, a ward, or a cluster of census tracts. It also has a governance requirements stating that 25% of your board has to be comprised of members within that service track that you serve. And then there are four key areas that are eligible to determine if you are able to meet the city's criteria under this definition. The first one will be housing and real estate development. I think that bucket is pretty self-explanatory. The second bucket is economic activity, economic development. There are some CDCs that don't just do housing development, but focus within economic corridors within communities. The third bucket is neighborhood stabilization slash quality of life. And then the fourth bucket is community organizing, advocacy, and planning. And so those are the four buckets within this bill that would determine you would have to be able to meet three out of four of those. And the folks who would be determining this would be St. Louis Development Corporation. They will be operating the certification process for SLDC. Mr. Westbrooks attended our HUD's meeting where he spoke in favor of the legislation. He, as well as the mayor's office, as well as several stakeholders have been at the table for some time working on this, and he was just there to speak to the certification process. to speak to the hopes of what it may look like for a trajectory moving forward. Should we be able to pass this legislation and to explain the formal process? The other thing that I think is really important to talk about within this bill is the transparency. And so if this bill is passed or perfected, it will be transparent as far as who is considered a certified CDC. All of that information would be online so that anyone could see that information at any time. And then also, obviously, a key part of this bill is also transparency. making sure that there's a transition period. Obviously, this is a new definition. This is a new process. And so it is 180 days that would be given to allow for that transitional process. And I think another key thing to mention is, again, the goal of this legislation is to make sure in many other cities across the country, folks who have thriving economic space, they are really partners with the community development corporation. They view their community development corporations as an extension of their work. And so the hope with this legislation is that the city will be able to identify funding sources that will allow us to be more sustainable partners with our community development corporation. Thank you.

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

Madam President, members of the board, first of all, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you. If the Alderwoman from the 7th would yield, I appreciate it.

Would the Alderwoman from the 7th yield to questioning from the Alderwoman from the 12th? Of course.

Yes.

Alderwoman, you may proceed.

The first question I have is, do you have a current list of the CDCs in the city of St. Louis at this point?

I do have a list. I can get that emailed to you.

OK, I just want to bring this up. So we used to have a lot of CDCs in North St. Louis. And when Francis Slade was the mayor, he declared that there were too many and that people had to get off the list and they couldn't get block grant money anymore. And it really broke up a lot of money. community-based organizations. They weren't all of this formal that you said, but they were community-based organizations that were getting good work done. And to follow that, I'm going to ask why under your regulations do you have to have at least one full-time paid employee to be a CDC? Because the ones that we had in North St. Louis that did the best had no paid employees but had experienced people within the community and got great things. And I will reference Penrose had a really great CDC. And so did Kingsway East and Kingsway West, which is a joint neighborhood. And everybody was volunteer, but they had real estate people, they had contractors, they had people who knew how to put together projects. So why do you have to have them to be paid?

Yes, ma'am. First, I definitely want to acknowledge what you talked to about the history of these and they're having used to be a lot more. And then there were some changes with the CDBG funding that certainly has come up a lot in our conversation. In regards to the full time staff employee, I think the city just wants to make sure that anyone who we are giving funding to has the capacity to implement the project. there is a number of ways that they could do what we were specific to not say like what that full time employee has to look like. So it's not necessarily that it has to be an executive director. It could be that, hey, we're going to apply for this funding. If we get this funding, we're going to hire this employee to be able to just do the work that they're assigned to. But I think the goal of that is to make sure that we don't end up giving funding, as you know, we've seen from some other things to entities that don't have the capacity to do the work.

Exactly. We're dealing with that invading right now because funds was given to a former political crony and now money is missing. So I exactly get what you say. So the full time employee could be a secretary that answers the phone.

Correct. As long as that organization can demonstrate that they have the capacity to do it, that's the purpose of the full-time employee. And then when they apply, they will say, well, this is the employee we have. This is the role and functions that they do. And then whatever funding pot they may be applying for, that will be looked at to see, does that give them capacity to execute a project?

I do understand, but I do want to say that I would give them out if they can operate with volunteers. I would make that a line in the sand to say you have to have paid people. If you have volunteers that do the work, then that's the best kind of CDCs you can have because these people tend to be very committed volunteers. Over in Shaw, I think they've had one for a long time, a Tower Grove. They've had some for years. And they started out with just volunteers. And I lived in the Shaw neighborhood for like nine years. And so I know the commitment that I saw there. So they don't have to be paid. That's just something, a side note that I would say. I would rethink that and say if they can demonstrate that they are operating with volunteers, I don't think we should shut them out and make them have to. hire someone especially if um it would adversely affect their budget and sometimes people are operating on a shoestring so that's just my idea and that we should look for a way that they can write and say hey we don't have a full-time employee but these are the hours that people do so you just i just want you to think about that i'm not saying change it right now yes ma'am okay uh OK. And so how are so you talked about that they have to be place based nonprofits. And does that mean you have to be by place based? Does that mean that you have to be in that community?

You can't just decide I represent a community. Is that what you're saying? Exactly. We don't want, you know, I think a key part of someone being a community development corporation is supposed to be serving a specific community. And so we want to be able to identify the community that you serve. And we also want you to have some board members that live within that community so that people are, you know, a part of the governance process and decision making.

So our requirement when we had them, they all had to live within the community because that made it so that you were affected. In recent years, and the other one from the 13th knows that one of the CDCs that was organized in the 21st Ward showed up and decided that they represented what was then the first ward and the 27th ward. Nobody had asked them or anything like that. They just showed up and they insisted that they represented the area. Ended up having financial troubles. So I think the person that was in charge had to leave. But my concern, I would... like to see more than less people who are in the neighborhood that would represent the CDC. Because when people start to be outside the neighborhood, I found they had their own agenda. But when you're impacted about what you do, and I would get things with East and West Neighborhood Improvement, Neighborhood CDC, A shout out. They did like 23 houses. And at that time we had something called Operation Impact and they rehabbed these houses and we worked with Operation Impact and nobody ever took any money at all. So that's the other thing. They didn't take any money. I raised them five hundred dollars so they could have stamps and envelopes and things. And then they went out. volunteer picking out the places that had to be rehabbed working with operation impact which i wish they would bring back was just a wonderful program g stewart used to run it and others and they would pick out um the best places that would impact a neighborhood which is how we got a walgreens we bought the land so and how we cleaned up uh A lot of drug-infested houses along Natural Bridge across from Wade Funeral Home. Really safe, two neighborhoods. So it was a wonderful program, but the people who worked with them, Kingsway East and West Neighborhood Organization, they actually... When they sold a house, they never took any profit. They just put it all back into the bucket so that we always had a fund to rehab. I'm just saying that I think there's other ways to do it, especially when it's very neighborhood-based like that, that maybe you didn't know about or maybe they didn't think about. Sometimes things don't have to be structured so much if it's getting the job done. I come and ask them, how are you getting it done? They were getting it done because they were very committed individuals. Real estate aid, somebody who was doing rehab, somebody who was a contractor. It made it a very good board. So. Yes, ma'am.

I would just say I totally agree with you. Your point about making sure that folks who are on the board and organizations, I'm a very strong advocate and supporter of. I think 25 percent is a bit on the lower end. And I hope some of the folks who were a part of the conversations in the making of the legislation can see us saying that because I also held that opinion. It was just more of a, you know, kind of a very, I will say, a controversial stickler point when I was having the conversations with multiple organizations who consider themselves CDCs. It was a point of tension, but I completely agree with you and Kai to hold that line that I believe is mandatory, and I think we should look at, you know, should that be higher? I think there are folks within the CDC space who are supportive of that. There were some folks who pushed back, and so I was just trying to find some kind of middle ground that still required it with the 25%. And I will also say that every CDC I've seen that thrives has volunteers. Their boards are usually volunteers. Many of them don't even have, if they have staff, they usually don't have more than two, three, four, five, maybe six maximum. So I totally agree with your points, Alderwoman.

And I think that the reason why the other people didn't want it to be more than 25 percent, because we have ringers. That's what I call them. They come into neighborhoods and say they represent it and they don't. And they have their own agenda and they push. They pick out who they want to be the people in the neighborhoods. OK. And they say these are the leaders. Some of these community meetings we've had have not been good indications of what the neighborhood thought because the neighborhood didn't come. So that's why we have an elections that we that's why we have an election. Variety of ways to do it. But I think 25% is way too low. And it allows other people to come from other neighborhoods and say, hey, we represent you. 25% of the people who we picked out, not the neighborhood that we picked out, and now you've got a CDC that represents your neighborhood that really does not represent your neighborhood. So I think this is faulty. I think a lot of your legislation is good, but that 25%, it ought to be the opposite. No more than 25% can be outside the neighborhood. Then you have a neighborhood organization, because I thought that's what CDCs were supposed to be, neighborhood organizations that were working together for their neighborhood. As long as we set it up as another way, we give other entities the ability to actually decide what is going to happen in the neighborhoods. I've been very familiar with this. I'm being very kind not to mention there's a specific neighborhood that's out there now that's been in trouble. It's not a neighborhood, it's an organization. And they, for years, have tried to organize in North St. Louis and could not. And so then they start picking their own little groups and forming them. But they're not really anything to do with the neighborhood. They're outside people who have picked three or four people and said, look, we got this group. And that's what I'm afraid of. Okay. And so how... Okay, wait a minute. Let me just finish. How are they established in the neighborhood, by the way? So how do they start up in the neighborhood? Or if they're already started up, do they just come and say, I picked three or four or five people, whatever, 25% and now you represent your neighborhood? How do you envision that working?

So there are three big things in the legislation that would be to identify where they serve. In order to qualify, like I mentioned earlier, they first have to identify a community service area, a ward, a neighborhood, a cluster of census tracts. And then one of the qualifying applicants for them being CDC, one of those, the third pillar, is community organizing, planning, engagement, and activities. And I'll just read directly for the bill. It says activities shall include collaboration with neighborhood associations or block units, and facilitating community meetings or forums, and one or more of the following. Neighborhood planning or visioning efforts, community-driven development planning, policy advocacy related to housing development or equity, data collection or community-based research, resident leadership development, organizing around neighborhood issues, and civic engagement activities. So in order for them to qualify, they have to have that service contract. This is actually a mandatory bucket that they have to be able to demonstrate that they meet with the legislation. And then also that piece that we discussed, which I know you said is too low, but that 25% piece is also supposed to help support that they are actually doing work within the community they're claiming to.

And so when you talk about the mandatory things they have to meet, and then who do they present that to, SLDC, CDA, or who is it presented to?

SLDC, the president, CEO, or their designee, but that SLDC is over the certification process. So that's who they'll be. There's a part of legislation that outlines the application and the materials that are required, and that's who they'll be submitting those things to.

And what if the neighborhood says they don't represent me and no, they're not. So what is there an appeal process to say, no, they do not. And again, I'll give you an example. Well, let me just ask that question. Let me hear you.

Yes, ma'am. There is an appeal process and there's also a revocation process that is outlined for this. And the reason of making it so transparent of wanting information to go on a Web site to know when someone. to know when someone is pending approval is so that folks within that community can get a chance to see it, whether it be one of us as alders or folks who live there and can raise it to SLDC as a flag.

Okay, so they won't immediately be certified. It'll be an ongoing process. Did you say how many days did you say?

And the bill gives 180 days for transition for this to take effect.

Okay. I said I don't like the 25%, and I think that should be amended. I think that if you're having neighborhood groups, they ought to be the majority because otherwise minorities can rule the majority. I'm going to vote present. I like a lot of your bill. I think it's good. It brings a lot of good things, but I think the 25% is way too low. And you should only they would have to be able to prove that there's no way that something could be set up, except that they have 25 percent to me. Other than that, the neighborhood actually has to be the people driving this buggy for me. OK, so I will be voting present, but I think your board bill is pretty good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Alderwoman from the 11th, and then Alderwoman from the 8th.

Thank you so much, Madam President. I'm rising in support of Alderwoman Tyus's proposed, I guess, amendment, maybe. Alderwoman of the Seventh Ward. We had this discussion just a little bit earlier here at my desk. I too take issue with the 25%. And I really do believe that these organizations in community should have the majority of its membership to be directly from that community so just a statement but i would like to see that number raised from 25 as we discussed earlier thank you thank you other woman from the

Thank you, Madam President. I would just like to rise in support of Alderwoman Donye's bill. I know we're discussing a bit about the components and requirements of the board membership of the CDC, and I'll defer to the Alderwoman's previous expertise on that. I just wanted to bring up one component that I think is really great in this bill, which is the community revitalization activities. I think having CDC organizations that are embedded in our communities, that are made up and represented from our communities, are really great assets. But also the expertise and the guidance that they can provide to the community is one thing that I think makes our CDCs really strong. So I think having this bill just helps clarify what CDC can and will do for neighborhoods to the broader public, and also helps the city organizations that do partnership work with our community development corporations. So I think some of the things highlighted in this bill, like housing, real estate development, economic development, technical assistance, are all really key components that I know a lot of our neighborhoods need right now. And so, again, I think just clarifying that purpose, clarifying that scope of work for our CDCs will really go a long way in allowing the city to help bring the support that these organizations need to do the work they do. So with that, I would like to rise in support of this bill and also be added as a co-sponsor.

Madam Clerk, please make note of that, and if you would add me as co-sponsor as well. So noted. Thank you. Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th.

I'm sorry. Alderwoman from the 6th had her hand up, but she hadn't spoken yet.

Great.

Alderwoman from the 6th. Thank you, Alderman from the 12th. Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to virtually rise in support of this bill. I'm also pleased to hear the discussion around it, too. I think it just shows how critical the role of CDCs play in our community. you know i think as both the older one from the 12th and the older one from the seventh stated there's some historical changes that have really uh made it much more difficult for these cdc's to thrive across the city and it's something that we're looking to do development that actually makes sense for uh all of our community that we really need to to make sure that cdc's can have play a vital role so i just wanted to say that and i support you i've been a co-sponsor and thank you for bringing this bill to the floor

Thank you. Other woman from the 12th. Other woman from the 12th, you're muted.

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I'd like to point out to the other one from the eighth. She has good reason to be supportive of that because her CDCs were kept in place long term. Previous all the people they were kept in place, but ours were destroyed. And so to come back and then say, OK, now we're going to put 25 percent. We had 100 percent is a mistake. OK, the whole thing should be for communities to be. governing themselves and having other ideas. And communities of color have really had a problem with being able to govern themselves about what they want. They've not been able to control their corners when they first moved in. Others control the neighborhoods, and so they didn't own their corners when they finally became the majority. As in North St. Louis, we still don't control our corners because other people came in and people let them push them into our corners and our neighborhoods. So if we are to have a true governance of our own community, 25% is just actually... way too low. And so in my community, I'm going to be gathering my people to say, let's fight everything they have unless we can have the majority. That makes no sense. That's not how you do voting. That's not how you get elected to give only 25%. I know, and we yield it to the people who already have these CDCs and they've been... contacting me wanting to jump into over in the 12th ward and what I want them to do and this is what we tell majority contractors and everything else is that if you're so stable then you help to partner with the people getting started back up you help to raise them up but you don't be the leader allies are not the leaders they work with people and so putting 25% in is not correct It is a bad number. I didn't even talk to the other one from the 11th, but we agree because we know what happens in our community. And so to give in to the people who already have established CDCs and want to be able to jump right over to North St. Louis is a bad idea. So, again, I do think that you had your... the right thought auto woman from the seven. And I am going to vote prison, not know, but I would suggest that that number needs to be changed. And we shouldn't have enough people at the board who would have good common sense to say, this is not a good number. It's not how we get elected with 25%. That would be the person who lost. And it should not be something that we install into people to say, now you're over here in this neighborhood and you just picked a few people and, but you're running it from someplace else. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Other woman from the seventh.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I really appreciate the robust conversation today. I hope to the folks in the gallery, even with the disagreements in the legislation, what we don't disagree on is the critical work that our community corporations do. And I don't think any of us disagree that the city needs to be a better partner to you all. And so I think The good thing about legislation, there is things in this legislation that says we want to come back and have SODC report to us within a year. There's a lot of transparency. And so I think we're hearing from, you know, some of my colleagues today that they would like to raise the threshold of folks on the board. I am not opposed to that at all. I do think there are a lot of things in this bill that will be being implemented for the first time. So I think we're at a good starting space. And I'm just really grateful for the work that you all do. I think that since the CDBG funds were cut historically like that, we've not been partnered to do that. And I want to see thriving neighborhoods and thriving communities, and I think that means supporting organizations that don't necessarily have for-profit purposes, but whose whole existence is based in the stabilization of neighborhoods. And I think too often the city walks over the economic driver that CDCs are for community. You guys also social services. You keep populations in place. You do housing development. I mean, there's hardly anything within neighborhoods or neighborhood needs that you all don't do. And so my hope today, should this bill be perfected, is that you all see that the city hears you. We support you. We want to strengthen the ethoscope. And I think this is step one. I hope we have further conversations. I've been very public that, you know, I would love to see there be a sustainable funding for our CDCs. And I think this is the first step towards there. But I think we're far from being done with creating the ecosphere that you all deserve and the ecosphere that our residents and our neighborhoods need.

Any further discussion? It's been moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the, sorry, moved by the Alderman from the 7th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th that we perfect Board Bill 41 as amended in committee. There's been a request for roll call. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderman Switzer. Aye.

Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan.

Aye.

Alderman Devotee. Alderwoman Velazquez? Aye. Alderwoman Sonnier?

Aye.

Alderwoman Cox-Antwi? Aye. Alderman Browning?

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard? Aye. Alderwoman Keyes?

Aye.

Alderwoman Tyers?

Present.

Alderwoman Boyd?

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge? Aye. President Green?

Aye. We have 14 aye votes, one present. By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the 7th to perfect Board Bill 41 as amended in committee.

Board Bill 50, Committee Sub, as amended in committee, sponsored by Alderman Aldridge, President Green, Alderman Velazquez, Alderman Velazquez, Alderman Sunye, and Alderman Keyes. An ordinance repealing Ordinance 712- as codified in the Charter 8.108A of the Revised Code of the City of St. Louis and any after ordinances or portions of ordinances codified Chapter 8.108A that are inconsistent with this ordinance and established, updated, and inconsistent with this ordinance. Oh, and establish updated regulations for the licensing and operation of mobile food vendor, including designated commercial vending markets, predetermined vending locations, permit display requirements, and administrative oversight by the streets department.

Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the perfection of Board Bill 50, committee substitute as amended in committee.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move to perfect board bill 50, committee substitute as amended.

Second.

It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the 7th, that we perfect board bill 50, committee substitute as amended in committee. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Here we are again. Third time is the charm. Board bill 50, committee substitute as amended in committee is the food truck regulation bill. This is a bill that I started working on back in 2009. 24. um actually a few months ago this board of aldermen perfected this bill and moved it out of committee all 15 members voted for the goal of this legislation is to cut regulations around food trucks for them to be able to operate a lot easier in the city of st louis the change that is added to this bill from the one that members voted on a few months ago basically As the Cardinals language into the bill, there is a south downtown redevelopment project agreement that the Cardinals have that allows them to have their own individuals to be able to vent and food trucks because they do do events. As we was working on this legislation, the food truck code chapter eight has been amended and repealed and amended and repealed several times. So that was just a little error when we took out the Cardinals part. Again, what this does is allow food trucks to operate in certain areas throughout the city, such as downtown from 8th and Market Street going all the way up to 16th Street and Market, as well as downtown west. at 23rd and Olive going to Jefferson. It also allows operations in the Cherokee area along the side of off Cherokee streets right before you get to neighborhood as well as areas in Grand Arts Center. I do want to thank several alders who have been part of this process that allow their community to be part of it. Alderwoman Keys as well as Alderman Sanye and also thank all the co-sponsors that are on the legislation as well as All my colleagues that literally about two, three months ago voted for this. They were like I say, we want to make sure we got it right. So we put it on a third reading informal before we went down. And this is a good piece of legislation. I'm excited about it. And I look forward to getting it done. And I'll open up for any questions.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 8th.

All right. Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I just wanted to rise publicly and thank Alderman Aldridge for all his work on this legislation and also thank him for being willing to make those adjustments to the downtown south area and work closely with the Cardinals in order to make sure that language worked for them and their vendors as well as the people located in the downtown area. I also agree this is a really great piece of legislation, and I think just adds clarity to our city code when it comes to our mobile and food truck vendors. We know that they're great components of not only small businesses for many of our neighborhoods, but also bring a lot of vitality and attraction. So while I know that he has worked a very, very long time with this piece of legislation, I think that changes forward in getting it to the right direction. So with that, I would like to be added as a co-sponsor as well. Madam Clerk, please make note of that. So noted.

Alderwoman from the 12th.

Madam President, members of the board, if the Alderman from the 14th would yield.

The Alderman from the 14th yields questioning from the Alderwoman from the 12th.

Absolutely.

Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you. So I hear that we satisfied the cartons. OK, but I also got correspondence because people have known my position about no vending and where I represent. And we've had it for a long time. But people called me about the hours. Was that was that something that was just for the cartons or did we also do it for some places downtown? I'm sorry, my eyes jumping because I got emails about the long hours in downtown.

so what happened with that uh nothing it's the same uh hours of operations that was a last bill that was voted on by this board that will go to um 1 a.m right and is that by all parts of downtown or certain areas of downtown or is it restricted if it's a mostly residential how does that go No, ma'am, it's not all parts of downtown. The market that would be downtown would be the downtown commercial vending area, which would be the public right array again on Market Street between the intersection of South 8th and South 16th, so right before you get, you stop before 1520, before you get to the post office, as well as Chestnut Street between the intersection of Market Street and North 15th Street. That's kind of around the park right across the street from the Blues. I met with the Blues and they wanted to actually expand it. They understand that a lot of people that leave their games, there's not many options for them to be able to go to get food or even before the game. So we did expand it. that area and then the other area that is in the bill that's downtown is a downtown West right by the soccer stadium again on 23rd Street going north till you get to about Jefferson as well as around Wells Fargo which they used to have food truck markets there but they end up stopping so we're opening that back up

OK, so that's what I was kind of asking about downtown West, because some of that is more residential than other parts of downtown. And I don't know if this is in downtown West, the part that is right across the street from Union Station.

No, ma'am. No, ma'am. So we made sure we stayed away from with the downtown and the downtown West. We try to stay away from the residential area. So where these streets are located is not by Union Station. Even though I did talk with Siva Laughlin, who supports the bill, we didn't go that far down to Union Station, nor did we go far down or go on to Locust and other streets, or Washington, which is more residential and downtown West area.

Okay. Just wanted the questions answered because they had emailed me on several occasions, and I hadn't really looked at that part of it. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate your answers.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I'll just keep it short. Finally getting this done, cutting the regulation for food trucks. Thank my colleagues. I also want to thank Matt Heskamp. I want to thank your office for being a help with this, President, especially Ms. Janika Hayden, who has put in countless hours and just all the collaboration. on this legislation to get it done. And with that, I close or already perfected Board Bill 50 as amended in committee. It's been moved by... Committee substitute as amended in committee. All abbreviations.

Moved by the Alderman from the 14th, seconded by the Alderman from the 7th, that we perfect Board Bill 50, committee substitute as amended in committee. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed?

Aye.

Motion carries. We have perfected board bill 50, committee substitute as amended.

That's the extent of board bills for perfection. Report of engrossment. Board bill 33 as amended in committee. Board bill 24 as amended on the floor. Board bill 43 as amended in committee.

Third reading and final passage of board bills, consent. Board bill 33 as amended in committee. Alderwoman from the 10th, you're 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 third reading and final passage of board bills on the consent calendar.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 2nd, that we third read and finally pass the board bills on the consent calendar. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderwoman Schweitzer.

Aye.

Alderman Odenberg. Aye. Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan. Aye. Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

Alderwoman Velazquez.

Aye.

Alderwoman Sonia. Aye. Alderwoman Cox-Antwi.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

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

Aye.

Alderman Boyd.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Keep it.

President Green. Aye. Alderwoman Sonnier. We have 14 aye votes.

You got the votes for this, so don't fuck it up, okay?

Okay.

Oh, please turn your mic off.

Third reading and final.

Thank you.

By your vote, you have sustained the motion of the alderman from the, or alderwoman from the 10th and the 3rd read and finally passed the aforementioned bills. Third reading and final passage of board bills.

Board Bill 22 as amended on the floor by President Green, sponsored by President Green, Mayor Spencer, and Alderman Aldrich, Alderwoman Cox, and Tweed. An ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment appropriating the sum of $255,000,000 and $100 of RAMS settlement funds were deposited into various new special funds to rebuild North St. Louis from the May 16th tornado and decades of disinvestment, support infrastructure and neighborhoods citywide, and revitalize downtown to increase revenue for the entire city with amounts as described herein and contain a severability and emergency clause.

Madam President, you are recognized on the third reading and final passage of Board Bill 22 as amended on the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President and members of the board. Board Bill 22 as amended on the floor allocates $255 million in RAM settlements funds to three key areas. Tornado recovery and north side redevelopment, capital and water infrastructure investment, downtown neighborhood plan implementation, all of which I'm excited to get over the hump today. So with that, I would like to make a motion that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 22 as amended on the floor.

It's been moved by the President, seconded by the Alderwoman from the first, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 22 as amended to the floor. Madam President, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Allocating these funds is a significant step toward addressing the unprecedented challenges facing our city, and I'm deeply grateful to all of my colleagues for coming together to find common ground on this bill, and to our community partners for the invaluable input they provided throughout this process. Through this bill, we are able to allocate $120 million plus for neighborhood stabilization and home repair for North St. Louis neighborhood plan implementation. And I had the privilege of meeting with Jonathan Roper earlier this week, and I'm really excited about the plans that are coming forth for neighborhood plan implementation on the north side and want to make sure that I thank all of the countless residents who have engaged in that process thus far to make sure that these funds go to actually build and rebuild neighborhoods the way that our residents would like to see them. Also very excited about the citywide infrastructure fund as we know infrastructure needs top of mind for residents all across our city. And we will be allocating $40 million for water infrastructure, $30 million for sidewalk repair, street paving, and traffic calming, and $10 million for vacancy reduction. look no farther than the boil order that went out for a good swath of the city this week as well as the massive pothole that has formed downtown due to a water main break to know that these are critical funds that we are getting over the finish line today not to mention that our city continues to to deal with increasing vacancy rates and being able to start a fund to actually address vacancy on an ongoing way, the way that other cities such as Kansas City has done for many years, puts us in a good position for the future. And then last, we'll be allocating $55 million toward neighborhood plan implementation. This will help us with addressing strategic capital projects around vacancy downtown, spurring riverfront redevelopment, putting funding into making our downtown infrastructure pedestrian friendly, and making it safer for all to traverse around downtown. funding to help our businesses, retail and restaurant activation, and money to attract more events downtown. Even as we pass this bill across the finish line today, we must recognize that this is only the beginning, meaning the full scope of the challenges that are ahead of us will require additional resources from the state and federal funding to matching investments from our philanthropic and corporate partners. And I am glad that so many of those partners are already at the table and having those conversations. Having now been engrossed and approved by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment unanimously, Board Bill 22, as amended on the floor, is ready to move forward, and I am excited to get it passed today. With that, Mr. Vice President, I'm happy to take any questions from my colleagues.

Thank you, Madam President. We do have the mayor with us. I would like to recognize Mayor Kara Spencer.

Let's see.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. And thank you, Madam President, members of the board, for allowing me to come down here and join you here this morning for this historic moment as we are finally considering the RAM settlement package. I'd like to just offer some words here. Primarily, I'd like to start out in a series of gratitude, starting with President Megan Greene and staff for collaborating with us throughout this entire process. We know this has been a long road, a very long series of conversations, communications, and collaboration. And I really want to thank your leadership in helping us get to this point where we are today. I'd also like to thank every single member of the Board of Aldermen, whether you end up voting informatively today, as I know most of you will, or decline. There have been meetings with each and every one of you, your staff. many of your constituents, stakeholders throughout this process. And I really want to thank each and every member of the Board of Aldermen for the collaborative effort and the large amount of work that's gone into getting us where we are here today. Legislative efforts, big wins for our city require us all to work together. while this bill is not considered perfect by any stakeholder or anybody on the planet it is something that I think the majority of us feel really good about and we couldn't have gotten there without a truly collaborative effort between the mayor's office the Board of Aldermen stakeholders the comptroller and so many others and so I just want to thank each of you for participating in the process I'd also like to specifically recognize Comptroller Donna Berenger. As I mentioned, she and her staff were also very involved in these conversations and the collaboration. It was enormously prideful that as we passed this out of ENA earlier this week, The Board of ENA was unanimous in delivering this bill with the amendments that the Board of Aldermen sent back to the Board of ENA. The Board of ENA unanimously adopted the amendments that were submitted by this body. And I want to thank the comptroller's leadership on that as well. I'd also like to just recognize our community stakeholders for their expertise and input on the bill. Our city departments, many of whom work every single day to make our city better, played pivotal roles in helping us develop the end product here. And of course, my staff and their continued hard work, including my Chief of Staff, Casey Milberg, our Policy Director, Caitlin, Director of the Board of Aldermen, Dan Gunther, Chief Recovery Officer, Julia Nix, and everybody who participated in really getting this to this finish line. And lastly, I would like to thank the members of the general public, our city residents, many of whom participated in the online portal that the Board of Aldermen put together, President of the Board of Aldermen organized, and came to many, many hearings and sent countless communications to you all as alderpersons and to my office about the board bill and the priorities that our residents had. And I want to thank them for their time and participation in getting us to the compromise where we are today. This board bill, of course, is a critical step in realizing the potential of the RAMS settlement. We are moving from planning to action with these $255 million. And as the president said, it's all about action from this point forward. And as you may know, we activated a very small portion of these funds earlier this week, contingent upon the passage of this bill here today, to ensure that our recovery efforts are not slowed by the legislative process. And I want to thank the President and the Board of ENA for moving that forward so we can make sure that we don't have any hiccups in that road. This board bill reinforces our commitment to the hardest hit areas of our city, following, of course, the tornado, but also decades of disinvestment. And so the large amount of funds here allocated to rebuilding North St. Louis will provide long-term housing stability, infrastructure, comprehensive neighborhood plan implementation. This approach not only ensures continuity, but it supports transition from emergency response to a sustained investment in North St. Louis. we've also allocated a strong amount of funding to downtown as well as the much needed citywide infrastructure as the president pointed out the enormous sinkhole that opened up just three weeks ago and the ongoing issues that we have with our water department and i want to thank all of you for championing those issues and working together to get the compromise where we are here today it truly is historic and i'm really grateful that My colleagues, the legislative branch, worked together with our office to get here where we are today.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th.

Mr. Vice President and members of the board, if the president will yield.

Will the president yield the questioning from the Alderwoman of the 12th?

Yes.

Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you very much. First of all, I want to find out why this board bill was not on the agenda last week. I was shocked. What happened to it?

Two things. When the bill was given to the Legislative and Rules Committee for engrossment, some of the amendments that we had done on the floor had not been incorporated. And so it was not able to be engrossed with the three-day time that was required in order to have it on the agenda. That was one. The second, we also needed to approve through ENA, which was done at our meeting yesterday. Okay.

And I understand that. But the bill still should have had a place on the agenda. This is the first time in 35 years I ever saw a bill disappear from the agenda. If it was put on informal or it rode the perfection or did something, but it just disappeared, which is very, very unusual. Never seen it in 35 years. I want to just point that out. That should not happen. There should be a place you should be able to go and look at the agenda and find out what's going on with the board bill. saying all of that. Last week, we established that in this board bill that North St. Louis actually was going to get, and it is on page 9 of 28, the North St. Louis Neighborhood Plan Implementation Fund, $31 million. I'm now hearing $120 million, and you're calling that the North St. Louis North Plan Implementation. Where is the extra $90 million coming from?

Thank you, Alderwoman. When you look at the bill, it is put into basically three categories. The North St. Louis and Tornado Recovery Fund, of which $89 million is put into the Tornado Recovery Fund piece, and $31 million is put into the North St. Louis Neighborhood Plan implementation piece. But that makes up one bucket. Just like under the citywide infrastructure bucket, we have funds that are set up for $40 million into water infrastructure, but then another $30 million into other infrastructure needs and $10 million for vacancy.

So you are saying that what other bucket of money makes up the $80 million? You're saying the, where is that? Sorry, I couldn't understand the last words that you said. Where is the other $80 million? What page number? What item? Line number? What is the other $80 million?

So the long-term recovery fund is on page six and seven. And it lays out all of the funding, which includes $78 million for housing, which includes home repair, housing preservation, vacant unit rehabilitation, and new housing construction with CDC. It also includes a max of $10 million for infrastructure. That includes sidewalk repairs, tree replanting, stump removal, demolitions of condemned property. We are anticipating that that infrastructure fund is eligible for reimbursement. And when that reimbursement is received, it will then go into the housing bucket. It also outlines $7 million for resident support. This is rental and deposit assistance to impacted residents and other related moving costs, accelerated resident connections to housing stabilization and resident support services. for example, case management and direct goods and services to impacted residents. And then finally, it outlines that there is $4 million going to delivery and administration of the fund. This is to fund the Office of Recovery for the next two years, including administrative support, oversight, financial compliance, and data support systems. So those are all pages six and seven.

And as I understood that when we spoke, not last week because it wasn't on the agenda, that when we spoke before, and that's the tornado impacted area, which does not just include North St. Louis. As it rightfully should, it includes other areas. So I don't know why we're calling this the North St. Louis fund because the exact amount that I could get from that was exactly for North St. Louis was the $31 million. The rest is compensation. is compiled of other pieces of pots that could be North St. Louis, but could also go to Central West End. As rightfully, I have always advocated that the Central West End got hit also, but I don't know why we're saying this is North St. Louis money solely, because it's not.

So the name of the fund is the North St. Louis and Long-Term Tornado Recovery Fund. So it is both. And as I testified last week, there's only a couple of neighborhoods in the tornado recovery fund in the tornado impacted area that are not North St. Louis neighborhoods. So mostly, I think there's two or three neighborhoods that are outside of that, which means that majority of neighborhoods for both the tornado bucket are north side neighborhoods that will be eligible for that funding and then will also be able to receive the neighborhood plan implementation funding.

then the correct is that the majority of the funds, the North St. Louis never held before, not that it is a North St. Louis fund. And that is very critical for me and my experience way before you got here is that when we put stuff in a bucket, that North St. Louis ends up getting the least of it. And so why don't we put the downtown fund in that? And I can guarantee you, they will say, oh, no, no, no, no, no. They want theirs specifically outlined that that's theirs. And we already outlined that we left out the $12 million, I'm sorry, the $15 million of ARPA fund that the convention center got. So downtown, one building has gotten specifically for them, 30 million of RAM and 15 millions of ARPA funds. So that's 45 million, not with downtown funds with something else. That's with the Convention Center only, which is more than North St. Louis has specifically been targeted for. Because I know what happens when we make things bigger and that more people can access it. And I'm not saying that necessarily they shouldn't, because I've had conversation with several aldermen that I said, hey, Central West End got hit too. And so they should help some funds. But don't target it as we're only going to get that because that is not true. That is a way to kind of make it seem like. And I will get into that later with another older person because we put this. This information out. Oh, St. Louis is getting 100 to 125 million dollars. And I got all these texts and emails saying, oh, vote against this and whatever. I was going to vote against it because right now we have more less money specified specifically only for North St. than we had under previous bills. And we have had a tornado hit us. I actually was one of the other persons that agreed the downtown St. Louis previous year. And you do know that I'm the person asked both the other one from the 7th and 13th to put their board bills on informal. Had we went ahead and appropriated that money, we may not have had the money that we needed to use for the Rams. But and I was agreeing that the downtown should get money. I don't agree that they should have now even more than we have specifically. If anything, turn it around, give them 31 million and give us the 71 million. And that wouldn't even begin to address. You talk about the disinvestment. It wasn't just disinvestment. It was stealing of money. It was stealing of the block rent. It was redlining. It was pushing disinvestment. gas stations which now the central west end is divesting themselves of so they only have one and a half gas station in all the central west end because we know how uh dangerous those gas stations are it was putting and leaving nuisance places and and and um in north st louis for years and years 13 years we had to fight to get a nuisance place that was shooting every every other week a month in the Penrose neighborhood. Another one, we had the same problem right outside the Ville, Greater Ville neighborhood. And all over North St. Louis, you can tell where we got these nuisance gas stations because the people leave. But we have... So when we start talking about disinvestment, it was purposeful. And it was also that money. And we built up downtown in the central quarter. When I speak to people from downtown who know me, who've been promoting our state, I mean, the downtown money, they never can argue with me when I say, but you know how much I know how much money you've got. They've gotten billions of dollars. And so a lot of the problems that they have, they created by being over invested. They did things that should not have happened. They built too much rental property down there, which is why now they have that short-term rental. They put Washington Street as an attraction but would not put anything in any of our communities for other people to go to. We finally did build the Grove, but nothing in North St. Louis that young people can go to. So when we do this stuff and you use it as North St. Louis, I resent it. I resent it because it is not North St. Louis. And you can see the impact that you did not say that when you talked about it. What you said was North St. Louis, $120 million North St. Louis plan implementation. It is not that. It is not that. It is not that. It is a combining of... that you can get. The only thing that specifically says North St. Louis gets is $31 million. That is it. And what I found, and I do have more experience than you and most of the Auburn put together, when they don't say you get it, you don't get it. They find a way. If you go back and look at our block grant applications over the years, You can go back and look at them. They said, oh, we need this money for North St. Louis. Then they spent it in downtown and in the central quarter. They didn't spend it in North St. Louis. They had big articles in the newspaper about how they took the money and spent it someplace else. So when I hear Alderman say nobody wants to go to North St. Louis, that really irritates me because they do want to go. They need the support. And when they've had the support, which they had when I was the 20th Ward Alderman, we built $50, $60 million worth of stuff, grocery stores, schools, and and everything else because you have somebody that was supportive. Now we have a CDA and oftentimes a mayor's office that is not supportive. And you should not be using the name North St. Louis because I'm going to come right back every week until you stop doing it and say this is how much money it is, okay? And it's none of it saying just for North St. Louis because if it was, it was under North St. Louis only. And as a lawyer, we all know if it doesn't say us only, then it's not us. So that's just not true. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I do want to say we also, besides the neighborhoods, have Forest Park Park in here. And it was impacted. And if anybody ever wants to know how unfair the parks money is distributed, have BPS give you a printout of how much money the parks have gotten since we put the ward capital for parks. Forest Park has gotten more than all the parks together. South St. Louis has gotten away more than the two parks in North St. Louis. There is never anything that we have ever had that we get the most money. We just get lip service from tax abatement to eminent domain in the central quarter when North St. Louis... And they used to be the court used to be part of North St. Louis, by the way, when the central quarter got blighted with him in the domain. All kind of newspaper articles said, oh, we're going to put the black people back because black people raised hell. But that didn't happen. And it never does. We're not going to get most of the money and we should not be putting that out there. Thank you, Madam President. I have a question if the alderwoman from the 13th would yield.

Will the alderwoman from the 13th yield a questioning from the alderwoman of the 12th?

Yes. Yes, ma'am, I will. Thank you.

Thank you all. Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. President and Madam Alderman of the 13th. Back in November 15th, 2024, you did introduce a board bill 131. Is that correct? Yes. And you had co-sponsors, I believe, Alderman Keyes, Mr. Alderman from then was, I don't know if he was the 16th or whatever he is now, the Alderman Keyes. Tom Oldenburg and some others. In that board bill, we had often talked about how we were going to put a bill together with people downtown that was going to be North St. Louis and downtown. Is that correct? Correct. And approximately how much money was North St. Louis going to get under that bill? $130 million. And this was before the tornado, right? Exactly. And this was specifically saying, it didn't say North St. Louis and some other people or some other areas. It was for North St. Louis, right? Right. That was the deal that we had worked out. And so now under this, we have had a tornado bill. impact many of our neighborhoods and now we have specifically because the president said and she's trying to now say but there's other monies available um but that's not north it doesn't say north st louis only in those other monies available we now are getting a hundred million dollars less than we were going to get before from this bill yes Okay, and I think that the other woman from the 7th also had a bill, right? Right. Okay. So I guess my concern is that I felt like I had done something good to ask you two ladies to put it on the informal calendar and felt good when you did that and felt like, oh, and then when the tornado hit, wow, I really felt good. But now when I look at how that whole North St. Louis thing is being played, it makes me feel really sad because we get $100 million less. And we'd have done better to just pass your bill. I'm so sorry. I want to apologize because we've had that money in North St. Louis. And now we've got thirty one million dollars and they're trying to cover and fool us. And we can have the mayor come down here and the president and the comptroller, all of them. None of them live in North St. Louis. Neither do the sponsors. They don't live in North St. Louis. And even if some North St. Louis people have supported it, They are not reading this bill. This is shameful. We should really be getting all of the money. But if we didn't get all of it, we should get the majority. When you don't have a line item that says North St. Louis gets $100 million, that is a mistake. That is a not commitment. It's like, oh, well, we got to pay for the tornado. pay for downtown's money because they most certainly have stole block grant money over the years and they didn't steal it it was given to them by administrations it was taken from us and given to them by this board of aldermen and by prior mayors and so now we actually have a tornado destroy much of our communities and i'm very impacted because my house got hit along with the house that i own next to it and i'm just now fixing my things because i was so busy talking to other people For us to have anything less than $100 million is just woefully, is not correct and should not be. And we're saying, well, we got to save downtown. I would think that downtown would want to not only give us that $70 million, but find those people who are going to give them the money to match it and give it to us because they know how much money. Maybe these new people down here don't. But there's a record of how much money downtown in the central quarter has gotten. And then for us to be getting the least amount of money that you could possibly give us, $100 million less is shameful. And I just want to apologize to you because I really thought that I was looking out for our future. But it looks like that there's no time that we could ever say, look. Sorry, downtown, you can't have this money. We've had a major catastrophe. And we do know that we've had not disinvestment. We've had actual attacking of North St. Louis. We've had actual putting nuisances and leaving them there so that the black middle class will leave this community because we don't want them there. We're imposing our wills. and having people doing plans that have no business doing plans about North St. Louis because they're not in North St. Louis. And then come out here and keep throwing that North St. Louis name around. I will be back next week with a thing saying, and it's not in the next week and the next week because we are not getting the major money. And let me and you and Laura be the ENA, Board of ENA, okay? Let us be the Board of ENA. And let's see then if they think it's fair if all the money comes to North St. Louis. But to have $31 million specified for North St. Louis is shameful. And I'm sorry. Thank you all the women from the 13th. I want to say this is a bad board deal. I don't care who came in and said this is good. This is a bad board deal. When you just know that we just had a bill that was for one hundred and thirty something million. And now we're down to thirty one million dollars after a tornado and saying, well, we're going to get you some and it's going to be some other. Then get it to the other people till downtown. They can wait much of what their problem is. They create it. because they were greedy and selfish and they got all the money and they built the Convention Center Hotel knowing that it would not work and we had to refinance it. So much stuff that has gone through. And so they don't have that conversation with me. The Central West End blighted with the eminent domain, all the black people out of it in the 80s and then said, oh, we will let them move back. And then they did not. They did not let them move back. They did not do what they were going to say. They're not going to do it now. We're not doing what we said we were going to do earlier this year or previous year, which we will get North St. Louis the majority of the money. Anytime you do not put it in my name solely, you could put it in me and my husband's name, but that's not mine. When it's in my name solely, that's mine. When I've got insurance to fix my house up because my husband and I both have our name on the house and the insurance, the insurance cannot release our money until both of us are okayed. So say what North St. Louis is going to get. but not even having a common decency to put us at 75, $100 million and have people out that the activists saying, oh, you should get 125. Well, not only do we not get 125 or 150, we didn't get but 31 million. Anything else is a maybe if we can get to it. And my experience has told me we do not. Even with if we got healthy homes, we used to have it set up that every ward had money that they can make sure people got things in their community. And speaking to the older woman from the seventh in the CDC, we used to if people in Kingsway East and Penrose, because I used to only have. three and a half, four neighborhoods. Now I've got 14 because my neighborhoods were very active. When anybody got something from the building division, we sent them straight to our housing corporation. They worked with them. In fact, the former Alderman from the 19th used to work for us, Marlene Davis. and they would find them money, and so it was very successful because we had it set up all in-house, and people found ways to fix their properties up and stay there. All of that was dismantled under former Mayor Francis Slate, and it's been a mess. Having it that everybody has to go through the same pot is terrible. It does not work. People don't get calls back, and then they are told the money is all gone. So setting this up that we got to compete with the Central Corridor No, it should have been set up central court a certain amount, but we most certainly should have got way more because the central court has also been the benefit. I mean, go read the articles about how they lied. The city of St. Louis and SLDC and CDA lied about how they were going to fix up the Chase Park Plaza. And it was supposed to be apartment buildings because they're all in the paper. And as soon as they finished the Chase Park Plaza, then they said, oh, no, we're not going to make that. We're going to make it a hotel. So they paid money. the loan back off and the money back because they just lied to use it. Somebody should have gone to jail then for that. And in fact, people did go to jail for what they did with the block grant money. But when it was all finished, the only thing that they could find to do was to give some low income because nobody Nobody that's middle or upper income lives in North St. Louis and would need to help their neighborhoods be built. They only did low income. When we came up and we've been Greg Carter, myself and other people who served on the boards back in the 90s, the fund that April 4 Griffin now is in charge of, that was not supposed to be used so that these major developers got all the money. That was not what it was for. And that is what it's being used for. So my problem is I've watched over and over the lies that have been told about what is going to be for North St. Louis. It is a lie. If it doesn't say North St. Louis only, then it is a maybe. And I have not seen that that is the... case with anything that i've seen that they keep the word you would have been much better if we had done board bill 131 and made that the law and i'm so sorry because i really did think that we would have a group of people who would have some common sense about being fair but when you see the sponsors and all the ENAs don't live in North St. Louis and the sponsors don't live in North St. Louis, on the edge of North St. Louis or in South St. Louis. And downtown has more representation mostly than North St. Louis does. It's unfortunate. It is not a good deal. The alderman from the force said that CDA SLDC didn't know how to do the $36 million for the uh the uh north side quarters um this board is making a mistake by putting all of this money someplace else and then trying to fool people not be quiet i have already outlined it i will not be quiet it is not north st louis's money you should stop saying that and just because you say it doesn't make it so i will have whatever i need to do i will meet with the activists i will talk to the press you cannot say where it says north st louis only and in law that's the black It is not fair that we're getting such a small amount of money. Activists, where are you now? Why aren't you saying? Did you get your cut so now you're quiet? Because why aren't you saying now we're not getting the money that we were promised? We're not even getting the $100 million. That's a maybe if. And everybody's deciding something different for North St. Louis, except for the people who live here. I will be voting no against this bill. And I'll make sure I'm asking for a roll call, even though we're supposed to have one, because we're not, stop using North St. Louis. Stop saying that it's a combination of money. Don't use it as, oh yeah, this is for you, when it's not just for us. Thank you.

Thank you. Alderman from the 14th.

Thank you, Mr. President, members of the board. Will the Alderman from the 12th yield for questions?

Will the Alderman from the 12th yield a questioning from the Alderman of the 14th?

Yes, always.

Alderman, you may proceed.

Thank you, Alderman. Hope you're having a good day today. I heard a lot of, well, I heard everything that you said on your opposition, and it sounds like you're opposed to the bill because of the lack of funding that is going to North St. Louis. Is that, sounds about correct?

I'm opposed to it being specific. I asked the president last week, which I already knew, what specifically was going to be for North St. Louis. It was $31 million. That's page 9 of 28. The rest of it is for... Tornado impacted areas and she said, well, there were only a few neighborhoods. Well, if it's only a few neighborhoods, let's take the 90 million dollars and give a certain amount to those that are not in North St. Louis and then put the pot in North St. Louis. OK, because we don't. Again, I'm also opposed to that downtown. Got one building that got $45 million, and we gave them another $55 million. So out of all of this, they got $100 million. Alderman, if downtown had had a tornado, they would have been saying, we got to have all of the money. And they have had all the money for the 35 years that I've served here. They have gotten the money, along with the central quarter. So much so, X. When we would talk about stuff, they would always say, oh, we're going to get to you. They never got to us. So when you talk about the disinvestment, it was not accidental. It was purposeful. So why would we give downtown another $55 million when they already got $45 million? I can just say this. The convention center is downtown. So if you give something in my ward downtown, Forty five million dollars. Then you can say, but that don't count for North St. Louis. That would never happen. The convention center is downtown. I'm sorry.

No, you're fine. And I know that you were, you inquired of the Alderman of 13th and talked about the previous bill. I remember where there was competing bills and I had amendments to go higher and higher for Northside until folks got tired out. But also in that same bill, there was about 98 million, which is more in this bill for downtown. And I know you said you apologize. You would have voted for the other bill. I'm assuming you would have been Fine with the $98 million that would have been in Boy Bill 34 to go to downtown?

How much did she say we were getting? $100 and what?

I think it was $120, $126, something like that.

Right. So just I say 130 approximately. 130 for sure us with now 31 and the rest maybe. I'm not a person that likes to gamble. OK, so I was here since the boats came along and they brought us to the boat and they let us gamble for fun. And I want all this money. I never go to the boat because I don't like to put my money in as a gamble. So would I have voted for 31 million? Yes, I sure would have. OK, I mean, 131 million, 130. Yes. When I look at the 31 million that we have. But I thought that this was even before a tornado, that we were going to do something that was kind of wonderful for North St. Louis. And now we're just addressing the tornado. And then we're addressing for downtown. Oh, well, they got all these things we needed. We still need the money for this investment. We still need it. That thirty one million dollars is doesn't even cut it. So that's what I'm irritated about, is that somehow I gave faith that we would do better and we're not doing better. I would not have liked downtown getting 70 something million and maybe there would have been a compromise. But most certainly I wanted the 130 for North St. Louis.

Gotcha. And don't take this next question as slight. I really do am curious. You know, this bill has had three hearings, and then it was perfected on the floor. I think the first one was in HUD. There was no amendments offered. The second was at Julius Davis Library. And then I think the third one was in HUD's when amendments was offered. And then, as you know, as you say, you've been doing this longer than most of us down here during perfection. You can make amendments. Why did you not bring an amendment forward to either decrease downtown or to increase the north side bucket?

Because you don't have the votes and the same reason you all felt it necessary to take the most knowledgeable, educated senior person to take the seniority. So when you send that to me, you do not want me to participate. You want to have a. I want to use the correct word, dictatorship. And you want a yielding. And I don't have to yield to you guys. I don't have to yield to you. And you still should have some common sense about North St. Louis. You cannot keep just putting out that we're getting this money when it's only $31 million. If you just tell the truth, you're only getting $31 million. The rest of it is a maybe. And you guys can read as well as I can. So you always say you represent North St. Louis. Why didn't you say let's put some more in North St. Louis?

Well, actually, I did put more in North St. Louis. Like it or love the amount. If you follow the process, there was 10 million put back in North St. Louis. That's part of the process. I do appreciate your inquiry, Alderwoman. I'll now speak on the bill. Thank you for your time. I do stand in support of board bill 22 as amended in committee you know there's actually been ongoing conversations around this legislation for a while now there's been meetings with stakeholders in the and and members of this board going as far back as of last year to try to try to put as much into North St. Louis and other areas. I feel good where this board bill ended. Would I have loved to see more? Absolutely. I think any colleague down here has the opportunity, especially ones that always say there's only three north side alders. because i'm not a northside alder actually could have offered an amendment to increase that but this was a lot of collaboration for people that show up and i'm not talking about that show up on a friday board of alderman meeting I'm talking about show up for plenty of meetings, for plenty of engagements, for committee hearings that was held, one in HUDS, another one held in the community in North St. Louis, and then another one held in HUDS before the bills voted out. I know after this there's going to be a lot of hot air and probably name calling, but the fact is if people wanted to show up and do their part to increase it, as they know who's been here longer than all of us born, put together, have the opportunity to offer amendments to increase the bucket. I appreciate the work that the president office has done. I appreciate the work and the collaboration of the mayor's office and colleagues here at the board that actually picked up the phone call and met to try to figure out how do we get this across the finish line. I don't think there's no perfect legislation. I know there is. I want to give actually a shout out to State Representative Kim Collins. I know she's working very hard on the state level to even bring down even more funds from the state, not to just do demo. Again, there was a meeting about that in HUDS, too, to actually start to do rebuild. So this is just one pot. And the reality is I think what most of us are aware of is North St. Louis has been disinvested in way before the tornado. uh the tornado has definitely shined a light that uh areas that has been disinvested in and some that has been representing those areas for a very long time looking the same way needs that support and regardless if we were to pour the whole 250 um it wouldn't still be enough. It would still be folks in North St. Louis who may not pay attention to the process. It would be folks in North St. Louis that may not be as engaged as others still needing help as we talk about a billion dollar storm. And people can talk about it, but other folks can show up and try to figure out how do we get some. This won't be the end process to try to figure out how we get more funds. This board has also passed additional funding for the interest funds. This board has passed additional funding from Alderman and Alderman Clark Hubbard bill that went into North St. Louis. I know it is not perfect. But I'm not just going to scream, shout, and yell without having any solution. So thank you, Madam President, for your leadership. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Comptroller, more importantly, colleagues at the board. And thank you to the ones who have been showing up. and voicing saying they wanted 150. I believe even due to that advocacy that they did, we didn't reach to 150, but I believe due to some of that advocacy, we was able to put more money, at least 10 million more, into the North St. Louis bucket. So I would ask my colleagues to vote in support of this legislation, and I appreciate the people that actually show up and do the work every single day in person and have those conversations to try to get some stuff done. Thank you.

Alderman from the second, you're recognized.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, members of the board. I certainly want to thank the president and the president's office, as well as the mayor and the mayor's office for convening. I think this time around on this bill and the allocation of this money, those two offices as well as the comptroller put their shoulders into convening a platform where we could all speak and all advocate for where these proceeds were to go. So I do want to thank you for that. i think this also is you know this is cliche maybe to say but this is compromise i'm not incredibly overjoyed with all the components of this bill and i don't hate all components of this there's good stuff in here that's going to help real people and help the city I also want to thank all the stakeholders who came out and advocated for where we invest these dollars. And that's how we should be thinking about it, that this is an investment. But particularly, I want to underscore Greater St. Louis, Inc., and the conversations. They helped facilitate the advocacy and the investment that they gave. They're here today representing to see this through the finish line. That's Jeff Mazur, Tim Brinker, Henry Eubank, and Nick Perryman are here to finalize their time and effort and true partners of how these proceeds are going to get spent. I personally want to thank them for the match that they convened. I also want to thank them for their time and effort that they put in to this. They're an economic development agency where they're summed up in their name. They are for greater St. Louis. Yes, investment in all four corners of our city is great for the city and greater St. Louis. Investment downtown is great for the city, but also for the greater region. Investment in North City is great for the greater region of St. Louis. I additionally want to thank them and others for their professionalism throughout all the committee meetings. I think that's incredibly important that a lot of the stakeholders who came and testified one way or the other on this remained respectful and had proper decorum in a public domain. So I'll just close with saying I do want to thank again all of us because I think, again, it's not perfect, but we're pretty darn close to getting it right this time.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th.

I'm sorry. The other one from the six has her hand up and she's not spoken on this bill, I don't believe. So I would defer.

Sorry, I did not see her hand up. Alderwoman from the sixth.

Thank you, Alderwoman Tyus, for letting me speak. I just want to echo actually what the alderman from the second said. I think When nobody's happy, it's a good sign of compromise. I think that from the beginning, I think I've said that having the majority of us move in one direction is really important for this bill for the entire city. There are things that I would have liked to see, would have liked to change, but I think in the spirit of collaboration and making sure that this is generally all of us. Of course, I know that's not going to be all of us, but that there's a general consensus is important for the public to see. Certainly, I think that I'm grateful for the investment from Greater St. Louis. I think there needs to be a general call for public-private partnership for the entire city, not just downtown. So I'd like to see us at City Hall and other electeds advocate for that as well. But of course, no bill is perfect and one piece of legislation won't fix decades of decisions. So we know that today. So I do want to thank the mayor's office. I want to thank President Green's office for working and for all my colleagues who are working toward a compromise. Again, which not everybody's happy, but there is something to be said for everybody. that being important as well. So thank you.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the seventh.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, members of the board. I am just going to be very honest that I think this bill, every time it has come up, has been one of the hardest things, I think, for us to do as a political body because there are so many interests and so many needs in our city. I have tried to, to the best of my ability, hold the stake. I think the first time that we did this legislation and I had the opportunity to collaborate with Alderwoman Boyd, I said on record, even when there was a committee substitute being put over my bill that completely unrode it, that the best part of that process to me was seeing some collaboration happen, honestly, between myself and between a North City alder. Like at that point, that was my first time that I really got to work with Alderwoman Boyd. And I got to learn more about the interest that we had And I was really excited about what that could mean for our entire city, for there to be, you know, just more collaboration and less divides. It actually makes me, you know, sick to my stomach and unsettled when we might end up in positions where we are arguing against each other. You know, I think for me, this legislation to those members of the body who are black, I think it does remind us of the importance of a black caucus. I think that some of all the women's highest points I actually do completely agree with. A lot of our conversations that were had, and I would charge it to myself, perhaps I should have called you a bit more, should have emailed you a bit more, because I think some of those conversations could happen, but when you're in the process of trying to navigate all of the conversations with all of your colleagues, all the conversations with all of the... you know, all of the stakeholders, it just gets difficult. What I don't want to see, you know, I don't think it's fair to signal out or single out activists or organizers. Many of the activists and organizers, I am proud and honored to be their alderwoman. Even though this has been the most difficult thing I think that's happened and probably one of the things that has when I'm moving out and about in my community that I get questions with and has raised the most questions. But they are not wrong for advocating for North City. And I actually have said over and over again that I'm really grateful for them and their advocacy, whether it made me uncomfortable or not. As a legislator, as an elected official, I think it is just a fact of the matter that there are groups like Greater St. Louis and other entities who, yes, do great work for our city, but that same voice and advocacy Or organization does not like that. That same thing does not necessarily exist for North City. And so the folks who I saw that came to us even before we got to Rams, if you're talking about the budget meetings that we had every month, they were coming and they were saying, hey, we need all of the money. And then came back and said, well, we think 150 would be acceptable. I am not upset or angry. And I agree with that. I've said on my own. The media and to folks that, you know, had this been my bill, I would have went higher. I know some of us in our conversations were advocating for the bill to be filed higher at a higher number so that we would be able to get it to a higher place. Even though I'm not happy with everything, I brought an amendment in committee and where I said, hey, I'm concerned that this bill is actually pretty vague, that it doesn't have enough specific information. I'm concerned that we're tasking the Office of Recovery that was created out of an executive order that's responsible for responding to natural disaster with long-term housing efforts. And I don't think that's the best way for us to go to the city. And I think we may end up in some situations where, you know, hopefully it is not a situation where money goes to consultants and contractors that are not from here. But I think there could be some things within this legislation that could have made it clear of what departments could do more work and leaning on departments that have a history of doing that work. I was happy to see the CDC priority language in the bill. I was happy to get the recreation center support that's in this bill. If people who were a part of conversations know, I was advocating really hard that we do something for youth. And so I just wanted to share, like, yes, I'm really proud of the collaboration that's happened. I think it is really difficult. But what I really don't want us to do, I really don't want us to target activists or organizers to talk about them and to give them anything other than they have a role and they were uplifting a point that is very valid and they were playing a role, honestly, that does not exist unanimously across our city for support for North City. I think the acts of 150, I think that is a reasonable ask. I personally would have liked to see us get there. I actually do agree with all the women that I think that, yeah, there are dollars that are going to go to other things. I've said it in committee that there are other economic opportunities for other buckets and fields that simply don't exist for North City. With that being said, I think the lesson for us to learn, the lesson that I'm going to hold for myself, because that's the only person I could speak to and to my constituents, is I think that this just demonstrates the need for us to have more proactive conversations on the front, more collaborations on the front. I think it's difficult when things only come up on the floor and that's kind of where you learn where certain folks are. It's just not the best collaborative situation. And so I don't want us to, you know, my acts, I don't, again, I'm very oppositional and very strongly opposed to targeting activists or organizers are starting to talk about, you know, policing how people should or shouldn't talk. I don't think that's helpful. I think people have a freedom of speech and a right to speak as they want. Yes, it may all of us, including myself, uncomfortable, but I think it is necessary as a part of our process, and I think it's actually poor leadership to talk about the way they're speaking to us as opposed to the point that they're lifting and to not acknowledge righteous frustration that's very valid. And for myself, I would just say what I have learned, whether it was from the first bill or for this bill, is more about collaboration, is more about coordination. And I understand, I've heard it from several folks as I'm moving through my ward, like, hey, half of the Board of Aldermen is black. Are you sure that this is the best that you can get to with that being the case? And it honestly is really tricky within my spirit because I do feel like we've gotten to the best place that we can get in the circumstances. But I think there's a need for some conversations and some real relationship building so that some of these things can happen on the front. With that being said, I think that the reality on the ground is that, unfortunately, FEMA is actively being dismantled. Folks who got FEMA funding are running out of dollars. Our state is not rushing to release the money to us. I believe they're still trying to figure out how to do that. And in my opinion, our state moves faster to fund stadiums than black communities that had an EF3 tornado. So the dollars that we were discussing in this bill, many organizations need money right now. They need funding right now. They're about to run out of funding. So for me, I've been going back and forth in my head, whether it's having conversations with community members or residents or neighbors or responding to emails or with this board of maybe there are more things that I want to see. Yes, I would love to see the North City bucket be higher. I would also love to see more specificity within the bill as far as how the money is going to be moved and things not be so vague and more guarantees that it won't go to contractors and consultants. And also, money is about to run out on the ground. And these are some of the only dollars that are there. And so I just wanted to speak and get on the mic for Seventh Ward specifically to understand some of my reasoning and some of my thinking. And also just to say, you know, I I do commend the president of the board. I know she ended her maternity leave to come back and cut it short to come back and carry this bill. I commend the mayor's office for attempting to bring us together. And if anything, I think the only person I want to speak for myself is I just learned more about things that I can do better, whether it is with residents of mine, whether it's with activists and advocacy organizations, whether it's with my colleagues, as far as making sure that we have a better line of communication, that key conversations are not happening in committees. But I do just really want to caution us and make sure that we don't begin to say anything or do any statements that target folks who are just advocating for what is right. and what we know is very valid. Thank you.

Alderwoman from the 13th.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I just wanted to make a statement. I wanted to thank Alderman Tyus and Alderman Sonia for recognizing the work that we did do originally with this bill. It's so quick how people forget Who worked and did the lobbying to make sure that the city was taken care of and focused on North St. Louis. And now it's a whole nother story. But I just want to thank you all because all the women, Alicia, Sonia and myself did build a relationship and did get an understanding on who needed what and what community needed. And we learn from each other. So thank you for, you know, working with me on that. Greater St. Louis played a big part and they listened to us. And that's what I appreciated because they understood the drastic needs that were in these communities that have been neglected for so many years. So thank you.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. First of all, I want to say to the other one from the seventh that I don't know what she heard. My cry to the activists was to continue to speak out. They were they were emailing me every day, calling me, whatever, talking to me about there not being enough, which I always agree. I had conversations with people about the previous board bills. That the auto woman, especially from the 13th head, which is board bill 153 as a minute, but also that that both she and all of them from the 7th, put their board bills on them formal so that we would have this money. So, my. problem with them is not that they're speaking out, is that now they've gone really quiet because they seem to be drinking the Kool-Aid to believe that this bill addresses North St. Louis. And the fact that we had a precursor of two board bills, and we have a board of DNA that are three white females that's supposed to represent the entire city, not a part of the city, that we have a precursor in board bills that you could have looked at And then you come up with this 31 million and then you fudge the rest of it is embarrassing. It's shameful. It should not be. You should have had North St. Louis should have had the most money of anybody set out there. But in fact, you put in all these other little pots. That's shameful. You talk about having a black majority at this board of Alderman, except for the older woman from the eighth. Half of the black majority came down to this board of Alderman and under the guise of the president. Under the leadership of the president, I attacked the Black females that represent North St. Louis and said, we're going to take your seniority. Who in the hell does that? The last time somebody did that was the Republicans up in Congress when Newt Gingrich became the Speaker of the House. So you attack us because we're going to take your seniority away. For what? Why would you do that? Because you want to be able to control everything. You put a dictatorship down here, came shuffling down here, butt dancing. Then you want to say, well, you didn't come and do this. You didn't come and do that. Whenever we have the older people from the north st louis and i'm saying the 11th 12th and 13th we've taken a position and said hey that's not a good idea for north st louis you haven't given a damn you go right through it anyway you push through i remember when the ottoman now from the fourth but he will used to be the 24th no no yeah i guess it was the 23rd 24th i can't remember but when he was doing um uh the uh the bill about uh uh tenants uh um and when i we we opposed that and short-term rental i'm sorry we opposed that and he said well the mayor was pushing that why was the mayor tishara jones pushing it when she lives on the edge of the central corridor well here we are long-term residents saying this is not good for us but nobody's listening yeah the alderman from the 14th says well you're not to come out here and do that you didn't listen when i said don't take my seniority my community voted for that you didn't give a damn what they wanted now you want to hide behind that and say well you could have done that i don't need to waste my time with you guys because you're not doing that you know and half of your stuff you're doing is not legal i just let you do it anyway sometimes if it's important to me i will tell you hey that ain't legal but some stuff you do i'm just letting go because you make it easy if i want to or if somebody wants to challenge it Because you don't know what you're doing. And when people come down here and start an enemy and started immediately and attack people, don't look to have a black caucus because a black caucus uplifts members. And the whole point of black caucuses was to make members more powerful, not less, not to create a dictatorship. down here. So when you say that about what I did and did not do, I sure don't come to them, but I tell you what I do do. I read every damn board bill that comes through here. And on more than one occasion, you've had to change them. You've had to send them back. Because a full board of members from the committee voted things out of committee that nobody read. So it's not that I have to be in committee. It's that you have to also have a sensibility of what you're supposed to do. And all my years down here, I have never taken anything from other Black aldermen. I have always helped them. I wrote board bills for them when they didn't know. That was what a caucus was about. The previous caucus that we had before you guys came down here was actually a caucus. And we worked things out. We didn't always agree, but I didn't go around saying, let me snatch this from you. Let me take this from you. Now we got a black caucus. Now we got a buck dancing caucus. That's what we have. That is not a caucus. And so when you start talking about what this is a good bill, I don't think that anybody, the mayor, the comptroller or the president can really think this is a fair bill for North St. Louis, because if they do, they do not represent North St. Louis. This is not a fair bill. And in contract, you put your you specify what things are going to be. You don't say, well, maybe you can have this, because when you say maybe you can have this, you can't afford it. So don't use North St. Louis. Don't be trying to use us as a trick to say we got this because we do not have it. Because if we had it, it would be in writing like the thirty one million dollars. And to say, well, it's only a few other things. communities that are outside of North St. Louis that can get this money. And I've been reading all the people who want this money, the people who want to do regional hospital and other things. I've been reading and watching it. And I also know that's what happens. That is what has historically happened. If this was going to be a bill that was going to address the historic problems of North St. Louis, then we would have had at least $100 million. And I don't blame the alderman from the second when he gets up Because he was an advocate for downtown. And downtown got a lot closer to what they wanted than anything North St. Louis got. And so my problem with this is how do we justify that we went through a tornado and we decreased the money instead of saying you should have more money and then get up and say, well, if we have enough people, get up and say this is a great bill. It is not. It is not a bill. It is a bill of maybes. And it's a bill that history has told us that we don't get the money. It's a bill that follows the tradition, the grand old tradition, that we're going to get to you next year and the year after and the year after. And so for the alderman to get up and say, well, you've been here... also born maybe most of you all weren't born needed to learn some lessons about our history you need to learn about what white people do when black people get in offices and then they change the rules and they snatch the seniority that's all racism that's part of that racism thing that they do it is not because you don't have the experience you don't have the education you don't have the ability you don't have even to teach because Because most of these people down here before you came down here, Alderman, from the 14th, buck dancing, I helped them with things, okay? I wrote their board bills. I taught them, including the president, by the way. You have to go look at that. I helped teach her. But what you all did was come down here and make a strike. as though you were in charge of something. Well, you are. And this is the board that we have. And you can override us because you're just like the Republicans that came into Congress under Newt Gingrich. You don't give a damn about the whole city. You give a damn about what you want. And now you're kind of finding out a little bit. I guess after three years, you don't know everything. I don't know what I do and how I do it because there's more than one way to do it. You just don't know because I didn't teach you. Ask Ann Schweitzer when she came and sat on my committee. Did I teach her? She will tell you yes. There are many people who tell you how I taught them and showed them how to do things in a way that you can work together. But when you come down here starting a war, that's what you have. If you don't like it, look at yourself. And again, since you insist that you represent North St. Louis, You have to show me you really don't because you there, you still didn't add the money. Too much. You added some money. You think $31 million is something? Wow. That's like the people say, Ms. Ty, you've been down there a long time. You made all that money. I made $30,000 for 30 years, over 30 years. That was not all that money. That was a... sacrifice for me because I really do love my community and care about it and want them to have representation that reads things and that is ethical and doesn't feel that they got to steal things from other Black people. When people approach me about the ARPA money, this is something I say to them. They always talk about that $37 million, that cap, that money that was supposed to be put for facades and North Corridor businesses. It wasn't all Black businesses. So we have white North Corridor businesses also. But they never asked me about the four hundred and fifty three, sixty three million, whatever it is. And when I asked them that, I said, you know, you talk about the thirty seven million because the press crucified that. When, in fact, the Board of Aldermen is the reason why it didn't. If you had just left alone, we could put another money for not for profit. We had plenty of money. But right now we really don't know where that money has gone. We don't see anything that was built. The most that I can think about is we're going to build that police call center. But other than that, we don't know because we took all the checks and balances out. Then you say, well, how come you don't do this? Because you don't listen. Because you're hard-headed and you know everything. You don't listen to people. Then you call names. Oh, you sound like Trump. That's your... thing that you've thrown at both myself and the alderman from the fourth. And I always say, well, thank God I don't sound like you. I just never said it out loud until the day. I'm glad I don't sound like you. When I came to the board of aldermen, I got up under the senior alderman and I listened and learned and they nurtured me. And so when the alderwoman from the seventh saying why we don't have a caucus because the president set it up that way because you all have to follow her and you are more of What is it that you are? You're a progressive, which I call you regressive. We're more regressive than you are black. OK, so you can't have a black caucus and a caucus that co-lasses together when you're so busy being progressive that you're not taking in the content that every black person is not the same, that we all ain't poor and begging. One of the things we had got to in the caucus that we did have that was good before this one, when we had 28 people, is that we were tired of hearing about in North St. Louis, let's get some low income housing. Let's put some low-income housing. We're not all low-income. We're not all begging, give us some chicken dinner. Put some more gas stations, which are dangerous and have shootings. Put some more nuisance stores. We're not monolithic. And so there should be something for everyone. And there is nothing negative. Wrong with having achieved and been able to get things done, except for that people who didn't want to claw it down because they can hardly speak the king's English and cannot he be, she be, we be. I'm embarrassed. If you want to come for me, come for me. I'll clap back at you, little boy, because that's what you are. You're a little boy that is very immature. And your first thing you want to say, yes, I like Trump. Nobody sounds like Trump down here. Maybe you do. Nobody sounds like it. The alderman from the 4th does not sound like Trump. He disagrees. I have good relationships. The alderman from the 11th would tell you one of the people that I used to argue with the most that was from another ward in South St. Louis. We got along. He... He started to call him my boyfriend because we got along. Didn't come down here trying to take something and to start a war and then to show how much you know while you're reading your phone all the time. Somebody texting you, telling you what to say. I don't have to do that. When I read the board bill, I know what it says because I have the knowledge to do it. And I've trained myself to be down here. So I don't have to explain it. You don't have to explain to me because you are who you are. And one thing I accepted, I said, with what you guys did was that share. They don't have the same. They do not have the same value. You thought you were coming down here to work together. Ask the all of them from the 11th. all the women from the 13th, former all the people that was black, worked all the time. They didn't know how to do things. I helped them. But you came down here to have a war with black people and to be a progressive. And that is what is on the national level that many black elected officials that I see is that the progressives vote after black elected officials any place from Hakeem Jeffries to anybody else to put themselves in place and to take us out. And even though we may have worked hard, And waited our turn and place. We don't have no place compared to you. And so thirty one million dollars looks really good to you. That is that is a pathetic amount of money. And then you put seventy fifty five million for downtown and you already gave downtown forty five million. So they got a hundred million dollars. There was no tornado down there. They have more money getting more money. That was not a tour. than to get money where there was a tornado if we had got every damn dime of the money we would have deserved it because we certainly have waited our turn so i do not spend my time coming to do uh uh amendments that when you we've had them you don't accept them anyway because you already got the majority i accept that but what i do do is read it and point out the errors that you have And this is an error. And you cannot keep saying this is a North St. Louis bill. Every time you say it, I'm going to say it is not. It is a downtown bill with $31 million for North St. Louis. Not one penny more is guaranteed to North St. Louis under this bill. And the auto woman from the 7th said it. The specificity, not specific, because you can then say that's not say you can't go to court and sue on this because it doesn't say it's in North St. Louis. And that's what you did on purpose. And for three white ladies to be the president, I'm sorry, the mayor. the president of the Board of Aldermen, and the comptroller, and not see that. And then they, two of them, so thank you, Alderwoman, I mean, Comptroller Baringer, because she used to be an Alderwoman, too. Thank you for not having your name on this, but they ought to be ashamed of themselves. And then for you two downtown Black Aldermen, I understand you're downtown Aldermen, but it is not a good board deal for North St. Louis. i would have been more content if the president didn't try to position it as as such because it's not so she can keep saying she gets to close she can say it again i'll come back next week and say it's not and i'll point out each little bit it is not a north st louis it is not under the law we can get a legal opinion there's only 31 million dollars that's for north st louis and that is shameful

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 10th.

Thank you, Mr. Acting President, Madam President. I just want to rise before you close out here, not just in support of where we've landed, which we all have stated here is not where we all would have wanted, But the collaboration and the realistic conversations, the legislative process that goes on down here that people participated in, not just here in the building, but out in community, is what reflected and is reflected in this bill. There's so many things that have been said during this conversation that can be easily refuted factually. But what I will say just very quickly is that I don't think anybody's being silent or quiet on this. I was just in community yesterday to see Red Brick Blue Tarp, and people know that this is still a conversation, that nobody's happy, nobody's drinking any Kool-Aid. I hate that was used. and that there's still a lot of work that needs to be done. So for somebody who represents a ward that has eight neighborhoods, from Clayton Road and Skinker to Taylor and Martin Luther King in North St. Louis, it was important for me to show up at every conversation I was invited to, in my responsibility down here as an alder person for that ward, doing the job that my constituents sent me down here to do, to not be obstructive, but to find the pathways for us to be able to get to a mark that we can continue to work towards. So no, this was not a victory lap for anybody in this situation, for anybody that did this work and will continue to do this work. But what it does show is the people that show up and do do the work, the difference that it makes when we can get something done. And what that means is easy math down here. So I've said it before and I've been criticized for saying it, but some things are performative if you cannot produce actions or you can't get stuff done. If your record doesn't reflect that, whatever your record is, whatever side you're on, So that means a person like me has to listen to the people I've skankered the same way I have to listen to the people I've more listened to. And that means that a bill like this where I can show them where it will touch all eight neighborhoods, even in their despair about it, they still find common alignment in how this process works. This is the process. You have to respect people in their positions. Calling someone little boy, That must have went over a lot of people's head down here. And I've been the victim of that kind of behavior before. But I would never stand on the floor and call my colleague a little boy or come from out wherever and call my colleague a little boy. That's not how we work down here, and that's not how we get stuff done. We have a lot of things we are working on down here. And so I'm just asking my colleagues to center yourself back into the work, the responsibility that you were elected down here to do, the balance that you have to find. and representing your entire ward, right? And understanding and respecting each other and their positions of what they do. Or else we could just stay down here, go back and forth with each other, make for good fodder and entertainment, cartoons, and not get anything done. I want to thank all of my colleagues in this process. the mayor's administration, the comptroller, the community activists and everyone that played a role to be able to get this done and will continue hopefully to be able to work together to get other things done or else it will continue to feed into the dysfunctionality of obstructive performative, divisive narratives that we all hear when we're out in community. Thank you.

Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President. What I'd like to say is I wanted to hear that same conversation that just came out of the mouth of the 10th Ward when the alderman from the 14th was telling people, you sound like Donald Trump, and you this, and this is ignorant, compared to nothing came. So now I also wanted to hear it from when she didn't know how to get her board bills through, and I was the chair of streets, and I was helping her with getting her board bills through when people were attacking on streets.

There's been a point of order. Alderman from the 14th, please state your point of order.

Rule 34, the quorum and not name calling of our colleagues. I would ask all the women to stay germane to board bill 22 that has streets and reading of board bills back then has nothing to do with the RAM settlement fund that's in front of us.

Alderman, if you could please keep your comments germane to board bill 22.

I will keep my comments, Jermaine, to what was just directed at me. And that was not a long soliloquy of what it was just to say that if you want decorum, you have to bring decorum. And so you can't then be, oh, my God, this happened when, in fact, you don't bring decorum and you want everything. You want to tell everybody, well, this is just the best we can get. It's only the best we can get because that's what we settle for. We settle for it. And I have a little bit more experience, as the alderman from the 14th said, before everybody was born. I was not here before everybody was born. That's a lie. But I do have a little bit of experience of getting things that people say could not happen in communities. I can get I got schools. I got grocery stores. I got Walgreens. I got strip malls. All the things that people say could not happen. But it was because. There was an advocacy. So if you want everybody to get along and do Kumbaya and say, well, this is all we can get. That is never going to happen for me. And I will never do it because it's not all we can get is what we settle for. We are not doing advocacy for our community. We are collaborators for and we. What we did is we cut off a branch of the community's legs by making sure that they didn't have the committees that they had earned and pulling away from them and then saying, what's wrong with you? Why aren't you walking with your two legs? Never mind that I cut your legs off. Okay. And I was part of it. OK, that's who I am. So don't be coming and trying to be like you're so. Oh, I just don't know why this is happening. It's happening because from April of 2023, when the president of the Board of Aldermen and the mayor and the treasurer, the former mayor now could not beat me, they decided to just cheat to me. And that's what they did. And not just me. They did other all the people. They did the black community a disservice. And you were part of it, all the women from the tent. And then we also have had problems with money because we changed board bills, not just this board bill, which does not in any way. helped North St. Louis the way it should, but the ARPA funds was an embarrassment after the alderman from the 10th got her hands on it and then changed it under the guise of improving it, when in fact it made it horrible. I understand why the alderman from the 4th says we can't do it, because she changed it in such a way and then ran off with her fake crying like, because I question...

and i said that it was going to be a problem there's been a point of order made alderman from the 14th please state your point of order uh again rule 35 i would ask the alderman be germaine uh to board bill 22 this is ram settlement she's talking about arpa and i would ask her to be kind to her colleagues thank you mr chair

Alderwoman, if you could refrain from referencing or name calling and stick to Board Bill 22, please. Thank you.

And Board Bill 22, did you ever read it, Mr. President? Because in it, it talks about ARPA funds. So the alderman from the 14th ought to know that.

Alderwoman, you're not...

I'm just pointing out to you that Board Bill 22 talks about ARPA funds. Did you know that?

Alderman, Alderwoman, you're not allowed to inquire of the chair. Please proceed.

That's fine. I'm going to speak about ARPA funds because it is in board bill 22. And if you didn't want us to talk about ARPA funds, then it should not be in board bill. I'm sorry, not board bill. Yeah, board bill 22.

His point of order was related to rule number five decorum, not just being remained to the board bill.

And he also asked me not to reply about, not to... about ARPA funds.

Alderwoman, please proceed, but please remain germane and refrain from name-calling.

Point of order. Point of order. Point of order. What is your point of order? My point of order is that there are ARPA funds mentioned in the bill.

What number? When you make a point of order, you're supposed to reference a rule number.

No, I do not have to do any such thing because it's on the first or second page.

Yes, there are rules. When you make a point of order, you're supposed to reference the rule that you're making a point of order about.

So are you telling me I can't speak about ARPA funds, and I'm going to because...

Older woman, I will allow you to proceed if you refrain from name-calling and stay germane. Otherwise, I am going to have to mute you.

I'm going to read Board Bill 22 that talks about ARPA funds so that you can understand. You cannot make a point of order about me not being able to talk about ARPA funds when they're in here talking about...

Older woman, his point of order was rule number 35, which is related to decorum. I am asking you to stay germane to the bill and not alder woman.

The point of order was rule 35 related to decorum.

which was also about ARPA funds.

Alderwoman, as Vice President, Chair of the Committee, I'm recognizing his point of order with relation to Rule 35. Will you please mute the Alderwoman from the 12th? Thank you.

Unmute me because I'm talking about the bill. You said I was supposed to talk about what I'm talking about.

Alderwoman, you continue to talk over me as I am clarifying the point of order and my request of you to stay. If you continue to talk over me, I will have you muted. If you will please keep your comments germane to Board Bill 22 and refrain from any name calling of our colleagues. You may proceed.

So, as I was saying.

Alderwoman, I think you're frozen.

Excuse me? Am I muted still?

No, your screen froze.

We muted from inside. We can't hear us.

Alderwoman, your hand is raised. You're not on mute. Your screen is frozen.

Alderwoman?

Alderwoman? Other woman, it appears as though your screens no longer frozen. Are you able to hear us?

Call from.

Alderwoman, are you able to hear us?

Okay.

You are not. They muted the room, so we were unable to communicate with the folks that were online. start where we left off i would you know kindly ask that you keep to the board bill and refrain the point of order was regarding decorum and asking to refrain from name calling of colleagues if you not related to arpa it was related to decorum and the name calling if you could please refrain from that and proceed with your original remarks i would appreciate it thank you

I will, if they will stop name calling and I will still talk about ARPA because that was also part of his point. So maybe you didn't rule on that. But part of his point was that we weren't talking about ARPA funds and that's a mistake because on page one.

Alderwoman, I was recognizing his point of order with respect to decorum, not with respect to...

And I understand. And so I'm going to reply, though, to him since he said that, that on page one, line 27, whereas in February 2026, the city invested $1.2 million of ARPA funds, ARPA interest, actually, and 5.5. 464157.84 of ARPA reappropriations to the Water Division. Through this bill, we talk about ARPA funds. So all of that is combined because we're talking about how to address neighborhoods and community. So now you want to try to take part of that and not be part of it. It is. The larger thing is that we had $500 million in ARPA funds, approximately. Can't find out where most of it is gone. um it's unfortunate um and now we're not seeing much of anything happening in north st louis can't find anything that was built in north st louis i've never seen these kind of funds where we got rams funds of almost 300 million we give 30 million off of the top to the uh downtown convention center then we give another 15 million That mysteriously does not appear in this bill to the downtown convention center. Forty five million dollars. Then we give downtown another fifty five million dollars. And people say this is the best we can do. It is not the best we can do. It's the same old picture of what we do over and over again. And everybody's like, oh, well, this is what we have to do. No, we don't have to do it. We can do better. We just haven't done better. And when I was building things in my community and people said it couldn't be done, it was because we didn't accept and know that it couldn't be done better. And we had a better group of people who actually tried to make sure that North St. Louis was prosperous. This is not what's happening under this bill. at the very what we're doing is putting all the money oh we're just doing it for tornado uh relief but we already had uh needs as proven under board bill one what was the board bill that the alderman from the 13th had 153 i'm sorry 131 or even under 153 there were already needs um that were needed in North St. Louis before this tornado. So do we not get any money at all that is not appropriated to the tornado? Do we just now have to, we only get this money, this little money because we had a tornado, but nothing to address the other ongoing needs that we had, that we still don't have a hardware store. Although before we changed the previous board bill for ARPA, there was $5 million set aside for a hardware store. That disappeared. So downtown gets to say for me that they get to say we have all these needs and we got these problems, which I agree. I don't want downtown to go away. I want us to have a vibrant downtown. But they didn't have a tornado. So for now, everybody get up and say, well, this is just the best. This is what we're doing. This is how we're going along. This is how we are compromising. This is how we are part of the group that says this is the best we can do. It is not the best we can do. It is not a good board deal. And again, what inflames me is you try to pass it off as a North St. Louis bill. Do not try to. pass it off as a North St. Louis bill. It is a bill that is for downtown and the central quarter, and North St. Louis gets the least amount of money at all. So every time you say it, I'm going to raise my hand and say that it's not it. And when you close, I will come back next week and say it is not even any place near the money. And again, to the other woman from the 7th, I wanted the people to be activists, to be out there. And I'm saying to them again, and don't be quiet because we didn't get any place near. And when we originally started talking about this, we were talking about $100 million. And now we're talking about $31 million. And that's just sad. So anybody who gets up and says that this is a great bill and people did their best, they did not. They did not do their best. They did, and they're getting along with the power structure. And that is not how you change things if you go along with the power structure. So if that's what you're going to do, this is what you're going to get from me. This is not a good bill. I know we have to do a roll call. I want to say again, I want to vote proud and loud, no. And I've already written up some things to show about the money. And I will continue to say this is not a good board, Bill. And activists, as loud as you were before sending me all these emails and stuff, and the reason why I called them out, all the women from the 7th, because they stopped. They didn't do it anymore as if we had come to a perfect agreement. We haven't even come to a halfway decent agreement. This is not anything that should be for North St. Louis. We should not be acting like this is great and good. Good for downtown St. Louis. I... Again, some of the people down there, my good friends, I want it to be successful. But when I look at you getting $55 million and we're getting $31 million and all the billions of dollars that have been planted in downtown and central quarter, it is such an unfair thing to put $31 million and to try to pass that off as this is fair. I don't necessarily disagree with something the other auto woman said about the representing different neighborhoods i do too my neighborhoods are 14 14 neighborhoods so i go from the side right outside of university behind uh uh the uh vandervinner and delmar all the way over to the middle of uh the mississippi river and the workhouse and the tow lots and all of those things so i got a lot of neighborhoods and i do talk to them about the different things but um be it Vanderbilt neighborhood or whatever, they don't think $31 million, and they're right on the edge of the central quarter. They do not think $31 million is a fair sum. And I will continue to tell them and show them that it's not a fair sum and it's not a North St. Louis pot of money. It is a shared pot. And if it is a shared pot, say that and stop trying to use us to trick people.

Thank you, Alderwoman. Is there any further discussion? Seeing none, Madam President, you're recognized to close.

Thank you, Mr. Vice President, members, board. I want to take us back for one moment before I close. What we are about to pass here today truly is historic in a lot of ways. We had over 16,000 residents in this city weigh in throughout this process. And from the very beginning, they outlined priorities to us that included updating our water infrastructure, making infrastructure investments that made safer streets, that required investment in North City, and creation of revolving loan funds to make sure that we could perpetuate investment into disinvested areas of our city for the long term. They asked us to support our youth and they asked us to work to create a vibrant downtown. And we have, over the last year, come to a bill that centers a lot of what the community asked for. And then we had a tornado. And so we went back to community and we said, We know that we need to change some of these priorities, that we might think a little bit differently as a community about what our needs are, given the fact that a third of our community has been devastated by a tornado that they are still not recovered from a year later. And so we went back out to community and said, hey, we're looking at giving more resources to the tornado impacted area, which overwhelmingly is on the north side of St. Louis. And we are looking at giving more money to our water department and infrastructure. And we are looking at investment in our downtown. Tell us what you think about this. Are we on the right track? And in that proposal, we also had reserves. And when we went out to the community, they came back to us and they said, you know what? Well, reserves are important. They are not the thing we want to see you do now because we are in an emergency now. And reserves are meant for an emergency, and we can't think of a greater emergency than the fact that a third of our city is still in recovery. And we can't think of a greater emergency than the fact that our water department is literally underwater, and we are all feeling it and hearing it from our constituents every single day. So we listened, and we took that reserve money, and we reallocated it to those emergent needs that our residents asked us to do. And as so many have said here today, this is not a perfect bill. I think a lot of folks behind the scenes know how much I was pushing for increased resources to the north side and tornado impacted area. And while we didn't, at the end of the day, get exactly where I wanted us to get, we got to a place that the majority of people at this board are comfortable with, are happy with, and we can get across the finish line so that we are getting resources out now to agencies that are literally running out of money now. The recovery office is out of funds. Our water department is out of funds. There is an urgency around this and that is the reason we must move forward now. I also want to recognize that this bill builds off of previous investments. Yes, there was $30 million that went into the convention center that was part of the settlement. We've also done $35 million in RAMS interest previously to support tornado recovery and north side redevelopment. to support impacted tenants and to support our unhoused community over the winter months as we know so many more folks were displaced this winter season because of that tornado. I also want to make sure that for the public there is an understanding about why this bill was structured in the way that it was. We all know that North St. Louis has had strategic disinvestment over decades. And we also know that the tornado that hit disproportionately impacted those many Northside neighborhoods. And so it was important to write a bill that made sure that those Northside neighborhoods that were most impacted by the tornado had tornado-specific funds and Northside rebuilding funds, while also recognizing that there are some Northside neighborhoods that did not get impacted by the tornado as much as others. And so I want to be clear for residents of our city. If you live in Academy, Baden, College Hill, Fountain Neighborhood, Fountain Park, Greaterville, Hamilton Heights, Jeff Vanderloo, Kingsway East, Kingsway West, Lewis Place, Mark Twain, North Riverfront, O'Fallon, Penrose, The Ville, Visitation Park, Wells Goodfellow, and the West End, that your neighborhood is in both of these funds that are comprised the tornado recovery and north side funds and in fact there are only four neighborhoods that are not in both funds And from being at our neighborhood or being at our committee meetings at the HUD's meetings, we heard a lot of testimony from the Office of Recovery that was centered on Northside needs. We know, for example, of the homes that need to be rebuilt, rebuilt as a result of the tornado, that there are only a handful of houses that are outside of Northside neighborhoods that are eligible for those home repair funds. And so to tell folks that this money is not meant for the north side, is not meant for recovery of those north side neighborhoods that have experienced historic disinvestment and the compounding issue of a tornado that has only made things worse, is not accurate. I want to close by thanking so many members of this body and the mayor's office and community partners for coming to the table with clear expectations from the beginning and what their non-negotiables were. It makes it so much easier to craft a bill when we are all honest with each other from the very beginning about what will and will not work for us. Before we vote, I want to reiterate that today's action is not the final step, that we have very important work ahead of us. that the city is still working with state officials to direct the $185 million approved by the state legislature, while also partnering with our congressional delegation to secure additional federal resources and funding for tornado recovery. And we will continue to pursue every available resource we can meet, we can, in order to meet the needs of residents in our county. And as others have stated today, I'm also hopeful that our corporate community will join us in this effort, not just by supporting downtown, but investing in North St. Louis and in tornado recovery as well, and not just in the central corridor. With that, I finally want to thank my colleagues. I am so proud of the work that the board has done over these last few months to come together, have difficult conversations, and get this done in the spirit of collaboration. We've shown throughout this process what it looks like to work together when we often have had some very difficult conversations, not just amongst ourselves, but with our communities. And I hope we can continue to carry this same unity forward. As I said, this is not the final step. This is just the next step. So thank you for all of your work, collaboration. Thank you to Mayor Spencer and her team for all of the work. Thank you to my office staff, who has spent a tremendous amount of time not just on the crafting of the bill, but in making sure that there was ample community engagement throughout this process. And with that, I renew my motion to third read and finally pass Board Bill 22 as amended on the floor.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderman Schweitzer. Aye. Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Vice Chair Cohn.

Aye.

Alderman Narayan. No. Alderman Devotee. No. Alderman Velazquez. No. Aye. Alderwoman Sonia? Aye. Alderwoman Cox-Antony? Aye.

Alderwoman Sonia? Aye.

Alderman Browning?

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard? Aye. Alderwoman Keyes? Aye.

Aye.

Alderwoman Tyus? No. Alderwoman Boyd. Aye. Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderwoman Sonnier. Aye. 12 aye votes, 3 no votes.

By your vote, you have sustained the motion of the President and have third read and finally passed Board Bill 22 as amended on the Alderwoman from the first. You're recognized on the

Or Bill 43, as amended in Committee, sponsored by Alderwoman Switzer and Alderwoman Keys. An ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimates 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 71696. Ordinance number 71840. Ordinance number 71864. And ordinance number 72125. We need to have order in the gallery. by reappropriating certain amounts specified herein in an aggregate amount of $3,067,086,600 with $2,300,699 appropriated for water infrastructure replacement and repairs and $688,466 appropriated for full assistance with the emergency clause.

Other women from the first, you are recognized on the third reading final passage of Board Bill 43 as amended in committee.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move to third read and finally pass Board Bill 43 as amended in committee.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 1st, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 43 as amended in committee. Alderwoman, you may proceed.

Thank you so much. I appreciate the time we've had on this bill. This bill is allocating unspent ARPA funds to the Water Division for infrastructure repair and replacement. and to the Department of Human Services for Food Assistance. We had a really thorough conversation last week, and I appreciate the comments that were brought up going over many of these allocations that are being reallocated to these purposes as per Treasury guidelines. um i did make one error in what i said last week and i wanted to correct it on the record uh there is a some amount of money that is going back to the board of public service that's what's in red in the bill and that is because it was money in the previous reallocation bill that was thought to be arpa funds but actually wasn't so we need to just make that correct in this bill um so we did discuss that in committee and uh we talked about that in committee and it is my fault for not having that correct on the floor last week so I wanted to point that out and besides that I'm happy to answer any questions and looking forward to continuing to fund water division needs and food assistance needs as possible through this allocation thank you any further discussion any further discussion

Seeing none, it's been moved by the Alderman from the first, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we third read and finally pass Board Bill 43 as amended. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Alderwoman Switzer.

Aye.

Alderman Odenberg.

Aye.

Alderman Cohn. Aye. Alderman Narayan.

Aye.

Alderman Devotee. Aye. Alderwoman Velazquez. Aye. Present. Alderwoman Sonnier. Aye. Alderwoman Cox-Santui? Aye. Alderman Browning?

Aye.

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

Present.

Alderwoman Boyd?

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

President Green. Aye. We have Alderman Cohn.

Aye.

We have 12 aye votes, 1 no vote, and 2 present. By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderman from the 1st to 3rd to pass Board Bill 43 as amended and committed. That's the extent of third reading and final pass of board bills.

Report of the finally passed and signed by the president. Board bill 33 as amended in committee. Board bill 22 as amended on the floor.

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

Resolution 59, sponsored by Alderwoman Boyd, requesting the Missouri State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick immediately commence the performance audit of the City of St. Louis sought through citizens petition.

Alderwoman, for the 13th, you're recognized in the first reading of resolution 59.

Thank you, Madam President and the board. I had a conversation with the Missouri State auditor and let them know that I was presenting a resolution in regards to an audit of the dollars that have come into our city. My concern is we've had millions of dollars come through this city from COVID, I mean, from ARPA to RAMS to the tornado dollars. And honestly, I don't know where the money's going.

Alderwoman, are you requesting unanimous consent or are you wanting to send to committee?

Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Yes, I'm requested. Yes, ma'am, I am. Objection.

There's been an objection to unanimous consent. Alderwoman, do you want to send to committee or suspend the rules to hear the resolution today?

I would like to suspend the rules to hear the resolution today.

Would you like to make a motion?

I'd like to make a motion to hear the resolution today.

Second. It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 13th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 12th, that we suspend the rules for the purposes of hearing Board Bill, or sorry, Resolution Number 59. This is a non-debatable motion. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderwoman Schweitzer.

Alderman Oldenburg. Alderman Cohn. Alderman Narayan. Alderman Devotee. Alderwoman Velazquez. Yes. Alderwoman Sonia. Yes. Alderwoman Cox-Antwi. Alderman Browning.

No.

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

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

No.

President Green. No. Alderman Cohn. Alderman Sonnier. Present. We have five aye, six present. I'm sorry. I think Velazquez. Alderman Velazquez. Present.

Five yes, six no, and three present. By your vote, you failed to sustain the motion on the suspension of the rules. Alderwoman, you may make a motion to send resolution 59 to committee for discussion.

Madam President, I'd like to make a motion to send Resolution 59 to Legislative Rules Committee for discussion.

Second. It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 13th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 6th, that we send Resolution 59 to Committee for discussion. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. aye opposed motion carries that's the extent of first reading resolutions reference to committee second reading resolutions committee reports and adoptions report from the legislation and rules committee the mayor appointments of the library board sharon shaheed catherine states and gregory glore alderwoman from the six you are recognized on mayor spencer's appointments to the library board Thank you, Madam President.

This week, the Legislation and Rules Committee passed or approved the appointments for the Library Board from Mayor Spencer. Would you like to make a motion? Yes. I move that we pass these appointments.

Adopt these appointments. Thank you. It's been moved by the Alderman from the 6th, seconded by the Alderman from the 14th, that we adopt Mayor Spencer's appointments to the Library Board. Is there any discussion? Roll call. Seeing none, there's been a request for roll call. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Alderman Schweitzer. Yes.

Alderman Oldenburg. Yes. Alderman Cohn. Yes. Alderman Narayan. Yes. Alderman Devotee. Yes. Alderman Velazquez. Aye. Aye. Alderman Sonnier. Alderwoman Cox-Entwee.

Aye.

Alderman Browning.

Aye.

Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderwoman Keyes. Aye. Alderwoman Tyers. Present. Alderwoman Boyd.

Pass.

Alderman Aldridge.

Aye.

President Green. Aye. Alderman Oldenburg. Alderman Cohn. Alderwoman Boyd.

Present.

Alderwoman Switzer.

Aye.

Alderman Boyd, I didn't get your answer.

Present. 11 ayes, 2 present.

By your vote, you sustain the motion from the Alderwoman from the 6th to approve Mayor Spencer's appointments to the Library Board. Alderwoman from the 10th, you're recognized in the motion to adopt the Courtesy Resolution Consent Calendar.

Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Board. I move that we adopt the Courtesy Resolution Consent Calendar.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderman from the 9th, that we adopt the Courtesy Resolution Consent Calendar. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Miscellaneous and unfinished business. We have none. Please dispense with line item 25, announcement.

Resolution 60 is sponsored by Autumn and Orion and not Browning. Monday, July 6th, Port Lorette Task Force meeting, 4 p.m. webinar. Tuesday, July 7th, 11 a.m., HUD's Kennedy Room at 11 a.m. HUD's 11 a.m. in the Kennedy Room. Wednesday, July 8th, Public Infrastructure and Utilities, 3.30 p.m. in the Kennedy Room. Thursday, July 9th, Health and Human Development, 9 a.m. webinar. Friday, July 10th, full board meeting in the chambers.

Alderwoman from the 10th. Oh, any further announcement? Alderwoman seeing none. Alderwoman from the 10th, you're recognized on the motion to excuse.

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

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

Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we adjourn until Friday, July 10th, 2026 at 10 a.m. in the Board of Alderman Chambers.

It's been moved by the Alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the Alderwoman from the 11th that we adjourn until Friday, July 10th, 2026 in the Board of Alderman Chambers. All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Aye. Motion carries. We are adjourned.