The board will now come to order. Madame clerk, please call the role. Alderman Schwitzer, Alderman Odenberg, Alderman Con, >> Alderman Orion, Alderman Devote, Alderwoman Velasquez, Alderwoman Sier, Alderwoman Cox, Antwe, Alderman Browning, Alderwoman Clark Hubard, Alderwoman Keys. >> Alderwoman Tyus. >> Alderwoman Boyd >> present. >> Alderman Aldrich. President Green >> present. >> Alderman Odenberg. Alderman Norion. Alderman Devote. Alderwoman Velasquez, Alderwoman Sier, Alderwoman Clark Hubard, Alderwoman Taius, Alderman Devote Nine present. >> A corn being present, we will dispense with line items three and four. Is there any introduction of honored guests? Is there any introduction of honored guests? Alderwoman from the 11th. Good morning and thank you, Madame President and members of the board. Oh, I see one of my honored guests just walked in. I'm looking up uh at the uh the gallery. Uh and I'm uh wanting to uh have as one of my honored guests first of all is uh Mike McMillan. Mike McMillan is the president CEO of Urban League and I am always in awe of the work that he and his team produce for our city. Um it was an honor and is continuing to be an honor to work with uh him and the organization of the Urban League on so many initiatives. Um earlier this week I was able to join them um for the uh slow down kickoff of this year's um session or season um of slow down St. Louis reminding people that um it is important that they they slow down and save lives, save property, uh save heartache. So, I just wanted to acknowledge him and the whole team over at Urban League. Uh, as I was speaking earlier, Brooks Geter St. Louis University is here with us this morning in the gallery. Thank you for being here. >> Alderman from the 14th. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Today as my honored guest I have Miss Kendrick who is a intern that will be interning with my office. She is from Harris Stowe in the back as well as uh State Representative Marty Joe Murray from the 78th district who uh represents part of the 14th. So if we can make them both feel welcome. and I was going to uh save it for the old woman of the 7th um but the streets kind of blocked off so people are still pulling in and I'm sure she'll still say it. But I also want to have Miss Chelsea Murda as my honored guest who's a former legislative assistant of the seventh ward here with us today. Any further introduction of honored guests? Any further introduction of honored guests? Seeing none, Alderwoman from the 10th, you're recognized on the approval of the minutes from Friday, March 13, 2026. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we approve the minutes from Friday, March 13, 206. >> Second. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 11th, and we approve the minutes from Friday, March 13th, 2026. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Report of city officials. >> Report of city officials can be found in A, B, C, and D of the agenda. The copy has been placed in the Google Drive for your review. Dear members of the board, I have the pleasure to submit the following individuals for reappoint to the Holly Hill Special Business District. the reappointment of Nick Hartzler serving as a real property owner within the district whose term will expire December 31st, 2029. I respectfully request your approval of these appointments. Sincerely, Carara Spencer, Mayor. Alderwoman from the first, you are recognized on Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Holly Hills Special Business District. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move to accept the mayor's appointment to the Holly Hill Special Business District. >> Second. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 1st, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Holly Hills Special Business District. Is there any discussion? >> No. >> Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. Dear members of the board, I have the pleasure to submit the following individuals. Appointment to the detention facility oversight board. The appointment of Marlon Codwell and the appointment of Christy Griffin. I respectfully request your approval of this appointment. Sincerely, Cara Spencer, Mayor. >> Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on Mayor Spencer's appointment to the Detention Facilities Oversight Board. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move to approve the appointments for the detention facility oversight board. >> Second. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 10th that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointments to detention facilities oversight board. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed? Motion carries. That is the extent. Does >> anyone wish to take any bills or resolutions off of any of our informal calendars? Anyone wish to take any bills or resolutions off of any of our informal uh alderwoman from the 12th. I'm >> sorry, my hand went up accidentally. I was trying to uh click onto something else. Please forgive me. Okay. Seeing none, first reading of board bills. >> We have none. >> We can dispense with line item 12. Reference to committee of board. >> We have none. >> Can dispense with line item 13. Second reading report of standing committees. >> The following board bills were reported out of HUD's committee with a due pass recommendation. Board bill number 113 introduced by Alderwoman Sonier. An ordinance amending ordinance number 70981 effective July 24th, 2019 by modifying the terms of real estate tax abatement. Board bill number 138 introduced by Alderwoman Sier, President Green, Alderman Conn, Alderwoman Schwitzer, Alderwoman Keys, Alderman Browning, Alderman Aldrich, and Alderwoman Clark Hubard. an ordinance declaring moratorum until January 31st, 2031 on all approvals for non-municipal detention facilities proposed within the city of St. Louis, including the approval of building permits, special use permits, plan review, project plans, and development plans where the subject matter of the project is a proposed non-municipal detention facility. Board bill number 163 introduced by Alderwoman Sier and Alderwoman Velasquez, an ordinance approving the petition of owners of real property seeking the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the South Grand Community Improvement District, finding a public purpose for the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the South Grand Community Improvements District and containing a cave clause and an emergency clause. Or bill number 166 introduced by Alderman Algic, Alderwoman Clark Huard, and Alderwoman Keys. An ordinance is approving a redevelopment plan dated September 23rd, 2025 with the Cass Avenue and I44 area in the city of St. Louis. Board bill number 169 introduced by Autowoman Keys, an ordinance amending ordinance number 71830, effective June 1st, 2024. Exhibit one attached by modifying terms of real estate tax abatement. The following board bill was reported out of the legislation and rules committee with the due pass recommendation. Board bill number 165 committee substitute introduced by Alderman Aldrich and President Green. An ordinance to standardize the current author authority of city departments prepaying qualifying expenses from qualifying organizations who are under contract with the city of St. Louis to provide the city of St. Louis a product or service by requiring that minimum documentation is received and by installing a cap on the prepayments allowed to be given. The following board bill was reported out of the special committee on reducing red tape with the due pass recommendation. Board bill number 152 committee substitute as amended introduced by Ottoman Aldrich and President Green an ordinance which amends certain sections of chapter 8 of the St. was revised code to streamline mobile food vendor operations. The following board bill was reported out of public infra and utilities committee with a due pass recommendation. Board bill number 149 introduced by alderman bo alderwoman boyd alderman Browning alderwoman Cox Antui and Alderwoman Clark Hubard an ordinance authorizing the honorary street name Reverend Alfred Gayy Jr. way pursuant to ordinance number 68937, which shall begin at the intersection of Astra Avenue and Riverview Boulevard and run north on Astra Avenue to the first intersection of Astra Avenue and Vivian Avenue. Board bill number 175 introduced by Alderman Aldrich and Ardinous authorizing and directing the mayor and the controller of the city of St. to execute two utility easements which shall give grant extend and confer on Union Electric Company doing business as Amir Missouri. Its grantee successors and assigns the right to construct, operate, use, maintain, repair, renew and or remove electrical power lines or lines of underground and or above ground facilities and equipment on the land described in such easements and containing an emergency clause. That is the extent of second reading in report of standing committees. >> Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized in the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 138, 163, and 149 uh to the perfection consent calendar. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 138, 163, and 149 to the perfection consent calendar. It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 7th. And we suspend the rules to move board bills one. >> Sorry. Apologies. I'm going to need to ask you to amend your motude uh board bill 175 as well. I withdraw my motion and now enter the motion to move board bills for the purposes of suspending the rules to move board bills 138, 163, 149, and 175. It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 7th that we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 138, 163, 149, and 175 to the perfection consent calendar. Uh, this is a non-debatable motion. Madame clerk, please call the role. >> Alderman Schwitzer, >> I. >> Alderman Odenberg, >> I. >> Alderman Con, >> I. Alderman Norion. >> Alderman Devote. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. >> Alderwoman Sonier. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Cox Anti. >> Hi. >> Alderman Browning. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Keys. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Tus. >> No. >> Alderwoman Boyd. I >> Alderman Aldrich. >> President Green. >> I alderman Ryan. >> No. >> 13 I votes. Two nos. >> By your vote, you sustain the motion from the uh alderwoman from the 10th. Madame clerk, if you could please place board bills 138, 163, 149, and 175 at the end of the perfection consent calendar. So noted >> alderwoman from the 12th. >> All right. Please do. >> Um at appropriate time, I would like bill 138 taken off of the perfection consent calendar and placed on perfection calendar. >> Madame clerk, if you could please make note of that. >> So noted >> alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized now on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 113, 166, 169, 165. committee substitute and 152 committee substitute as amended to the regular perfection calendar. Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move that we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 113, 166, 169, 165 committee sub and 152 committee sub as amended to the regular perfection calendar. It's been moved by the alderwoman from the tenth, seconded by the alderwoman from the 7th. And we suspend the rules for the purposes of moving board bills 113, 166, 167, 165 committee substitute, and 152 committee substitute as amended uh to the regular perfection calendar. Uh this is a non-debatable motion. Madame clerk, please call the role. >> Alderwoman Schwitzer. >> Alderman Oldenberg. Hi >> Alman Cole. >> Hi. >> Alderman Ryan. >> Alderman Devote. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. >> Alderwoman Sonier. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Cox Antwe. Alderman Browning. >> Alderwoman Clark Hover. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Keys. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Tus. >> No. >> Alderwoman Boyd. >> Hi. >> Alderman Aldrich. Hi. >> President Green. >> Hi. >> What's the issue? >> Alderwoman Schwitzer. Alderman Devote. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. >> Hi. >> This is >> I said she said >> everybody. >> You said the wrong number. That's not on >> Who said that? Who called that number? >> That was That was That wasn't me. I didn't just call >> just mishard. >> But is everybody's voting no because of that? >> No. Point of order. We're in the point of order. >> Yes, you got to finish the mic. >> Point of order. >> Alderwoman from the 12th, can you please state your point of order? >> We are in the middle of a vote. Um, so whatever is going on, we need to finish that vote and then we have to figure it out. We cannot stop in the middle of a vote and figure out what happened. >> Correct. There was a little bit of confusion on one of the board bill numbers that was called, but we are finishing the vote now. Alderwoman Schwitzer I. >> 11 I votes two nos. >> By your vote you sustain the motion from the alderwoman from the 10th. Madame clerk if you could please place the aforementioned bills at the end of the regular perfection calendar. So noted >> report of special committees. >> We have none. >> We can dispense with line item 15. Board bills for perfection consent. >> Board bills number 163 149. >> Madame clerk, you need to read the bills. I'm sorry. Board bill number 163 introduced by Alderwoman Sier and Alderwoman Velasquez. An ordinance approving the position of owners of real property seeking the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the South Grand Community Improvement District. finding a public purpose for the creation, extension, renewal, and establishment of the South Grand Community Improvement District and containing the Cereability Avenue and Riverview Boulevard and run north on Astra Avenue to the first intersection of Astra Avenue and Vivian Avenue. Board bill number 175 introduced by Alderman Aldrich, an ordinance authorizing and directing the mayor and the controller of the city of St. Lewis to execute two utility easements which shall give grant extend and confer on Union Electric Company dorm businesses Ammer Missouri its agents assessors and assigns the right to construct operate use maintain repair renew and or remove electrical power line or lines of underground and or above ground facilities and equipment on the land described in such easements and containing an emergency clause. That is the That is the extent of board bills for perfection consent. Otherwoman from the tenth, 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 alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 11th that we adopt the board bills for the perfection consent calendar. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Board bills for perfection. Board bill number 168 introduced by Alderman Aldrich. Alderwoman Cox entry. Alderwoman Clark Hubard. An ordinance approving the petition amending the boundaries of the soccer stadium community improvement district making certain finding relating there to including that the redevelopment area described therein is a blighted area in authorizing and directing the taking of other actions and approval and execution of other documents as are necessary or desirable to carry out and comply with the intent hereof. Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the perfection of board bill 168. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the to perfect board bill 168. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 7th that we perfect board bill 168. Alderman, you may proce. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Board bill 168 is an existing SEA that already exists uh um over there by the MLS soccer stadium. Uh this is just amending it and extending some of the boundaries to the Alo uh plaza. Um this was heard in HUD's committee. It came out unanimous. Um they need to extend the areas. It was kind of left out when they first did the SID. Uh this would just be able to give them the ability, one of the great things they already do is they do a lot of maintenance of Aloe Plaza. So this is just making sure that that part of the SID uh is included um within the work that they're already doing. And with that, I open up for any Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alder uh woman from the 7th that we perfect board bill 168. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Board bill number 151 introduced by Alderman Aldrich, President Green, Alderman Odenberg, Alderman Orion, Alderwoman Sier, Alderwoman Velasquez, and Alderwoman Clark Huard. An ordinance to amend the public nuisance ordinance by repealing certain sections and adding new ones to create a nuisance review board. >> Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the perfection of board bill 151. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move to perfect board bill. It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 7th that we perfect board bill 151. Alderman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Board bill 151 uh is a board bill that uh in conjunction worked with uh the alderman of the seven or second on as well as our nuisance property, Miss Mia Woods. Uh we also had the building division at the table. Um but towards last year we was trying to figure out how do we make uh the nuisance property a little or the nuisance ordinance a little bit stronger but also make sure that there's kind of a public transparent process. So what this board would do it would establish a seven person member board on page three of nine it breaks down those individuals. The board shall consist of three members from uh the city department which could be um a representative from the building division or their uh design, somebody from the health department or public health or their design, a licensed Missouri uh person from the municipal or administration in law and then made up of four members of the public. Uh again, this would allow residents to be able to collect signatures uh if they feel that a nuis or a property is a nuisance. Issues that we were struggling with within my ward was the easy vape and just I think some similar in the ultimate of the second ward was like these vape shops. So we came together to figure out what can we ultimately do to hold these uh these comp these um properties as well as residents more accountable. This board will uh if somebody would want to uh take their their opinion to the nuisance board, they would have to get signatures of a 350 ft radius of where that location is. We took the same language of what we already do with like platin petition or what we do with our excise department so residents could be able to collect signatures to then kind of trigger a hearing for the nuisance board to review to see if it was a nuisance. Uh this is something when we look at our board of adjustments and conditional use, those meetings are public meetings. Unfortunately, when it comes to nuisance properties, a lot of times those meetings are not public. So residents do not know uh after they have reached out to the nuisance department if their uh nuisance complaint is actually moving. During that process of collecting the signatures, the nuisance board will then review any evidence that has been provided uh that would make this property a nuisance. Uh it would also allow residents to come in to have their voice heard on it just like we do with conditional use or board of adjustment and then the nuisance board will make a recommendation of how to abate uh the property. Once that um recommendation is made, it still go to uh the city council office to have the final decision. Just like now if a property is considered a nuisance, an individual who um has been deemed a nuisance, they still have kind of due process where they can um kind of uh push back on what they believe is considered a nuisance. Uh, so that isn't a final determination, but it allows ultimately this board allows for a community aspect process for residents to be able to collect signatures to figure out how to abate those nuisance and for a public hearing to be had on the potential nuisance. Again, I do want to thank Miss Mia Woods and uh members of the mayor's office who was in these conversations, members of the uh uh building division uh to kind of bring this new process that would allow some transparency in our nuisance process and hopefully allow for actual abatement to happen when properties are considered a nuisance. And with that, I would open up to any questions from committee members. >> 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 alder 12th. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Alderwoman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Thank you, alderman, for yielding. Um um first of all I have uh mixed feelings about this because the reason our nuisance laws don't work in the as it currently is written is not because they don't have power because one of the powers gives the director of public safety if they have reasonable belief that something is a nuisance to close it down. They just never have because the city councelor's uh uh office falsely assert that we had to have so many calls to citizen service and to the police. No place in that legislation does it say that. And I have on many occasions challenged them. Show me where it says it and they can't say it cuz it doesn't say that. Okay. Um and so that is just something that they have decided to gather power. But that's not what we the board of alderman said about who had the power. It wasn't the city councelor's office. The power lied within lies within the uh public safety director who has has reasonable reason to believe that there is a nuisance. And so some of the things that make perfectly good sense that's reasonable belief is if you're having to put police cameras by a place over and over again. If you're having shooting actually if you have murders inside of the buildings. These are all the things that uh if you start driving around the neighborhood, you can always tell where my nuisances are because the people leave them. That means that the people actually move out of their houses and move away from it. You'll start to see burn down buildings because then people come in and burn the buildings up. Half of the time it's the nuisance. So these are all things that are very easy to identify as a reason belief, especially the shooting. But uh the public safety directors always shied it away shied away from that. In fact, one of them when I pushed him pushed this person enough said, "I'm out of here, Sharon." Um so um it I don't believe that the city councelor is a good place to uh give the last thoughts to what should be a public nuisance over these years about certain nuisances and they and I kept saying they don't do them in North St. Louis. They said, "Oh yes, we do." So I asked them to send me at that time the last five years of what was uh public nuisances that had been closed down in the city and what came out and they weren't looking for what I really was looking for. So what came out of that that is in North St. Louis in 5 years only five places have been closed down all over the rest of the city they found nuisances but they could not find them in North St. Louis even though there were shootings people had moved away and everything. So that was irritating to me. Um and the uh person who was charged to North St. Louis would argue, well, we don't have enough people calling in. Um asking people who are victimized by nuisances in their community to sign petitions or to call in is to put them at risk a lot of times. And so they are are frightened to do that. much as is we don't want to admit it when we talk about that thin blue line with the police, it is because the police will not tell on one another often because there is a threat and and a silent that their partners won't back them up and it's not so silent cuz people police have told me that. Well, if we do that then our partners won't back us up or uh we won't have cover. Well, just think if you're Mrs. Jones and you live next door to a drug house. Are you going to sign that petition and and and and be be frightened that somebody would actually see that and then come after you so they don't? Recently in my community after 13 years on February the 13th we closed down Sam's package packaging at Shrieve and Anderson. This has been a 13-year fight to close it down. And the f the uh county police went in and they closed it down. Hallelujah. But the the point I'm telling you is that they had shootings every in 2023. Almost every month they had a shooting. The owner's uh uh son was killed in that building. Okay. All if you drive down Shreve, you can immediately if you didn't know where Sam's package liquor was, you would know by that one block in the 4200 block is horrible. Every place else over in Pinrose is beautiful little streets. The people line their uh yards and cut their yards and it's beautiful. But this one block is like people gave up and there was nothing that we could do that we could get the police to close it or the public safety directors to close it. And I took pictures. I turned them in. Took pictures. Pictures. Hey, I turned in. Hey, there was a shooting this month. There was a shooting this month. The the police themselves put up cameras uh and and left them up and then the people would disappear. They broke zoning laws. They they uh advertised cigarettes, buildings, everything they could, they did it. They were saying, "Close me. Close me." And nobody could. And the only reason that it got closed is because the feds came in much as they did in 2017 when they arrested 35 Arab nationalists be who had these stores only in North St. Louis and a few in North County. And the next few days after they did that, eight of them went up in in flames. That's the same things happened to package liquor, Sam's package liquor as Reeve and Anderson. A few days later, it was up in flames. But what was so sad I want you to hear about is my constituents cuz we let them all know and they were happy. But they told stories of how they would not drive down Shreve anymore. Now they live if you lived in the Pinrose neighborhood. Shrieve is one of them. The secondary streets we got Uclit Kings Highway is a major. Uclit Shrieve and Marcus are secondary streets in the part that I represent. And the people who would live on Lee and Shreve would tell me we drive right down Lee, go to Marcus, make a left, go uh back up Carter and then so we don't have to go by that store. People said I have been in that store for years or I don't even go that way. So it made me really sad to hear this for the last couple of weeks about, you know, and I even mailed out cuz part of this uh of uh pinrolls when I was gerrymanded, racially gerrymanded illegally, they gave it to the 21st ward. So I didn't have it anymore and I didn't have shre most of it. And I was so saddened to hear these stories of people that were scared to go by the store or uh the people who lived on Anderson. It's a oneway headed west. So they had to go by the store most of them. But people would tell me, "Oh, we went down Anderson the wrong way from Uclid cuz we didn't want to be by that store." And I'm I'm telling you, every time I went by it, I braced myself. I took a picture. I would scent it and say, "Why can't you figure out that this is a nuisance?" Finally, we had a sixth district police offic uh uh captain that was there temporarily and and I have a full file on this and um he he wrote me and said, "Outderwoman, I'm probably going to get in trouble for this, but everything you've been saying is true. That should have been closed down a long time ago. the L properties that you've been requesting should have been closed down a long time ago or or tore down. Not rather closed down, but tore down, but that didn't happen. So, there is something wrong here in this building. There is something wrong that we don't we don't need all these changes. We need people to follow the correct uh laws that already there. So, I just wanted to talk about that cuz recently we've discovered a way we closed that place down. We closed one on St. Louis Avenue and Vandervand are down. Um, so we discovered a way uh to do it and I'm nervous cuz I don't want anybody to get in the way of what we're doing now because we got about four more that we're going to close down. But the fact that people u think that um it's okay to be in North St. Louis cuz the person who was assigned to us from the city council's office, she is no longer there. Oh, she got so mad at me because she argued that I wasn't telling the truth. But when I presented their own evidence, which came from the city councelor's office where I got this from is because I asked for give me citywide and they didn't understand. You don't think I'm going to go and do it by ward, which I did. And when I did it by ward, it was even how can you only have five nuisances closed down in all of North St. Louis? And that's when we had 28 wards. Five nuisances. But every place else you could close them down. In fact, the person who was assigned to North St. Louis, she was put over into downtown Washington to close what's the store range the club because they didn't wanted to say it was a racial thing. So they used her black face to close it down. The problem is in our building with people who are not doing their jobs. I understand what you guys are trying to do but it there's a lot of power that is not being used. Okay. And we also do not uh define negligence. I already have been working on something. We don't I mean nuisances, how can we not define nuisance as gunfire? If you have one uh incident of gunfire, you ought to be put on notice. Two or three, uh two, you should have your liquor license taken. Three, you're closed because people if if not two, you should be closed. people don't have um to have to live in a neighborhood and they should not be required to drive through gunfire. Right now we who live on Kings Highway in the Kingsway East uh have to deal with Salamas which we went as a group and said please uh don't let Salamas build this gas station here. And most of these gas stations in North St. Louis were put in when Francis Slay uh helped pushed them in and the current city councelor worked with them and they pushed them in. Okay. And we had everybody testifying about how Salamas had been on Uclid in St. Louis Avenue and that they were a nuisance and they hung out and they drank and they and you can go into that area and laby and you will see that it's all tore up. But they pushed it and dis disagreed with what we said and we said it's going to be killing. I'm had the forethought to actually get a police report of what kind of crime had been at that corner before they built it. basically none. Now we have shootings, loud music because many of the gas stations are attractive nuisances. They attract nuisances. We have people hanging out on the corner. Everything that we said in that file and I I have the file so you can look at it that is going on. So that's if I go north. If I go south, there is the gas station at Martin Luther King and King's Highway that Gerald that uh Gerald Chris's brother got killed at. I didn't know at the time except for when I talked about these gas stations and there was such an uproar which I've been tracking them since 2014 who owns them. So when I said that they were Palestinian owned, they are Palestinian own cuz I've been tracking them and I found out who owned them. But Gerald Chris when I called him about uh uh silver and channel four because no five because they said I didn't have any proof of what I said and I was like I called them and they're like oh we didn't mean that because we didn't even talk to you. I know you didn't mean that cuz I do have proof. But when I called Gerald Christmas, he said, "Sharon, my brother got killed there. I've been trying to get that closed." How? And then when I read the articles around it, which was in Ryan Cruel, I think uh wrote it. I don't know if it was the Real Front Times or something else, but I have the article. It talked about there being 300 and something calls and all the incidents. So, there's not any uh reason that we don't know that these are nuisances. We don't close them down because they're not in our community. And that's all right. Uh if it's not in the people who's making the decision community cuz they think that's okay for it to be in North St. Louis. When they arrested the 35 people um and they blew up eight of their uh uh uh properties, there wasn't any 35 people in the central quarter. In fact, the central quarter only has like four three or four gas stations left. They got rid of them all cuz they are an attractive nuisance. Uh, South St. Louis, it wasn't in South St. Louis, it was in North St. Louis and a few in North St. Louis County. So, when I see that you got these members from the board, what you don't have is assuring that community members would come from the neighborhoods most adversely affected. We don't have that. Just like when we come up with this nomination for the board of adjustment in the last 24 years, we haven't had anybody except for an alternate on the board of adjustment that comes from any place in North St. Louis and only none that was that lived north of Paige. And so we don't have people who live north of Paige. That is racist. That is in um impermissible government is unfair. And so when I look at what you're writing now, I know you're trying to address the issue, but you're not addressing the bigger issue. Where are many of the nuisances and why aren't they? Who doesn't close a gas station down where there's been killings and um 300 calls for services that have been verified but it's still open. WHY IS THAT? WHY DON'T we check about the debit card thing that's going on? Cuz there's something in city hall that thinks that's okay. And when we had a hearing at one of the nuisance about one of the nuisances a gas stations that's now in my ward again, the guy said to me cuz I went in my car, three different cars to watch them sell drugs, people drive up, brought all this evidence and the guy said to me, "Well, we have a right to make a living. He lives someplace else, but he has a right to make a living in our community and make it unsafe." So, this is this a legislation is not going to solve the real problem cuz the real problem is in city hall starting with the city councelor's office who gives bad advice to me. Um and I and I and I could talk about it more and Michael Garbon knows I can and was uh encouraging people to put gas stations where we had lost this had cleaned up that spot and could not be gas stations in your own very ward. >> The 14th ward that Vanpool gas station is a embarrassment that they would put a gas station up against people's houses like that. When I went over there and saw that, you almost cannot put a ruler against the house that's next to it. And I know the gas station bought it because that's the other thing I want to bring up. When they have these nuisances, then they started b they start buying the property that's closest to them in the circle so as to neutralize our um laws. And they just did that. I want to say I don't know if it was in Alderman Cohen's war and alderman from the third pill but they just did a thing where uh to get liquor they ran around and put 10 or 15 people on a on a um the deed so that they could water down our laws. So they're watering our laws down when we make them. Um so when it's a nuisance it's not just the people that are 350 ft. The gas station at Salamas it sits on the corner of Terry which is a oneway street headed west. No matter that all the people come down Terry, all those people are affected. So to limit it to just 300 feet is not a good idea because the people are affected every place else. So and the neighborhood's infected because on St. Louis Avenue, the people all are leaving. Um Ontario, this nuisance gas station is buying up the property within the 3 or 500 ft. So, we should um look at a broader uh consensus if we're doing this to talk about what people are affected. If you have to come down my oneway street to get to a nuisance gas station and I live at the 500 ft or 700 ft, but I'm on that street and they're driving down the street, boom, boom, MF MF MF, boom, boom. And that gas station, open of adjustment, put it there against the wishes of our community, which many of us came out and the nuisance people hire people in our community that are the nuisances that hang out and bring them and say, "Well, look, these are black people wanted. They don't own anything. They don't care what happens there. They're the people drinking on the corner." When you go to St. Louis Avenue and Kings Highway right now, you will see a guy in a wheelchair, other people hanging on the corner. We never had that until Salanas got there and they pushed that through and Michael Garvin was part of it and so was Francis Slate and others and Michael was back in the background advising them. We're not getting rid of nuisances where they need to get rid of and yes I don't want them to be in the first or second or fourth but I don't want them to be over in North St. Louis in abundance and and and just to even look at the gas stations in North St. Louis For us to have what you say is such a low population without a doubt. >> The number of gas stations we have in North St. Louis compared to the population is ridiculous. When I tell you if you live in the central quarter, you can go to Kings Highway in Manchester on the edge and go to the gas station. You can go to Kings Highway in Delmar, which was really counted in North St. Louis cuz it's on the north side. But you can't go to Skinker and uh Delmare cuz that's a CVS now. You can't go to Delmare and Union cuz they closed that 25 years ago and never opened again. You can't go to Kings Highway in Delmar cuz that's on the north side. You can't go down and I'm glad that Lord closed it to Olive and uh uh uh uh what's uh um right by um uh by um the the Harris Sto. You can't go there anymore cuz that's gone. So you'd have very little places. You can't go to boil and kings boil and lindle but when you go there you can't buy liquor. You can't buy uh uh uh I think you can't buy uh tickets to uh win the lottery because they don't allow such things. They also made them put a brick wall up so that they would not bother the residents and they couldn't be in the alley. So they if they do let them and the only reason they let him come back cuz they were already there and they just rebuilt but they all these conditions and when Jimmy Edwards worked for lighter crusen and I and he was the director of public safety and I took this all to him. He sat on many of the hearings and said Sharon everything you said is correct. They do not put conditions on things that go into North St. Louis. So when you get ready to say you need to get rid of these nuisances, they say, "Well, we can't do anything because uh there were no conditions." I don't need a condition for gunfire. We shouldn't have to say that. That's just like if somebody gets their head blown off, then we will hear it. One of the people who did support the Salamas on August the 8th, we had a gunfire there. She's calling me, she's screaming, hollering. She said, "Outderwoman, everything you said was the truth. We should have listened to your leadership. Now she's mad as hell. But she was one of the people who supported it because she lives up in Kingsside condominium where it's closed and private. So, but she forgot she had to drive through that corner. Right now, I cannot go north or west without the danger of gunfire. Neither can the people who live in my community who own their homes and do not create the problems. It is created by people who live someplace else and go to their houses and don't have to put up with it. So this uh may be a first step group that's doing something but it doesn't guarantee anybody from North St. Louis or from North of Page or anything that we will be put on it. And the thing that has happened for the last 20 years, 24, 28 years has been that Francis Slay started the the the uh agenda of not putting people on these boards and commissions that were important that lived north of Paige. Laida kind of went wrong. Although I won't give light to Crusen, she did have uh looked into it and said, "Oh my god, I have the book that she had our former clerk lawyer do and they had to admit I wasn't lying that this was what's going on." So they did start trying to change it with the forestry commission and some other things forest park commission. But then Tashar Jones tripled down and wouldn't do anything that wasn't afraid to slay. So she left all those people that we're replacing today have been on the board of adjustment for 20ome odd years and not a one of them lives north of uh of uh Paige. One of them is my personal opinion. I'm not voting for it because we do not make sure that the people who are the most affected sit at the table. That is the problemman that I have with this legislation. There is nothing. It just says we can have uh people who are from the city, but it doesn't guarantee that the people who are most affected would be um part of the decision maker or sit at the table or tell us what they're doing. I do applaud that it's going to be uh open. But if it goes back to the city council's office, I am definitely opposed to that because they have been part of the problems over the last several years and why we have all these gas stations that are nuisances in our community. why we have this hair store at uh in the board of adjustment and zoning. Why we have a hair store that's so big that the people park on the sidewalk and they have 20 um uh different poses of models and hair all sticking out and it's so disrespectful of Martin Luther King and all these flags and everything. All of this is nuisances that I get calls about all the time and people say, "Oh, we can't do anything about it." Yes, you can. We can close these things down, but we have to have better laws about when they should be closed. Not just set up a commission saying, "Well, we're going to have a hearing and we're going to limit it to 350 or even if we said 500 ft." How are you going to limit that when my house is being negatively affected? Well, I can't sign that petition even though you're driving down my street to get to the gas station or you're driving down my street to get to other nuisances in the community. But because I'm not within 350 ft, I can't sign a petition. I think that's wrong. And I think we need to revisit that. And we need to revisit it for liquor and everything else because they they do the people who are doing that, they play our laws. They play they go around our laws. We have a thing about for the liquor. So they put their if they have a corner store, they'll put their address on St. Louis Avenue or on Kings Highway so that they don't have to deal with the people who uh live on Terry. There's a lot of places where um people uh know how to go around these laws. So ultimately the person who is the director of public safety ought to stand up when it's a gunfire. There should never be a second gunfire or without the public safety director issuing some kind of letter saying, "Hey, you got gunfire over there. uh this is not going to be uh tolerated. We do that with with uh uh swimming pools. We call swimming pools uh attractive nuisances. And it's not that the swimming pool is anything wrong, but children are attracted to it and they they uh drown in it. So we require gates, fences, covers, all of and and if if you don't do that, that can make you uh dig up your swimming pool or fill it in. We ought to be able to do the same thing with these nuisance places. If they're nuisance and whether it's a house or a business, there ought to be a limit on how many times we can call the police. And it is. We just don't do anything about it. How many times we can put a police camera up and not depend on the people who live right next to it to uh report that it's a problem because they're scared to do it. They are scared to do it. They are frightened. They are frightened. Something is going to happen to them. So, I'm not going to support it. Not because I don't think you're trying to address it, but I don't think that 300 ft is correct. I also don't think that uh uh 300 or 350 ft not uh mandating that people from all parts. In fact, it should be more people in North St. Louis north of Page because that's where all the gas stations are. I just told you the whole of Central West End got through. But when you come to North St. Louis. There's one at Kings Highway in Delmar, Kings Highway in Hodok, Kings Highway in Martin Luther King, Kings Highway in St. Louis Avenue. And the only black gas station that's left in the city of St. Louis in a black neighborhood is Kings Highway and Natural Bridge. And guess what? He doesn't have gunfire at his place. That's so interesting. But all those other ones I tell you about, they have gunfire. But he does not. When I got in office, there were six black gas stations. They have all been closed down. And my question to everybody is how are these gas stations letting people have gunfire? Why is the police doing that? Why is city hall doing that and they are open? So we want to do something really well. Let's close them down. Let's do what we did with Sam's package liquor. Let's do what we did with the gas station over on Vanderven between Mat and St. Louis Avenue that was horrendous. Let's do what we're getting ready to do with two other locations. And it's not going to be with this legislation. It's because we figured out a way to do it. And let's figure out a way the same way that we closed lanes on Washington and the things in South St. Louis and downtown. Let's figure that out for North St. Louis. And until we can do that, this is not a good piece of legislation, I will be voting no. And I will ask you, had you ever considered that we should have people on the boards or commissions by um districts or something so that we would make sure that people are included north of Page? Like we could say, "Okay, we're going to have one from the 13th and 12th and 11th board that and they have to be north of Page." Have you ever considered anything like that? >> Uh thank you, Alderwoman, uh for that question. Uh, no, I haven't considered it, but I'm open to since there are four uh open to uh a friendly amendment or amendment that says two has to be north of Delmore, two has to be south of Delore, but I don't want to get into the geographics where that kind of hinders it to um because that would make maybe it harder for the city council office. And I do want to address something that you also said about the 350 ft. We did originally in the bill have 500 ft um to make the scope bigger. Uh the bigger the scope, you know, since it'll need 50% of the signatures mean that there will be more signatures uh that will be needed for that. So, you know, I do hear your your point of is 350, you know, too small. We also wanted to stay in line, I guess, of what we already do for our liquor license or what we already do for platin petition and not kind of create a new system. But everything that uh that you said and appreciate the story that you talked about. Um you know I I I understand where you're coming from. Um and know that there is a lot more nuisance properties uh probably north of Paige or Delmore, whichever, you know, line we want to use, but in North St. Louis compared to other areas. I do agree with you. Um, Alderman, I wasn't I wasn't even trying to do a friendly amendment to your board bill now because if I was, I could approached you earlier and talked to you about it. Um, I actually was busy closing down these gas stations. So, I'm in like heaven that or closing down this store, especially and anderson just like, "Oh, thank you. Thank you. Why would it take 12 or 13 years?" And even the police are agreeing with me, but we always have to have the feds come in. That says something about our police and it says something about city hall and it says something about people like I said some there was a police I mean a public safety director when I pushed this whole issue and say it it doesn't say that they got up and left. Okay. So I don't want you to change the legislation. I'm just going to vote no. But I would want you to be open to this is not good legislation. And I said Michael Garvin's name on purpose cuz he already knows why I say his name and he is part of a problem. And that's why we did not put the city councilors in charge. They inserted themselves. If you look at the legislation, it does not say you have to have the current nuisance legislation. It says none of that. And they are, and I like Mia Woods. She's a nice young lady, but uh part of the problem is people making decisions, even black people that don't live in North St. Louis or live north of Page. I prefer a white person, which I have in my community who lives north of Paige, to be on that board, who is affected by that cuz I have some and they're sending me stuff that are white. I don't want a black person that lives someplace else and when they go home, they've made a decision that they're not affected by. Okay? So, this is not just racial. It is in that predominantly north of Paige is uh uh black. But you have to ask that question and and I can show you my numbers and I can show you what Laida had Tim um uh McConnell put out. Why is it that in 20 something years you don't have anybody that lives north of of Paige on the board of adjustment? How is that? What is do what is that about? Okay. Do we have some positions that only can be for people in the central quarter in South St. Louis? Is that right? Think if they we already have these big wards in North St. that are ridiculous. You know, I got 14 neighborhoods. Other South St. Louis Wards got three or four. We have to really start looking at effect and cause and what is doing what is happening and what's causing this. Our laws we're putting in place are not working. I've been saying this for the long time. This is not going to work because the people are going to feel safe to make decisions that don't affect them. Will they make decisions about their neighborhood? Absolutely. which is why I told you go count the gas stations in the central quarter which has a big population but no gas stations then coming to North St. Louis. Why did we need to have Salamas? We already had four uh gas stations on our quarter in Kings Highway and yet it was forced in and Slamas didn't even own that land originally. IT BELONGED TO L. IT HAD BEEN CLEANED UP and we actually have an ordinance that says that they there cannot be a gas station. like there it sits and that's why I tell you it is city hall often it is rule 200 is all these people behind the scenes not following the law and then now we put it on people to say that these few these people have to be the ones that come and uh stand up and and put their lives in danger because when you start talking about closing this stuff lives will be put in danger and and Miss Jones or Miss Taylor whatever uh they are not going to get out there and um and uh risk their lives because they got to go home every day. And as I said, the police know all what I said because when they talk to me about it, I tell them, "You first." I said, "How do you have a thin blue line? If you think Miss Jones ought to report in, then the police ought to report in and report other police. And if we accept that there's a thin blue line, we have to accept that Mr. Jones is not going to normally sign that petition." And that's what might work downtown. That's how they got rid of Larry Rice, who was there before they gitrified downtown, which I think still to this day is horrible. If you move down there by Larry Rice, then you should have known all this stuff cuz I because it's been going on since the 70s. But you can get it when people are are uh uh the same e socio economic and the same and you can get that. But what happens in our communities, they buy people off the people who don't own anything. They have them come down and say, "I like them because THEY GIVE ME $25 CREDIT." And um gunfire should not be open for debate. When you're having gunfire, it should not be open for debate. And we also have them attacking black women. People are texting me as I'm speaking now because they were reminding me that up on Delmare in Good Sullivan the gas station they attacked a black woman and kicked her and almost had a racial incident. We just had that at Union and uh um uh Theodosha in my ward something that happened. And so we are going to have to start looking at these nuisance stores and gas station not as some committee but holistically. Why is this happening? Tell the truth and close most of them down. if you only need three for all of South for uh central quarter. And then when you go to South St. Louis, they don't have any stores like we have or they don't have the gas stations that we have. And when they build new gas stations, they built them in commercial areas, not like they do, cuz this is the other thing they do in North St. Louis. They build them up against the best neighborhoods and run the people away. And the whole thing of s neighborhood commercial was supposed to be uh building things up that were uh an asset to the community, not a detriment. The first time you fire a gun, you're a detriment. And it doesn't have to be you inside because people would say, "Well, it's not their fault." But a funny thing happened on the way to closing Sam's package liquor. Since it's been closed, nobody has that corner. Nobody is being blocked. And since they blew it up, whoever did, fed it a fire, it's going to be gone. So we won't ever have to deal with that. So if we just compose them for a few weeks and then they would blow it up and get rid of it, whoever they are, then we could get rid of a lot of nuisances in our uh in our our community. And I'm talking about the business nuisances. It's a whole another thing when you get to the houses. I had 4,800 block of far and the feds have come in three times and closed out a house that's ongoing. the fans had to come in because we couldn't do it with the police. And part of the reason we couldn't do it with the police because the former police uh public safety director that just left, his house was right next to him. They did nothing. The city didn't close it down. It wasn't enough for them to know that the feds had come and closed it down, but the city council and anybody else did nothing. You write letters. So, I have no faith in them. Michael Garvin or anybody else that's doing it. I do not have faith in them cuz how can you have on a residential street three fed uh federal raids at the same place next to the public safety director's house now he don't live there but it's one of his rental properties and nothing happens. Shout out to the sixth district captain cuz captain K he is great at coming in and trying to do stuff. So it's no discouragement on him. He is a great captain in the six for trying to get things done. But it's in city hall that we have a problem and we and and giving the uh solution to the city councelor's office is going to me heighten the problem not correct it. And for that reason I thank you alman because I will be talking to you later. For that reason I will not be voting for it because I think it's going to make it worse. And right now I'm just trying to get rid of as many as I can with the way we found it before this new law goes into effect and everybody starts to say how great it is. Like when people get up and say, "Oh, and Covenant House is the only one. Covenant House has had 95 complaints, not a one of them for me, even though I live across the street, because the seniors that live there, we think that the homeless have more rights than the seniors that live next to it who are scared to come out of their house. And and the kids themselves saying people hate us in the neighborhood cuz we breaking their houses. Had a conversation with me. We break in their houses and we do, you know, we get high and we have sex. So they hate us here. They do. So why are you still here? We used that used to be a school that closed at 3:00. But why is Covenant House? And not to say that we don't need a Covenant House, but it doesn't need to be up against people's houses. So the people who actually pay the taxes and been there before, these are seniors. So the people who are homeless and they're homeless young people, men have a right more than the seniors that live next door to that. That's crazy. We do not understand that we are running people out of the city of St. Louis, mostly middle and working income. And we're just got this whole agenda about how we're going to help people, but you you you don't have to have them up in the middle of a neighborhood destroying the neighborhood. And you can come right about Covenant House also. And you see where the kids set fire to the buildings. They got graffiti. All of that attributed to the kids at Covenant House, how catch them smoking drugs and doing drugs on the corner. But nobody says anything about let's close it. It shouldn't have been there in the first place. We used to have Ekko's children home. Ekko's children home is now the home of a charter school. We should have left that. We did not have the problems. We had people who had uh we had a campus. They had a school they could spread out. They weren't um they had they were weren't up against people's houses. But now the charter school is there and we got the uh uh uh covenant house in a little place where it's too small and you shouldn't have that many young boys there anyway that age because they cause all kind of havoc. And everybody who's saying how great it is, put your house back there. Don't come and sleep on a occasion and say we had a sleep in. Nobody cares about your sleep in. Do you care about the sickness? Would you want your mom, your dad, and all the people who bought and had to fight uh restricted covenants to live there and uh and and all kind of zoning so that they could live there, live out their days in their 80s and 90s, calling and complaining all the time because they are being uh tortured with this nuisance property that everybody thinks it's okay to be there because it's not by their house. So again, um I don't think this is going to do anything for the real uh problems in North St. Louis. And I'm looking at Aldwin Boyd's name. And um everybody knows about that store up on uh West Florison in her ward. When you start tracking down all those gas stations and stuff, they all are connected to that store, which is connected to the gentleman that got removed from our board of alderman. But the people who uh own that store, he is one of the people. And yet he is out after 4 months and running around this city opening up g uh uh uh laundromats now. And thank you to all the people who are uh protesting his laundromats. Go to the corner of Kings Highway in West Florison cuz he just opened one there. And please protest in front of that one too. Not just the other ones. Please. Every place I find, I'm going to I think it's ridiculous cuz when these people got arrested, we said they were not going to be able to keep their property and we've not done anything except for let them out after 4 months. And we put the gentleman from the board of alderman in jail for a year or more. And it's ridiculous because to have had somebody uh bribe somebody, you had to be the person that was doing the bribing. And they should have stayed in jail as long or longer. And it wasn't the only charges that were against them. was guns, illegal money, all of that. But all of that can get washed away and get ready to try a case because they don't want that to be brought up. So we clean these people up and convict them of cigarette charges only and then let them testify against people as though they have clean hands. They do not. And all of that is in North St. Louis. and it connects to the store up in the 13th ward on West Florence because when I started to do the research every time I would look up the registered agent was there and when I called them and talked to them and I did not know at this time who that person was and he had met me before trying to open up a gas station which I said no I was shocked how many people uh who got these gas stations have their registered agent coming from that place we don't do and Matt Mo knows it because he and I have gone on that journey together. We don't do enough for North St. Louis to get these uh instances out and this is not going to be enough. Thank you. >> Thank you for that, Alam. I really appreciate it. >> Alderman from the 5th. >> Madame President, members of the board, permission inquire of the alderman of 14th. >> Alderman from the 14th, would you yield to questioning from the alderman from the fifth? >> Yes. >> Alderman, you may proceed. Uh, thank you, Madam President. Uh, alderman, a couple questions with respect to clarification. >> Just a couple, >> just just a couple and I I will try to keep my questions brief. Uh, first with respect to the petition process, my my understanding is that that was a it it wasn't a requirement, but rather it was creating an option for the community to initiate action with respect to a nuisance. Is that correct? >> Correct, sir. >> So, in in other words, the the avenues that currently exist still exist, but we're adding in additional process for community to become engaged. Is that right? >> Yes, sir. >> I I I frankly like that part of this bill. Uh I think that that is an excellent way to engage the community and I think that's a wonderful addition to the way we we currently do things in the city. However, >> however, this is the catch, right? I I am concerned about the the idea of the nuisance board. I think it's a novel idea. I think it's very interesting, but I do have a couple of concerns. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh my understanding is this is seven members and you've identified where those folks come from. >> These are essentially volunteers as this is set up. Is that right? Is is there compensation or are these folks appointed and then they're taking on this uh this this task to serve on the board and hear these nuisances? >> Yes, Alderman. So, just like most of our board in the city of St. Louis, most of them are voluntary. I think there's maybe a few that's compensated, but it's not a large amount. The process will be just like the one we did for DFO. All those members are sitting on that board because they care about the issue. Those appointments will go through the mayor's office. you know, they could be vetted in committee and then if vetted in committee, they would come to the board of alderman. But most of our boards in the city of St. Louis uh are all voluntary individuals who want to serve on these boards uh because they they care about uh making our city better than what it is. >> Yes, sir. And and I know you've worked closely with with Ms. Wood and the the city councelor's office. Do can can you educate us or explain to us the anticipated volume that this citizen board would be undertaking should this legislation pass? >> Yeah, we that was one of the questions that came up in public safety and I think Miss Malwood did a really good job explaining that. You know, I think it it each area and neighborhood is different. Um it just all depends on uh you know where nuisances are. We do not expect a large volume of petitions being um signed or brought to this board. Um but we do expect that this process would create as you mentioned a community process so that residents can buy in but we're not expecting that the board will be meeting on like a a monthly basis because uh there is such a high volume of signatures being collected. So, so as I understand it right now, we have two chapters that that set out or provide various responsibilities to city departments to deal with nuisances. Chapter 1542, and you mentioned this, provides certain responsibilities to the uh the the board of public safety. It talks in terms of may take action. It's actually not mandatory, which I think is is one of the issues. Uh maybe that's what the older woman from the 12th was referencing the the idea that there isn't a requirement for BPS to take action. And then second chapter 1158 which provides certain responsibilities on the health commissioner. Is it is it your thought that should this legislation pass that it would serve that is this nuisance board would serve to supplant or replace these two provisions or these two ways that we currently deal with nuisance as set forth in chapters 1542 and 1158. >> No. And I know that uh Alderman I believe you and Alderwoman Boyd is working on bigger overhaul of the nuisance chapter. I look at this as being kind of part of it where there is recommendations that can come from this board and community that can go to the corrective body to be able to deem these uh properties a nuisance or not but not to replace them. >> So in my mind that's the problem. That's the problem. And the problem is that right now there there seems to be a lack of direction. Uh in other words, accountability. The idea that there's a nuisance and a citizen, a public official, uh a a a city department knows which line of sight to go. And so I think one of the problems with this is we are creating now a third wheel and which I think potentially could lead to additional problems with respect to accountability. In other words, who's responsible for following up with a particular matter? Is it BPS? Is it the health commissioner? Or is it this new board that this legislation tends tends to create? Maybe I missed it, but could you point to me within this legislation how one would determine where a particular issue goes for handling? So the uh BPS or the board of uh public safety will be the body that is over uh the nuisance board. So they would be kind of that body that is in charge of supporting it just like any other uh commission. they would be the board that's supporting it. Um, all testimonies, I think some of that may be addressed to you on page six of nine. Kind of just talking about the hearing process. Um, and then from that hearing, any written facts uh or information that come from that will then go to the city council's office where the city council will make that determination. >> Yeah. And this is one of the concerns I do share with the older woman from the 12th with respect to may take action. And and in my mind, that's one of our problems as we have it today is we have the use of the language may. May is in chapter 1542. We're talking about the city councelor may take action. Again, I think one of my issues is this doesn't correct the problem that exists today, which is shall it doesn't it doesn't compel or otherwise force any particular body or office to take action. And in my mind that leads to some of the frustration that the older woman from the 12th and maybe I'm speaking on her behalf and I apologize but but it it adds it adds to that frustration because there's no mandatory action. >> Yeah. And I think in if and if I add to it in this one it does say may. I think in our current code it says may the reason we left may this is because we didn't want it to be if the board make a a recommendation it shall take action. and it still goes to the city council and I agree with her that there are some uh you know concerns with our current city counselor um which I will address in a previous or another piece of legislation but you know we kept that May language so that the the bodies that know the best can take those decisions but I'm believing you will probably clean all that up next session and put shall for all those >> well I I appreciate your trust uh I I truly really do. Uh part of my review, I took a look at the fiscal note uh and I noticed that despite the creation of this additional layer or additional process, there doesn't seem to be at least that I could tell any consideration with respect to staffing needs uh or or the any costs with respect to implementing these changes or or any again the idea of what is the operational workload that's in place. Those seem to be those three questions seem to be items that we didn't have answers to because of how this legislation's drafted which didn't permit the creation of a fiscal note. To what extent are you concerned that we are considering legislation that mandates action without necessary funding to then support the adequate implementation of this legislation? Aren't we >> doing that thing that we criticize all of the time, which is telling somebody what to do without giving them the funds or the personnel to get the job appropriately? >> Yeah. And I would, you know, reference you back to listening to that committee hearing in public safety where Mia brought up that she don't believe this would be a huge constraint within on the city council office uh to have somebody from BPS to actually once there are hearings on this to have somebody sit in on those hearings or for STL TV what they currently do to record these uh hearings just like BPS or board of adjustments is recorded conditional use and others. So, we didn't believe that there will be additional funding needed uh for this board that would be added. >> I thank you for your patience. >> Thank you, Alderman. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th. >> Madame President, members of the board, um if the alderman from the fifth would yield. >> The alderman from the fifth yields questioning from the alderwoman from the 12th. I will. Yes. >> Alderwoman, you may proceed. >> Um, Alderman, you were expressing my sentiment of of of um frustration, but also my frustration is that people didn't do their jobs. If you're the public safety director and there are shootings three months in a row at a location, would that not put you on notice to say that this probably that you you would have reasonable belief that this is a nuisance property? I alderwoman it would put me on notice and and that's one of my concerns here is what we're not doing is addressing the underlying problem right now as you know from looking at chapter 1542 as well as 1158 there isn't mandatory language so what we're doing what we now do is we give those folks the ability to make the call I I think my concern about this is this is a feel-good provision vision. This is something that gets media attention. This is something where we're talking about citizen control and the ability to be heard, but at the end of the day, it doesn't address the underlying fundamental problem. >> Okay, Alderman. So, we talk about the petition that can be uh walked for the people who are within 350 ft. But if you're on a street and the people who live 350 ft don't say anything from the nuisance, but you're on the same street and you're experiencing the same nuisance, say it's gunfire. People um we have a store at Hammet Place in Uclid that we almost had closed before they tore up my ward. And um several years ago they left that store and went down the 4900 block of our coin which is a very quiet uh street and they had gunfire and they killed three people in the middle of the street and that uh our current city marshal John Hagen was the police chief then and he and I talked all the time and he grew up in the neighbor one of the neighborhoods that I represent and he said woman you've been trying to close that store for over 20 years. That was the police chief that said that to me. Okay. And I'm saying his name because he knows the incident. Um, so would you want to live on a street that limited you from signing a petition when the people went down your street and did gunfire? This is what I'm saying about uh limiting who could sign that petition. The neighborhood often is held uh uh at bay or uh hostage when there is a nuisance. So wouldn't you want to be able to sign the petition if you wanted to if you're affected? >> Yes, ma'am. Okay. So, um that's why and I want to say we didn't always have 300 feet. We used to have 500 ft. Um and the other thing is that I want to bring to your attention I talked about and you tell me your feelings. So, we have these things about nuisance properties. So, when the person then buys up the land within the 300 ft, shouldn't we uh expand that and do something different and say, "Okay, you bought this land up." So now, and that's what they're doing. So now, what do we do about that when they buy up within the 350 ft? But the nuisances are ongoing. >> Well, I I I think you are you and I are on the same page here. I I think I think that that's an issue that needs a deeper dive that isn't addressed by this legislation. Wonderful questions. I'm happy to talk to you about it later on, but I I don't know that that that that's addressed here, which I agree is problematic. >> And also, I I don't know if you've uh addressed u or read the current nuisance law, but I have and I and what I would tell you is that there's a part that says if the public safety director has reasonable belief, then they can uh shut a place down. So, why would we have to have uh anybody reporting in or anybody signing a petition if we have a police report that shows that we've had gunfire at this uh particular place or we have uh we have had to place police uh uh cap sky captains at the place or that kind of or we've had all kind of uh dangerous situation happen at the place. Why wouldn't we just instead of saying the public safety director may uh issue a order closing it down, why wouldn't we just require them to do that? Just what you said. I I agree. We you and I are on the same page. I I think to the alderman from the 14th's point, what this does is it provides another avenue, which frankly I do like. I like the provision of another avenue, but I also agree with you that in that type of situation, the ordinance, the legislation should direct that the that that the the the the official take action. >> And so, um, and I've I read the ordinance also that we have, there's no place in there that gives the city council any kind of, uh, power that they've had a power grab with. Okay. So, when we're now giving them uh the uh power, I'm opposed to that because they grabbed the power that they didn't have and then gave us a requirement that well, not enough people called in. Not enough people um uh signed something, not enough people did whatever. And I want to point out to you, we've always had a petition process. We have it so that they can get rid of a a conditional use. if you done followed that at the board of adjustment. So, there's always been a petition process. Larry Rice was closed with a petition process. Okay. So, um which I you move next door to a foundry, you can't complain and say I live next door to a foundry. So, I am opposed to that. But what do are you from you're a lawyer? Are you I don't know. Did you do criminal law at all? >> No, ma'am. No criminal work. >> Okay. Okay. So, but just um let's just talk about a neighborhood. So, you have older people that live in a neighborhood. Um is it really realistic to believe that if somebody is living next door to somebody who is terrorizing the neighborhood, shooting guns, doing drugs, a a really bad actor, that they're going to sign that petition um and put their life on the line? >> Uh no, ma'am. >> Okay. So, um I hear what you're saying um about uh that it's another avenue, but if the avenue is the same, uh response that we current have, that's my frustration. Okay. Um and when I just told you, and again, this could easily be shared because it came from the city council's office. How can you only have in North St. Louis five in five years, five places that were closed down? And in case you you weren't here, but Pam Boyd knows it and other people. I've been talking about this ever since I got it cuz it just blew me away. In all of North St. Louis, you have five places that you closed. None of the businesses that I've just told you about that uh have uh uh liquor and lux behaviors. They were at private houses. How can the city how can I have trust in the city councilors when they were the very piece people that did not do anything and did not recommend closing and did didn't do anything? How can I then believe that they're going to do something all of a sudden when in five years they couldn't do anything? And then when I raised it and said, and look what I got from the city councilors, they ran over to then was the third ward and they closed u a gas station that had been called Murder Row uh over on West Florison in St. Louis Avenue. And but if you go there now, that gas station is open again because that's the other thing that doesn't happen in North St. Louis. They don't stay closed unless they blow them up. It's not just gas stations, it's nuisance stores. So, if we're letting people reopen the bad actors, what is the what how tell me what you think the message we're sending to people? >> Well, that's that that's part of the problem uh is is we're not sending a good message. And that's why my belief is that effective legislation on these nuisance issues, whether it's a problem gas station or a problem uh smoke shop, whe whether it's an issue on the north side or it's an issue in Northampton, uh is that it demands uh additional legislation that frankly this just doesn't touch. >> Exactly. So I wasn't trying to stop it. Um, I like I said, I am frightened about the part giving uh the uh city councelor anymore uh power because they haven't used their power for good. And everything that I said, you guys asked, I'll give it to you and you'll look at it. Um, but I've put it on the record before and they and I didn't get it from someplace else. I got it from the city councelor uh the report of how many they had closed. So, I just thought it was outrageous and that and that comes from people thinking that it's acceptable to leave things at North St. Louis. And just to add something to it, I have I know people at the federal level when I was practicing lawyer and I was a public defender. I know those people from when they was a judges and when they were uh not city councilors, I'm sorry, circuit attorneys. So, I know these people. So, one of them said to me, "But Sharon, you guys need those stores in North St. Louis." And I said to that person, "Bring your family and put right by it." And when the first bullet flies, I bet you won't say that. I would for much, we don't need those stores. And often when they're trying to open up, there is a big group of people that come um to testify against these problem properties. But we have some people who are paid by these people to be um to come and testify. And so one of the things I also want to do is require those people to uh register as a agent like they do in the state. Would you have problems with that? If we if the people who are doing these nuisance uh properties and I have nu problems, if they're hiring hiring people and paying them to come and testify in their behalf, would you have problems with us requiring that they have to register them register them as an agent? >> No, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Oh. Oh, one other thing. Um uh I want to say that the health commissioner has the most power in the city. the health commissioner, if it's a health problem, they don't have to go through all the due process that other board of adjustment uh public safety, they have the most power in the city to close things down. I just want to put that out there. Thank you so much. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, alderman from the 14th, you are recognized to close. I renew my motion. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alder woman from the 7th that we perfect board bill 151. Madame clerk, please call the role. >> Alderwoman Swager, >> hi. >> Alderman Odinberg, >> hi. >> Alman Con, >> no. >> Alderman Norion, >> hi. >> Alderman Devote, >> no. Alderwoman Velasquez. Hi. >> Alderwoman Sonier. Hi. >> Alderwoman Cox Santo. Hi. >> Alderman Brownie. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Keys. >> No. >> Alderwoman Tyus. >> No. >> Alderwoman Boyd. >> No. >> Alderman Aldridge. >> I. >> President Green. I >> have 10 I votes, five no votes. >> By your vote, you sustain the motion from the alderman from the 14th board bill 151. Board bill number 113 introduced by Alderwoman Sier and ordinance amending ordinance number 70981 effective July 24th 2019 by modifying the terms of real estate tax abatement. >> Alderwoman from the 7th you are recognized on the perfection of board bill 13. >> Thank you madam president members of the board. I would make a motion to perfect board bill. It's been moved by the alderwoman from the seventh, seconded by the alderman from the 14th and we perfect board bill. Alderwoman may >> Thank you pre madam president members of the board. Um so board bill 113 essentially um within the gate district neighborhood we used to have a sort of blanket abatement. So if you were doing a majority of types of developments within the war you would have kind of automatically qualified for this abatement. This was placed in place many years ago before I was older woman. um it was time to have this conversation again with neighbors and residents. Um we wanted to be a little bit more specific and narrow in scope as opposed to being able to develop any project. Um we have tailored it for those that would be doing lowincome housing tax credits or affordable housing. I will say like this tool has been great for the development of the neighborhood. We have a lot of uh residential single homes that are, you know, we're happy to have within the neighborhood, but I think at this time we're looking at making sure we protect the diversity. Um, and it doesn't mean that it's a flat note for any other abatements that would want to be considered, but that you would not just automatically get that incentive. It would have to be some additional conversation to happen. Um, but not if you're doing low-income housing tax credits. I think all of us know how expensive it can be for affordable uh housing to be built and to be produced. And there's actually a developer in a pipeline that we are waiting on because I have two senior buildings within that neighborhood um that will be able to be rehabbed as well as some affordable family housing. Should this pass um on this board today, they will be able to take advantage of these tax credits and be able to rehab two senior homes and build some family affordable uh town homes as >> any further discussion. Any further discussion? Alderman from the third. I just want to uh take a moment to uh applaud my colleague from the 7th. Um you know, lately it seems as though a narrative has been that the city's been shut down for development and uh that's not true. You know, we've got projects happening, you know, all over the city. Um but these types of projects particularly that have the low-income housing tax credit are really important for our neighbors um and provide stability for both housing and neighborhoods. And so I I rise in support of the bill. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 7th, you're recognized to close. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I would just want to thank SLDC. Um, and thank residents and neighbors and the developer for coming to the table to have this discussion. Um, I honestly learned through this process that there was a such thing as kind of blank abatements being set that way. And I just really appreciate the developers who are having the conversation. And I'm really looking forward to again the rehab of those senior housing, the development of the affordable family housing and just being strategic. I think especially as we're trying to recover from a tornado, we have to make sure we're incentivizing the correct in correct places so that development can happen all across our city. It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 7th, seconded by the alderman 14th that we perfect board bill 113. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries. Board bill number 166 introduced by Alderman Algic, Alderwoman Clark Hubert, and Autowoman Keys. An ordinance approving a redevelopment plan dated September 23rd, 2025 for the Cass Avenue and I44 area in the city of St. Louis. >> Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the perfection of board bill 166. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move to perfect bill 16. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the third that we perfect board bill 166. Alderman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. This is a project I'm really excited about. We had a great committee hearing this week in HUDs. Miss Janetta Hall, who has a property which is located on Cass and has been there for 16 years, is looking to develop this site that is right off uh the highway at uh Cass and kind of Tucker, but it's at the intersection of Cass and 44 that when you hop on it turns into 44, go across Illinois. But uh this is a really exciting project. we're starting or we want to start the blight process so that um she can continue to have other incentives and work with uh other groups to try to bring the package together. We're looking at bringing a smaller version of like a convention center uh within this area. We're talking about a kid zone, uh, like again a smaller convention centers, uh, some small maybe town homes. But this has been the plans that have been in the works for 5 years. And if you know Miss Hawkins, she is somebody who's very professional. She's somebody who is very dedicated. And this is, you know, when you talk about doing um incentive projects, I think this makes uh sense to do a perfect incentive right uh in this area close to Old North that uh has kind of been overlooked for a long time. So with that, I'll open up for any questions. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, then alderman from the 14th, you're recognized to close. >> I renew my motion. It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the 3rd that we perfect board bill 166. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries. >> Board bill number 169 introduced by autowoman ease. An ordinance amending ordinance number 71830 effective June 1st, 2024th by modifying the terms of real estate state abatement. >> Alderwoman from the 11th, you are recognized on the perfection of board bill 169. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move that we board bill 169. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 11th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we perfect board bill 169. Alderwoman, you may proceed. Thank you, madam. So, board bill 169 um is and we're trying to go ahead and get the Kemp State Bridge Hotel project that was approved back in I think in 2024. Uh since that time, we've had a hole in the ground. Um and the um developers have had to go back and re imagine the project. They're going to make the Kemp Hotel bigger. uh and putting the Staybridge hotel on hold. Uh this is as a result of increased um material cost and and all of those things. But what they're seeking is they went from a 75% uh abatement to a 90 uh uh 90% abatement. And so that is the request that they go ahead and receive a an increase in the abatement and go ahead and get this hotel built. >> Any further discussion? Uh, alderman from the fourth. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Uh, I've spoken on this issue ad nauseium, so I'm not going to take much of your time, but I think this is over incentivizing yet another luxury apartment in the area. I don't think that's what we need and I think that we should be thinking of the effect on SLPS and I would request a roll call. Thank you. >> Any further discussion? >> Uh I'm going to go al from the 12th and then I'll go back to you alderwoman from the 11th to respond. Alderwoman from the 12th. >> Um I'll yield if the older woman from the 11th wants to respond to the alderman from the >> Alderwoman from the 11th. Yes. So this project does incentivize our St. Louis public schools. Additionally, uh this and this was in uh in accordance with the original board bill that so many and I'm sorry I don't have the actual figure with me uh dollars that are going to St. Louis public schools. Additionally, uh there's a provision um to house people uh as they have been doing during the cold weather months as well as during the the tornado uh we experienced last year. This group of hotels under the Kemp State Bridge umbrella uh have done what they said that they are going to do for our community. uh and they will continue to provide much needed housing during the cold season as well as the disaster that we are still going through. And so, uh all I can say is that you know the information that you have is not correct because that deal was in place. >> Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. If the alderwoman from the 11th would yield. >> The alderwoman from the 11th yields. Questioning from the alderwoman from the 12th. >> Yes, I will. >> Alderwoman from the 12th. You may proceed. >> Thank you, Alderwoman. What now? It's called the Kempton. What is the name of the project? >> Sure. Kemp Staybridge. It's actually two hotels that were part of the original plan for them to build. So, they're going to put the Staybridge Hotel on hold, but slightly increase the size of the Kemp Hotel. >> And where is this location? >> This is uh right at Jefferson near Market. >> Oh. Where they tore down the used? >> Yes. Uh Wells Fargo. >> Um. >> Right. So um and so did I hear you say something about they let uh uh during this cold weather they let people stay there or will let people stay there? Could you explain that again? >> Yes. Yes. So that deal is in place. Um so under their umbrella they have a number of hotels here in the St. Louis area and part of the agreement that was made under the original board bill was that during the cold weather season uh they would house families um mainly with St. Louis public schools children u so that they would not be in the cold or as as happened back in May with the tornado. Uh they were one of the first to step up to provide shelter in forms of hotel rooms for for people needing a place to go. >> And where did they provide shelter? Since this is a hole in the ground where they provide >> hotel rooms. I'm sorry. No, but I'm just saying other hotels around the city area, that's where they were providing them because this this this hotel is not built, is it? >> No, this one isn't built, but they have other hotels under their umbrella. >> That's that's here in the city. That's what my question >> Yes, ma'am. Yeah. And in fact, in my ward, um there's the one right there, uh Forest Park, right off of Vander Vender, and I can never remember the name of that one. >> I know what you're talking about. Okay. So this is my outlook. So I I understand uh the ottoman from the fourth. I really think that we I don't like that we use St. Louis public schools money for uh development. Uh and I don't like that we use our uh earnings tax for development. Um both of those are very important and we should treat them as such. Um but we do um and we do it for everybody else. But here's my other additional concern. There are many of us who believe that the reason that the Heritage House was allowed to slowly go into disrepair was because that was in the way of a major development and if they had left the people in the heritage house that when you remove people then you have to pay development cost and all of these things that if you just get them out early enough then that goes away. So I guess my concern is um is where is the next hotel going to be? Is it going to be where the Heritage House is is or is it going to be adjacent to that uh that hotel that is uh planned right now? >> No. So the Heritage House really doesn't touch this development at all. Heritage House is on the is the 3000 block of Olive. And so this is actually right at Jefferson. both of the hotels are in that area over there. So, but but yes, I do agree with you that uh you know, Heritage House that situation which uh took us a very long time to navigate our way out of uh Yeah. So, the building is still there. Um I see it. >> Yeah. And my thing is I'm just the reason I'm bringing this up. It doesn't have to be right now cuz people plan for in the future. And um so um you know a lot of teachers, black teachers live there. I had made their home there for a long time. Uh people work for the St. Louis public schools and just to see them and I know the work that you put in. Okay. But um long term once that soccer stadium was built we start to do development and uh gentrification takes ways in a lot of places and if you know the laws then you get rid of people early enough so you do not have to play dis uh pay for them to be moved because our laws are pretty uh stringent. Well not stringent but they're in place that will cover people who are there. you have to pay a lot more money than if you just slowly empty the place out and then don't put them back in there. So, this may not be part of this development, but I think long term, ever since we put the soccer stadium that that was a plan to get them out of there. Um, so that's my concern. Um, and my other concern was why is uh why it went from what 75% to 95%. How did where do we get that cost from? >> So, And and I know you know this uh because you're a developer as am I. Material cost has gone through the roof. Uh it is ridiculous. and and it's like that dog is completely off the chain with with what material costs today in order to so they're trying to offset some of that that building and labor cost uh so that they can go ahead and get this hole in the ground into the hotel it's supposed to be. >> And how long has it been sitting there now? um since we did the board bill in 24. >> Okay. But cuz they started they tore it down in 24. >> They to they tore it down and they've done some foundational work, >> right? >> You like roughing in the plumbing, you know, that plumbing always goes in first, you know, so things like that. But in essence, you know, until they actually get the hotel, you know, going, it's a hole in the ground. >> I understand. And I understand. So I I want to tell you so uh uh I don't consider you have the um responsibility of representing North St. Louis, Central Quarter and South St. Louis, which you shouldn't. That is an illegal ward. The wards are supposed to be uh compact and contiguous. Okay? And yours is not, mine is not. Uh autowoman boys are not. Okay? Um so you have that uh added responsibility. I'm weighing here about what to do about this because I really don't like I'm with alderman from the fourth. I don't really like giving that tax abatement, but I'm going to give you the benefit of being my neighbor who I do believe that you try to do the right things most time. So, you're going to get the benefit of that. Um but I would hope that from now and I do agree that um development that has sat for a very long time needs to uh given an additional look through to see how you can get it going if it's been stalled. And I have several of those projects myself including a project with uh with Yafodel mean over on Natural Bridge across from you in which uh she's going to build a senior building and she lost her grocery store and now she's found another one. And so they're going to need some more money and I have care STL that I don't want to lose. So I do understand. So you're going to get the benefit of um yesterday and the day before I spent all day talking to people trying to look uh how we could find more money for them. So you're going to get the benefit of my work that I will be voting for this. But I'm just saying please don't vote bring too many more of these because this is too hard for me to vote for. Thank you. >> Thank you Alderwoman. Any any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 11th, you are uh approved to close. >> Thank you. I would renew my motion. Thank you. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 11th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we perfect board bill 169. Madame clerk, please call the role. >> Alderwoman Schwitzer. >> Alderman Odenberg. >> Hi. >> Alderman Con. >> Hi. >> Alderman Nion. >> No. Alderman Devote. Hi. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. Hi. >> Alderwoman Sonier. Hi. >> Alderwoman Cox Antwe. Hi. >> Alderman Browning. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Keys. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Tus. >> Alderwoman Boyd. >> I. >> Alderman Aldrich. President Green. >> I. Alderwoman Tyus I. >> 14 I votes one no. >> By your vote you sustain the motion from the alderwoman from the 11th to uh perfect board bill 169. Board bill number 165 committee substitute introduced by Alderman Aldrich and President Green. an ordinance to standardize the current authority of city departments prepaying qualifying expenses from qualifying organizations who are under contract with the city of St. Louis to provide the city of St. Louis a product or service by requiring that minimum documentation is received and by installing a cap on the prepayment allowed to be given. >> Alderman from the 14th you are recognized on the perfection of board bill 165 committee substitute. Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move to perfect board bill 165, committee substitute. >> There a second. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 10th that we perfect board bill 165 committee substitute. Alderman, you may pursue. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Uh board bill 165 is of legislation that has been worked on um quite some time now. I hope all my colleagues uh receive the packet on their desk. There's been a lot of uh information and I would say a lot of misinformation on what board bill 165 do committee sub. So I just want to talk about it. Uh again what board 165 would do. It does not create like a new power. It just raises the standards that the state and the federal government already does by providing kind of an advanced payment up to 30% up uh upfront. with talking with a lot of uh contractors and nonforprofit individuals who do work for the city of St. Louis. One of the struggle is, you know, after getting kind of the contract that goes through ENA, the struggle is, you know, we're not the best from uh the city government from actually paying vendors on time. So we thought about how do we make sure that we kind of change that reputation by giving vendors who are credible vendors or contractors upfront um kind of an advanced payment uh in in lie of before doing the work and I would say what's really uh unique about this advanced payment process is not something not typically done ENA has passed multiple contracts uh to this day to give advanced payments uh if it's been the office of recovery um they also do advanced payments for the supply division. Um so this isn't necessarily a new um thing that is uh done within the city of St. Louis. I do want to address uh I know all my colleagues received an email from the comprollers's office as well as uh um our city councelor Garvin on the legislation with some of the concerns. I provided a timeline to all my colleagues uh to lay out the conversations that have been going back and forth either with my office in my LA and the city council's office or with the comproller office as literally just uh meeting with the comproller office last week on this legislation. Um, draft three of the bill, which is in front of us, uh, now or on the website, uh, actually came from language that we got from Nancy Walsh and Patrick from the city councelor office. Uh so which I found a little bit interesting that uh Garvin um came back with an opinion that some of these things were problematic. But I think we know at the board of alderman it just depends on what um elected official asks for an opinion depend on how our city council is going to sway and make that opinion. Um so I will say just a little disappointed because um you know this has been something while I will give respect to the comproller office. She did always say she did not uh kind of support this because of the extra burden of work it will put on their staff. Not necessarily the uh that this would be something that is not doable u because again they already do it. So I will continue to have ongoing conversations about this legislation with my colleagues. I do not want to put anybody in a u bad situation, especially after receiving an email from the comproller and the city council last night around 4:00. Um and uh with that, madame president and members of the committee, I will move to put uh board bill 165 committee substitute on the informal calendar. >> Madame clerk, please place billard bill 165 committee substitute on the informal calendar. So noted >> board bill number 152 committee substitute as amended introduced by Aldrich and President Green, an ordinance which amends certain sections of chapter 8 of the St. Louis Revised Codes to streamline mobile food vendor operations. >> Alderman from the 14th, you're recognized on the perfection of board bill 152 committee substitute as amended. >> Thank you madam president. Members of the comm board of alderman, I move to perfect board bill 152 committee substitute as amended. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 7th that we perfect board bill 15 committee substitute as amended. Alderman, you may pursue. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Board bill 152, committee substitute as amended. I'm not going to lie, after that last bill, this is one I'm really actually excited about. I'm excited about the last one, but really excited about this one because this bill has been in the works uh for years now. Um if you guys remember last session, uh a similar bill around food trucks uh that I worked on came out of committee and then when it got to the floor due to a request of an alder person, I did put it on the informal as well as uh hearing from some of the stakeholders that was um part of that working group wanted a little bit more time. So, we paused it and we got back to work uh this session. And I want to give a huge shout out to all the individuals that was at the table of the working group. Uh we had the restaurant association, Mr. Bill, who's the president of the restaurant association that represents over 700 restaurants in the St. Louis area who supports the legislation. Also, the food truck president, uh food truck president who support the legislation. We have Mr. Jim Dwire from Central West End. Mr. James Paige who's a member of Downtown DNA as well as Downtown Ford, Mr. Matt Lurri, who's executive director of Downtown Ford. Um, Miss Carissa Days from SLDC, a representative from GSL, uh, Miss Jenica Hayden from the president office, Mr. Matt Hescamp from my office, and Miss Sandy Covert from the streets department where we took the legislation that we had last year that had food trucks um, citywide and really honed in on locations. The goal always for doing legislation around food trucks is there's so much red tape on uh uh of food trucks being able to operate. I think one of the things that came out of committee that also is a problem is even before the operations the licences is an issue. They have to get like four different licenses but we're not touching that this year. We're just touching the operations so that we can cut the red tape so that more food trucks can operate within the city of St. Louis um before we go into start of changing the licensing process. So the changes that we made this year from going from a citywide is we created food truck market vending districts and I want to just highlight some of those uh food truck market uh districts or some of the food truck markets. It's not districts. So, we created one that will be on uh Cherokee commercial vending district which starts at the intersection between Jefferson and Louisiana only between the curb lines of Cherokee Street and the first of the alley. So, Cherokee Street is very unique and I know the Alderwoman from the seven can talk about that. As you go down Cherokee Street, uh next and outside of those businesses, there is some uh street parking, but then there's an alley that go into residential. We really wanted to make sure in this legislation that we stay away from residential and also stay away from brick and mortars as much as possible because we know that our brick and mortars are struggling to stay open. And while I believe competition is important, we did want to take into account to stay away from as brick as mortars as possible. Uh city park vending markets is actually already in the code that exists. So we kept that in there. We just created a definition. We are creating a new commercial vending district that will be on the right of way of Market Street between the intersection of 8th and 8 South 8th Street going all the way up to South 16th Street. So if all my city hall folks uh you know look to have some food options hopefully very soon there'll be some food trucks outside of Market Street so that people can have a little bit of more variety of food options. We worked with uh the grand uh center as well as got input from the alderwoman from the 11th where we're looking at adding McFersonson Avenue at the intersection of Lindle and Vander vendor and in the public rightway among Washington and at the intersection of North Leonard and North Teresa. And also want to give a thank you to the alder woman from the seventh ward who created an area within the Sulard market with after talking to uh her res eighth ward uh without talking to her with talking to her residents of where we could create one within that. I made sure I tried to talk to as many alders as possible to see uh if alders would like to have kind of a food market within their area. I got some feedback from some that would like the idea maybe not at this moment. want to see how it plays out as well as others that you know said maybe not right now in our area totally respect it. One of the changes that we are doing from the food truck ordinance also is food trucks are able to operate currently from 6:00 a.m. to 11. We changed that where they will be able to operate from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Again, giving more people uh options to be able to grab food in these areas that we really want to focus on that don't have a lot of options of food. And uh that's pretty much a lot of the changes of the bill. Again, uh I appreciate uh everybody who's been at the table with this. This has been a long uh process in the making. This is just the start. There is language in the bill that say we will come back in a year to be able to review uh this legislation. There's also a change that uh we added in there that allows or that we will be putting decals on the side of each food truck so that there's a QR code to be able to scan to know what the food truck is as well as adding a um a complaint system. So just in case if a food truck is not operating properly, there will be a process where people can be able to reach out and complain and say, "Hey, this food truck is, you know, operating outside of the hours or operating outside of the vending districts." With that, I will open up for any questions. >> Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 11th. >> Thank you, Madam President. I don't have any questions, but I am in supportive of this. Uh, this particular bill has created a very active, very vigorous uh conversation about food trucks in the area. um we were able to work with Grand Center, Midtown, Downtown West in order to come to an agreement about a closing time. So we talk about food uh trucks in the areas that I just mentioned. Um basically an entertainment district, right? And so often times when people are leaving the Fox, you know, 9:30, 10:00, 11 or whatever, or the symphony, you know, they want to get a bite to eat, but they don't want to have to try to go further out to a down, you know, a sit-down restaurant, maybe somewhere in the county to try to get a late night meal. Um, and so the areas that I mentioned have come to an agreement that they are uh all right with the the food trucks um and the hours of operation. So I'm just rising in support. Thank you. Alderwoman from the 12th. >> Thank you, 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. I will. Alderwoman, you may proceed. >> Thank you. You and I had a conversation and I, you know, I told you I'm not a food truck fan of mo of because one of the few places in North St. Louis that you could go late at night up on Natural Bridge and have brick and mortar and and have a a a kind of a choice of getting Subway, McDonald's, Burger King, and I guess I shouldn't do a commercial, but fast food. Um, other parts you don't have that on Natural Bridge. So, I've been very protective of them. Um um and in fact, we don't have uh any kind of vending in the Kingsway East, Kingsway West, Pinrose, Mark Twain. My original uh first wart, we got rid of vending over the years. Um but we still sometimes have problems with people who get a vending license or a truck uh license and think that they can do uh that they're properly in the location when they're not. Is there something on the license or something that will make them understand that this uh particular license uh for them to have a food truck does not extend to every area? >> Yes, ma'am. So again, Miss Sandy Cover who's from the streets department who's been working with us on when we establish these vending uh districts also with in partnership we've had the food truck association. It's going to be very clear where they are able to van only exceptions that are in the beer law special event. So, uh, when we shut down like Washab Street and if they want to, um, you know, have a food truck, there's still ability to have it, but they're only able to vend in those certain areas. And that language that you talked about in the ordinance that you did for Kingsway East and Kingsway West is still in the legislation. We did not change that at all. >> I know. Um, and I'm one of the ones that told you that as we we're we're doing a plan for Martin Luther King now that we might in um some parts of the Martin Luther King want to have a food truck uh court or vending area. Okay. So, I did tell you that, but so um going to going back to what I was talking about. So, will there be specific lang language saying you cannot these are places that do not allow vending or something? because they really do think when I tell them if I've drive up on somebody and they're in the area and I was like, "You can't do that." And I don't want to call the police. I'm trying to tell them there's something on their license that would make them aware cuz they they're not doing it intentionally, but they really do think that they have a license and so they're allowed to do this. So there's nothing that will be particularly on their license because one of the issues that we will have to clean up in the code uh next year when I come back to work on it is that licences and honestly the whole code because this code for food trucks has been amended like 20some times. Um but when you get a license for a food truck you have to get a u a city business license and this has been very frustrating for Miss Mavis Thompson which now our license collector. You've created a check off list. Outside of getting a license from the license collector, you have to go to the health department. If you're selling food, that makes sense to get a safety for food. You have to go to streets to be able to get a street license to be able to operate on the streets. Then you have to go to the fire department and get a fire suppression license so that you can be able to operate. So, there's nothing on their license that uh and we're not touching the licenses yet, just the operations. There's nothing on their license that say where they can operate. But I will point you to page 13 of 21. One of the changes that we also changed in the bill is it originally said they had to be 150 ft away from brick and mortars. Just like you talked about those brick and mortars on Natural Bridge. We want to keep as many brick and mortar stores as we can from Natural Bridge to the ones on Wash. Well, we made it very clear that these food trucks are only able to operate in those zones. um that are uh identified in the bill above. That little exemption that says operate within a designated vending mark that is not located on a principal arterial street. That language isn't there just to talk about like Cherokee Street because it's very unique, but we made it very clear that they are only able to operate in these zones. They we kept um an exemption for the Warf District. The Warf District is down there at the Arch where they sell the lemonade and popcorn as well as Bush Stadium because that's private land. But it's uh very clear and um once hopefully this go into effect, uh Miss Sandy is uh in full support to making sure that they're aware of these are the only zones that they can operate in as well as the food truck know that these are the only zones that they can operate in and made it very clear on the legislation as well as they're the only ones. And if you look at page five of 21 on line 11, we also said it that uh these are the designated markets shall be the only area. So I know that was something that alderman from the uh fifth talked about that may and shall the shall in this language say these shall be the only places they're able to operate. >> Okay. And and so I guess it doesn't have to be the license but when Sandy issues or somebody issues then there needs to be maybe a handout or a map saying these are the only places. Uh it doesn't have to be on the license. It needs to be something that explains to them because they're not going to get this legislation out and read it. Okay. So, um it can be colorcoded or whatever, but it needs to be something to make them clearly understand these are the limited places that they can operate. >> Yes, ma'am. And I know once we uh you know finally pass, we're already looking at and working with Sandy on those decals. And like I say, the the great thing is we had the partnership of the restaurant association at the table where we do plan to do kind of a campaign to let folks know these are the new vending districts. I'll talk with her as they're going to be going through the licensed uh food trucks to follow up and let them know this is uh you have to come in and get these decals and also let them know these are the only areas that they can't operate in. Miss Sandy's been great to work with. So, um, that's something of a print out as they come in and get these new decals that I'll work with her to see if we can make sure that it's very clear these are the only vending districts outside of what the legislation said. >> And then also, um, so I've always had to send it to the police because they don't know. So, um, when we get this done, I would hope that you all would send it over to the, uh, police to disseminate because when I call them, they're like, "Oh, no, they can do it." Cuz they're just like the people saying they can. and then I have to send them over my legislation. So, um I was hoping maybe if you got something that's scanned that they could just scan have something that would scan the truck and be able to say these are where they are allowed or something so that it could be much easier cuz people are not going to read the legislation and often the police don't understand the legislation. So, um that can be worked out in the streets department. So I have no further questions. Uh just statement to make sure they understand where they are allowed and where they are not. Okay. >> Yes ma'am. Thank you alder woman. >> Alderwoman from the 13th. >> Uh yes. Uh alderman uh from the 14th. I don't have a question. I just have a comment because my old war the 27 was impacted by uh trucks coming in and we were no vending. But since I have acquired a larger ward, it's are certain areas that can be vending. But to autowoman Ta's question, they do give them maps because I had to shut a guy down and he showed me the package and it's a it's maps in there to tell you where you can have vending. And so, uh, they they do have that. It's just people don't pay attention to them. And she's correct. And the police are totally oblivious to it. They have no idea cuz I had to talk with Chief when Hay was the chief and give him the orders and say you can this is a nonbending area. They can't sell here. So that is correct. And so I'm glad you all are putting in detail. But I just think it needs to be publicized and marketed so people understand it's certain areas and certain wars there's no vending and in the old 27 it's still no vending over in this area. Thank you. >> Thank you alder woman. >> Alder woman from the eighth. >> All right. Thank you madam president. Um, I too just wanted to rise in support of this legislation and commend Alderman 14th for his efforts on getting it to this point. Um, as he mentioned in his remarks, uh, and similar to the alderwoman from the 11th's remarks, for those of us that have these hightra touristbased and enter based areas, it is truly an asset to be able to have clarity for food truck vendors and vendors to know where they can vend. And it's also an asset to anyone that's coming into our neighborhoods, shopping, spending money to be able to, uh, just participate and have alternative sources for getting food. So, uh, I think this legislation is hugely beneficial, uh, to the entire city to be able to trial this period. Um, and I also think that, as he mentioned, we will have a one-year trial period. So as we see how these things work, as we educate the community about where they can and cannot vend, uh I think we will learn and be able to further improve this legislation as well. So I also too just wanted to give my support for it. >> Alderwoman from the seventh. >> Thank you, Madam President. Um I would echo everything the alderwoman the eth uh just uplifted. Uh I would really commend the alderman of the 14th. Uh he came to me very diligently several times. We talked very in depth about the insides and outsides of the bill. He was willing to come talk to the Cherokee Improvement District. Um it's definitely a robust conversation. It was very interesting just to see the citywide um perspectives. And I think he's done a good job at finding a frame that allows the folks who are in leadership in our governing communities to kind of figure out what might make sense. And so I just wanted to get on the mic and thank the alderman from the 14th. Um thanks the folks within the seventh ward who came to the table to have this discussion for me. And I just want to uplift that I know my constituents are really excited about the prospects of having a place to go to go and get themselves a taco or a burger or a steak. Um we excited about being able to help. On Cherokee Street, we've had many businesses that started as food trucks and then were able to elevate to brick and mortars. Um and even at certain hours there are times where majority of the kitchens closed at 10 p.m. And so now to have places that will be operating um that not serving food and then to be able to have food um I think we're very much looking forward to it and I commend the alderman of the 14th for finding that delicate balance and request to request to be added as co-sponsored. >> Madame clerk, please make note of that. >> Noted. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, then alderman from the 14th, you are recognized to close. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the committee. Uh again, I just want to thank a lot of my colleagues here at the board and the partnership of the individuals that was at the working group. Anytime you can have the restaurant association and food truck association on the same page, agree on policy, I think is a win-win. This, I think, is a good step forward of cutting red tape for food trucks. This is not the end. Again, uh we have to come back and look at that licenses because there is a lot of red tape on how individuals within food trucks be able to get their license. Um, but I just again, uh, I think this is a start. This legislation's been worked on for a while and I think, uh, this shows that sometimes, uh, you don't always have to get it done the first year or the second year, but continue to try to plug away at it. Um, thank everybody from your office, Madam President, uh, my staff, uh, Miss April, uh, the working group, Mr. Jim, Mr. James Page, Mr. Molir, Miss Carissa Davis, um, Miss Sandy, people from the, uh, city of St. Louis that worked on it as well as the older people who uh gave input on where they would like to see this in their wards. Hopefully when we come back in a year, we can expand it to more areas throughout the city of St. Louis. And with that, I renew my motion. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 7th that we perfect board bill 15 committee substitute as amended. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries. Board bill number 138 introduced by Alderwoman Sier President Green, Alderman Conn, Alderwoman Schwitzer, Alderwoman Keys, Alderman Browning, Alderman Aldrich, and Alderwoman Clark Hubard. An ordinance declaring moratorum until January 31st, 2031 on all approvals for non-municipal detention facilities proposed within the city of St. Lewis, including the approval of building permits, special use permits, plan review, project plans, and development plans where the subject matter of the project is a proposed non-municipal detention facility. >> Alderwoman from the 7th, you are recognized on the perfection of board bill 138. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I would like to make a motion to perfect board bill 138. >> Second. It's been moved by the alderwoman from the seventh se uh seconded by the alderman from the 14th. Perfect board bill 138. Alderwoman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I think this summary is really um a great just a great summary for what this bill proposes. It is a moratorum until January 31st, 2031 on the approval of non-municipal detention facilities across city boards and city departments. We had a very robust conversation um in the HUDs committee about this. Um, this is legislation that is mirrored by Kansas City where their mayor led the effort to pass this ordinance there. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Alderman from the fifth. >> Madame President, members of the board, uh, permission to inquire of the alderwoman. >> Alderwoman from the seventh, would you yield to questioning from the alderman from the fifth? >> Absolutely. >> Alderman, you may proceed. I I think I generally understand the purpose of this particular bill, but but for the record, why propose it? What what are we concerned about or what are you concerned about here? >> Um, we are concerned about putting non-municipal detention facilities in place without having the time to evaluate how they will impact the public health, the public safety, and public well-being of our residents. Um, and so we just want to proactively put something in place that would be a moratorum to have this conversation. and you know again a very proactive conversation so that we can make sure that our development priorities and things we put in place align with our values. >> As as we stand here today are you aware of any plan or any proposal to create such a facility? >> No. >> Um as you as we stand here today are c can we comment on our capacity within the city of St. Louis to house such a facility. >> Um yeah, we can definitely comment on that. I would say, you know, um you know, one of the things that was discussed in HUD by many of the community groups is just a large expansion of detention facilities that we've seen across our country, um you know, really since the beginning of last year. Um, and then I would say too that knowing that one of these facilities were proposed um, in Kansas City, which is what, you know, inspired their conversations, it was going to be at a warehouse site there, and just knowing that unfortunately some of the policies and solutions that leaders are proposing right now point to detainment as a solution. Um, this gives us just the opportunity to kind of proactively do it. It is honestly a little difficult to predict the future of what can and can't be done and where they would and would go. I would say that there's an active will right now where we've seen these detention facilities increase exponentially um and be used in ways that we've not seen them used previously. So, this is a proactive measure just to kind of get ahead of any of those possibilities. >> Well, I hate to be a killjoy again. I feel like that's kind of my role here today, but but it sounds to me like we're concerned about the federal government uh wanting to open one of these facilities in the city of St. Louis. Is that right? I'm concerned about everyone, but I do want to be clear that we don't have the ability to oversee the federal or state government. What we do have the ability is to put things in place that private companies um and private developers, we we do have the ability to tell those folks no. And so, while I have my strong opinions about what our federal government or our state government will be doing, I don't want to misspe on the authority that we have or on the authority of this bill, which is why we're focusing on land use, which is given to us by our state constitution and to us as a St. Louis city charter constitution city but we cannot override other levels of government. We can say to a private developer a private entity that we're you know we're not interested in this sort of facility. >> Well I I understand when we talk about a private developer a private entity but we all know that absent the federal government being interested in such a thing it that that's not going to happen. Um I I guess my concern here is are we opening a can of worms? Are we creating an issue, talking about an issue when as we stand here today, none of us can point to a proposal uh discussion even the threat of one of these things in the city of St. Louis or for that matter our capacity to house one of those things today. Again, this seems to me like we're opening a can that we don't have to do. Why draw this attention? I think the statement you just made is subjective to your own analysis and how you feel about it. I think there are many residents, many different folks who do work for these marginalized communities that are gravely concerned that the city of St. Louis is whether any other place across our state or across our country could be at risk of these facilities. Um, again, I keep mentioning the word proactive. I keep mentioning clear land uses for purpose. But I think to say that, you know, we're not at risk and there's nothing to point to that. I think that's very subjective. I think there are things across the country um and I might actually point us to Utah um and 25 other states across our country that have permitted uh detention facilities for the sake of involuntary service commitment which is actually what you call it when you would detain individuals who are unhoused for being unhoused. So again I I do feel and the reason why I sponsored this legislation is that I would rather us have this conversation proactively. I would rather us have this in place. We can't supersede what anybody else is going to do. Uh but for the residents and folks and business owners that I represent that do have a sense of fear and anxiety about decisions being made, this is something that is within our authority to do that gives us the ability to say that we're not interested. That's aligned with the power that we actually have. But I am deeply concerned about the possibility of having these facilities there. And I hope that what you're saying is true is that we don't have a need for this. That would be my dream and my hope. I hope we we don't need this to be honest. Um, but if anything comes up, this being in place, I think could be something that helps us proactively. >> I I understand the concern and I hear you and and I get that one of our jobs is to speak to and address those concerns. It seems to me, and again, I hate to be the killjoy, but absent some evidence, absent some suggestion, absent something concrete that we can point to, it seems like instead of dealing with the concerns and tamping the concerns down, are we in in in a way feeding those concerns by by addressing this and have today? So, do you feel like us having this knowing that there was a facility that was potentially going to put in place of Kansas City, you don't see that as a tangible example of concern? >> That that's why I asked a question of you of is there a facility in the city of St. Louis that could even serve as the possibility a a potential place for one of these kind of things. And and that's why I asked the question and I didn't hear an answer to it. I do I mean again um the place where it was proposed in Kansas City was at a warehouse site. We do have industrial land here and also when you expand um when you put policies and practices in place that require you to exponentially expand the folks you have detained even places you wouldn't previously consider you have to begin to consider because you you have more folks you're detaining and that that is exploding exponentially and not even just for one community but you know for others as well. >> I I understand. Thank you. Alderwoman from the Alderwoman from the ETH. >> Thank you, Mr. Vice President. I would just like to be added as a co-sponsor. >> Madam Clerk, please note that the alderwoman from the ETH would like to be added as a sponsor to board bill 152. Is that correct? >> 38. >> 138. Thank you. >> So noted. Uh, alderwoman from the 12th. >> Thank you, Mr. Vice President, members of the board. If the alderwoman from the seventh would yield, >> would the alderwoman from the seventh yield to alderwoman from the 12th for questions? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Alderwoman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Alderwoman. Um so one of the questions I had was the alderman from the fifth asked was that hadn't we had any um um kind of situation where we thought someone was uh going to put a non-municipal detention facility in the area and so your answer is we have not right correct >> there's nothing that you know of >> correct >> okay have we in the past um that you know of has anybody ever had a non-municipal detention facility in the city of St. Louis that you know of? >> Not that I know of. Um, yeah. No, not that I know of and not a part of any any conversations that we have as a as a city. >> And as you said, right now, if somebody wanted to have a facility, if the federal government wants to come here and have a facility or the state, we couldn't stop that. Correct. >> That's correct. Um I would note that I do think these types of me these types of policies do you know they kind of send a clear message so that when people are looking for places that in itself may deter them but of course we do not have the authority to the state nor the federal government. >> Okay. And when you can you um explain for people who don't know what is a non municipal detention facility used for? um it's used for the detainment, confinement or incarceration of um insert you know population. Um there is a history that we used to have that we are kind of walking away from and their scope is actively being expanded as far as the purposes but the purpose is is that that is something besides that municipality. So someone other than city of St. Louis putting in place a det detention facility for the purpose of detaining or incarcerating a specific um you know population or group of individuals. >> And so um is it uh that they do youth? Is it that they do a certain ethnic group or uh or all of the above? >> Um currently there is all of the above that is happening across our country. Uh again I I think how this used to operate and how it's operating now is quite differently. But right now there are um youth being held in detention facilities. There are um unhoused individuals being held in detention facilities. And so there are no you know no not necessarily a set group. And it is something that any group could become uh subject to especially because of specific practices that are happening right now. So, um, but I don't understand, um, what the impetus would be to put a, uh, non-municipal facility in, um, because if the government can just do it themselves, why would they want to pay somebody to privately do that? I know that happens. I've known about it in the south. They used to put black men in these things that they couldn't find them. You have to try to find them. But um and I know some places along some of the borders where they have a large Hispanic population, there have been indication of things happening like that. And but in Chicago, we had a facility that we found out that was run by the police. Um and it was a it has been made into a movie and everything else, but it was a municipal facility that they just kept hidden away. What is the reason that you would want someone would want to have a nomunicipal instead of just having the federal government or the state money and let them uh uh be the people in charge of it? >> Well, you know, in our city, I think the reason someone might is they might suspect that official city entities might approve might not be approved detention facilities for the purposes intended. Um, I think that would probably be the motivation right now for someone wanting to go the non-municipal route. My purposes in tailoring us in the non-munipal route is that I do think should the city of St. Louis, should we decide that that's something pursue? That should be its own conversation and that should be, you know, our authority. Um, but as far as non-municipal entities being interested, there are a lot of private concerns, private uh interested parties and also a lot of opportunities for private profit um that are motivation behind that. >> So, what I hear, and I'm just going to be truthful, is that I hear this is a a liberal progressive agenda um not really based on um in the city of St. Louis any real fact. I don't know about Kansas City, but in the city of St. Louis. And it kind of reminds me when the people first came down saying close the workhouse. And I was the one of the first people saying that is ridiculous cuz I had dealt with uh the workhouse as an attorney with the public defenders. Uh when we built the current city uh uh jail that's downtown now. I was the chair of public safety. I knew why we built it. I knew it was not for long-term holding. Um, I knew that we put we built it so we could put federal and uh prisoners there. And so the people who came didn't have a lot of information and we ended up tearing down part of the workhouse in which the former mayor before Mayor Jones had spent like seven or eight million dollars on uh repairing the workhouse. And now many of the people who thought they knew everything about what they would talk about come to me and they will say, "Sharon, we were wrong." Really? You were wrong? But can you give me my $7 million back? Um, I don't like to attach my wagon to this thing of, uh, oh, well, this is the progressive agenda and you have to be with it. I like facts. They absolutely had no facts. They would not listen anything. Closing the workhouse has not been a dagum thing because more way more people have been uh uh killed or have died in the current facility. And I remember all the woman from the 13th who was then the other woman on the 27th challenging people to say uh maybe she had become the 13th by that time but challenging the alder woman from the 14th and said well and he was pushing this agenda and she said well what are we going to do about downtown because they've had more deaths then out at the workhouse. Okay. So, um I have I guess I'm kind of agreeing with the alderman from the fifth about I just don't see the agenda. Um I don't see the reason or the rationale. I do understand um not agenda, that's not a correct word because I do see the agenda and I know that they did it in New York and then now we're doing it in Kansas City and now we're doing it in St. Louis, but we're not all the same cities. Everything doesn't work the same way. I just can't even believe that that it was something they would try to put into the city. Um, and they'd have to go through a lot of uh red tape. And what I wish we they would do is concentrating on all those people who push closed the workhouse, put their money up, and then we could cuz we still got part of the workhouse and we could figure out a way to use the workhouse cuz the other one from the 13th is in her ward. But I have butt right to it. And just the ignorance that came from the clothes, the workhouse people when I we talked to them about it was that oh that workhouse is so far out and they don't even know. I said it's right across the street from Baiton off of Hall Street. They don't even know because they hadn't even been out there. They were just part of a thing. And then the whole closed workhouse was based on a lot of it was the experience of one person who had had a bad uh uh uh uh thing that happened to them in the workhouse. But you don't make laws like you don't change laws how people get elected. You don't make laws like how people are are locked up or where they locked up. You should not. I don't say you don't because in the city of St. Louis we have. We made a law about one person's cry about what happened to her in the workhouse. We made a law and changed so that we can't run as Democrats or Republican based on the fact that they wanted Tashard Jones to be able to run that. They didn't want uh you got uh they didn't want anybody to be able to run against her and they didn't want anybody to split the vote. So, we don't um make realistic laws a lot of times and by the time we look up and it doesn't work, it cost the citizens a lot of money. I don't hear anything about anybody from any source including you saying this is what they're trying to do in um St. Louis. I don't know what happened in Kansas City of why they decided they wanted to be in Kansas City except for I do know that Kansas City has a much larger Hispanic population cuz I used to live in Kansas City for 4 years. So they have a larger Hispanic population. So I don't know what that is but we don't have nearly Hispanic population. So, I don't I just don't I don't see the need for this uh legislation except for to uh tell your fellow progressives/ regresses that this is what we're doing. And I think we ought to be um concentrating more on how we going to rehab the workhouse and put it back to use so that we are not having all these people down here in a place that all the people who push that should all be ashamed of themselves and they should be coming out openly to say we didn't know what we're talking about and we want to find out how we can fix the workhouse, not try to figure out how we can prevent something that doesn't even on the horizon. And I will say sometime you can speak things into truth. Um we never had in my community a problem with short-term rentals until we came down here passed that bill which many of us that represent North St. Louis was supposed to. The bill got stopped in court. But now we have short-term rentals and all the problems that that were downtown parking people who don't know how to dumpster noise. Now we have that. We did not have that because people did long-term rentals. So, sometimes you should be careful about what you're trying to prevent and you're saying you're being proactive, then you look up and people come uh to do it. And um if you don't have the right kind of legislation, which we didn't for short-term rental, the only thing will happen that uh they will go to court and there may be a state issue and then you will get it. So, um to me it just should be much more information saying this is what has happened. this is the long-term effect of what has been going on, not that we just want to be proactive for a year because I really do think it sounds just like close the workhouse. Um, and I'm not going to be supporting it. Thank you. >> Alderwoman from the six >> president. Um, I just want to I know this board has uh done a lot to try and protect the immigrant Americans. Sometimes what affects this community. Um, when people are afraid to go outside, when people are afraid to get their groceries, when people are afraid to go to work, sometimes their needs are more of a whisper than a shout. And as we move to this next session, I would just urge us to continue to really listen deeply to the needs of the community. They may not be as um obvious or loud as uh some of us are used to hearing, but that's where the solutions really come from. Thank you. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, Alderwoman from the 7th, you are recognized to close. >> Thank you, Madame President, members of the board. Um, you know, the workhouse was mentioned, which is interesting because again, that is a municipal facility and so I know the workhouse actually came to a vote by the board of aldermen and I believe that all 28 members did vote for closing of the workhouse and I think that's really important because that's its only relevance to this conversation is that what we put in our city should be our say and I just want to ground us in the fact again that we are a constitutional charter city. we get to make decisions over our land use and that's what this legislation is about um in terms of responding to being progressive or regressive. What I think is really interesting about this particular bill is I've actually heard from several people across Democratic and Republican lines, across party lines who are very much in favor of this legislation because when things get to a point where they're operating unconstitutional and some might um argue even barbarically um that tends to create a type of unison amongst people. And so what I really would encourage us to think about as we take this vote is as we talk about overh over overhauling our zoning code, I have not heard a single resident of the city of St. Louis say what we need is another non-municipal detention facility. And that is all we are voting on today. There is no mention of any other level of government in this legislation. There's no mention of any federal enforcement agency. This is just simply a question of what we do and don't want to permit in our city. And I believe that we do not want to permit non-municipal detention facilities. If you watch the hearing, it happened. And I know someone mentioned the size of our immigrant population. Again, I don't want us to narrow the scope of who could be detained. But also, I do come from a community that does have a lot of immigrants who I'm so happy to represent, who are great contributing members of our society, who run businesses, who have families, and deserve a place in within our city. And I think this legislation and our support of it will reinforce our support for them, and that we want to keep this city a place for all and not some. And we want to keep this conversation going about what we can do to truly protect all of our residents. Thank you. And with that, I would like to renew my motion. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the seventh, seconded by the alderwoman 13 that effect board bill 152 or sorry, 138. Uh, Madame Clerk, please call the role. >> Alderwoman Schwitzer, Alderman Oldenberg, >> Alderman Cole, >> hi. >> Alderman Norion, hi. >> Alderman Devote, no. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. Hi. Alderwoman Sier. Hi. >> Alderwoman Coxantu. Hi. >> Alderman Browning. Hi. >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Keys. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Tus. >> No. >> Alderwoman Boyd. >> Hi. >> Alderman Aldrich. >> Hi. >> President Green. I >> 12 I votes, three nos. >> By your vote, you sustain the motion from the alderwoman from the seventh to perfect board bill 138. >> That is the extent of board bills for perfection. >> Report of engrossment. >> Board bill number 119 as amended on the floor 155 66 committee substitute and 167. >> Third reading and final passage of board bill's consent. Board bill number 119 as amended on the floor. Board bill number 155 that is the extent of third >> third reading final passage of board bills consent. >> Alderwoman from the 10th. You are recognized on the motion to adopt the third reading and final passage of board bills on the calendar. >> Thank you madam president members of the board. I move that we adopt the third reading final passage of board bills on consent calendar. It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 11th that we third read and finally pass board bills on the consent calendar. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, madame clerk, please call the role. >> Alderman Schwitzer. >> Alderman Oldenberg. Alderman Con. Alderman Norion. >> Hi. >> Alderman Dvote. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. Hi >> Alderwoman Sonier. >> Hi >> Alderwoman Coxantu. >> Hi >> Alderman Browning. >> Hi >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard. >> Hi >> Alderwoman Keys. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Tyus. >> I >> Alderwoman Boyd. >> Hi. >> Alderman Aldrich. >> Hi. >> President Green. >> I. >> Alderman Old Odenberg. >> 14 I votes. >> By your vote. You have sustained the motion from the alderwoman from the tent to third read and finally pass the affordable bills. Third reading and final passage of board bills. >> Board bill number 66 committee substitute introduced by Alderman Con, President Green, Alderwoman Sier, and Alderman Aldrich. An ordinance amending chapter 3.160 of the revised code of the city of St. is by establishing definitions and criteria for the impact assessment of redevelopment projects as required by section 3.160.030 including a serability clause. >> Alderman from the third, you are recognized on the third reading and final passage of board bill 66 committee substitute. >> Thank you, Madame President. I I would move that we third read and finally pass board bill 66 committee substitute. It's been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderman seventh that we third read and finally pass board bill six comm substitute alderman. >> Uh thank you madame president. Uh this has been a bill of much discussion. I don't want to bel labor that any further and would just ask for your favorable consideration. >> Is there any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, uh madame clerk, if you could please. Been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderwoman seventh and we third read and finally pass board bill 66 committee substitute. Madam clerk, could you please call the role? >> Alderwoman Schwitzer, >> Alman Odenberg, >> Alderman Conn, >> I. >> Alderman Norion, >> hi. >> Alderman Devote, >> hi. >> Alderwoman Velasquez, >> hi. Alderwoman Sier. >> Alderwoman Cox and Twe. >> Alderman Browning. >> No. >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Keys. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Tus. >> I. >> Alderwoman Boyd. >> I. >> Alderman Aldrich. >> I. President Green >> I. >> Alderman Odenberg. >> 13 I votes, two nos. >> By your vote, you sustain the motion from the alder uh uh alderman from the third to third read and finally pass board bill 66 committee substitute. >> Board bill number 167 introduced by Alderman Aldrich. Alderwoman Cox Antui, an ordinance amending ordinance number 68481 to create a limited exemption for convention facilities within the city of St. Louis for certain private events or trade shows. The exemption applies only under specified circumstances and is intended to allow flexibility for convention related activities while maintaining the overall purpose and enforcability of existing regulations including a cability clause. Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the third reading and final passage of board bill 167. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move >> board bill 167. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 11th that we third read and finally pass board bill 167. Alderman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. think there was uh also like the alderman from the third said a lot of conversation around this bill um last week so I won't belver it too much and I renew my motion or I open up for any discussion >> alderwoman from the 12th >> madam president members of the board um I don't really have any inquiry from the alderman from the 14th I just want to say um I had I have done more um uh deep diving into this ordinance and especially about looking into and exploring smoking booths, which if you're going to do this exception, they ought to be in smoking booths. Uh if we're going to do an exception after all the work we've done over the last 35 years to get to a non-smoking, then it should be limited. And that if you want to try to uh get those people to come into a convention center, they have smoking booths that work much better than to say, "Well, uh we're going to let them smoke in the whole convention center or the part where they're having the convention, and by the way, the employees that would normally be working there cannot be can opt not to get paid. Why don't we, if we're going to do this, use us smoking?" That should be done. It should not be an open thing. Um, we can have them, we can use them when we need them, put them away. Um, but they uh uh restrict that smoke to a much smaller space. And it also gives the employees the option who obviously if they're working at the convention center more than likely need their paychecks to be able to collect a paycheck and not be exposed to smoke. um because I would not want my paycheck or my health to be uh I have to do um a weighing to figure out which one is better. Um when I was the chair of streets traffic and refuge, I actually took my committee to uh the tow lot and um we were investigating what was going on at the toll lot. But what I found is that the toll lot itself was so horrible that I told they need to file a complaint. If we don't require there to be uh booths, smoking booths, then I think that the people who work at the convention center should uh file a complaint because there's no reason for us to give a blanket exception to a law. And um again, I will be voting against this. I don't think this is a good idea. We're changing um something that we fought really hard for. Um and and and for all the people who sent us all the uh emails and stuff, we already get it. The people who voted know, we get it. It is very hard um on people's health for smoking and if we can do something to limit it even more that's what we should do. I have nothing else to say. Thank you. >> Any further discussion? Alderman from the ninth. >> So thank you. Um so my understanding is that uh this bill is intended to bring a new type of convention to the city. uh one that'll attract more econ economic activity for the city, get more people at the downtown. Um seeing our wonderful city, I love when people come and visit here and follow. Hello. There we go. Um I I didn't say anything last week because we were perfecting this bill and I understood that to be the intent and I do agree with the goal of of getting more people to come here and and experience our city. Uh but the debate last week did leave me with some questions and so um would the alderman from the 14th yield for questions. >> The alderman from the 14th yield to questioning from the alderman from the ninth. >> Yes. >> Alderman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Alderman. So, as I said, I I see the intent of this bill and I agree with it and even though I'm I'm not supporting it, um I wanted to dig into it a little further because I I do have some concerns that got brought up. Um, page two, line 10 of this bill says a convention facility as defined by this ordinance. How is convention facility defined in this ordinance? >> So, if you actually go to the original ordinance that amend by Aldwoman Cruen, there's several locations that are not being allowed to smoke in. In that ordinance, it does not say the convention center says convention facilities. So since we're amending the smoke clean air act, we're taking out convention facilities which would be the convention center. >> Okay. So I did go to that ordinance uh and I did look at it and it doesn't actually define convention facility. Uh so my this matters you know because the original convention facility in our city was actually Steifel Theater. Uh and without a definition I'm concerned that this exemption could really apply to other facilities. We also just passed a board bill earlier today. Uh we perfected it to create a new convention facility at 10th and Cass. exciting project, but it I'm concerned is there's a possibility that this could apply to other convention facilities. Uh furthermore, I think America Center is actually four different buildings and I am wondering which of those buildings or where this board bill would allow smoking within the uh America Center. >> So, it would allow it uh with it being exempted. It could be anywhere, but working with Brad Dean, just like where they hold their shows, they wouldn't go to the uh the uh the the stadium part of it and have people there having showrooms. They have designated showrooms um that Brad Dean has already identified to be able to use those showrooms to be able to have it. So, in the legislation, again, since the previous ordinance says convention facilities, it didn't say in the previous legislation also that when the American Center was around and this was passed that it can't be in this section of the convention center or that section, we're just appealing it so that it's very clear that it's appealed. But working with Brad Dean and the individuals that are going to do this, while the convention center in American Dome is very big, they know where they're going to have this and it's going to be in select uh rooms. And one of the things I want to bring up also because there's a narrative out there that oh well people that don't um that would be working wouldn't be able to work. If you actually read the legislation, it says prohibit working uh for people to opt out in the smoking designated area. There's going to be areas that is not designated smoking. So that would still allow workers who want to work for this convention to work but just not in a designated area smoking. So even though it's not here and they're not they're already losing out cuz it's not there. If this were to come, this would not stop employees from actually being able to work this convention. >> Okay. Putting putting that aside though, um I think multiple times last week it was said that this is a one-time exception. What language in the bill is pointing this being a one-time exception? My computer died. So, if you can entertain me as I pull the bill up on my phone. >> Sure, I'll entertain. Um, so again, quoting the the bill here, it says, "A convention facility is defined by this ordinance, but the ordinance doesn't define it. Uh, located within the city of St. may host a timelimited private and ticketed specialized convention involving on-site smoking activities only upon satisfaction of all requirements set forth in this subsection. Uh so it says time limited it doesn't say one time and my understanding is we're actually asking for exception so that a convention can come and can come year after year after year. Is that correct? That could be an option, Alderman. >> And part of the restrictions that are being put in place, the requirements of this is to also require the installation of uh it says installation and operation of temporary or permanent ventilation and air filtration systems designed to capture and exhaust tobacco smoke. Who would be paying for the installation of those types of >> It would be the convention center paying for that, not the city. the convention center through the money that they bring in. >> It would be through the money that they bring in and I believe you is at the specialist talked about that they would bring in those uh equipment to do the additional uh cleaning which they already have rooms that are sectioned off but they would be doing that on their own. So, I was curious about this because uh it was interesting that the other woman from the 12th was mentioning a different type of smoking mitigation device because when I looked into this um I I found a study that uh was actually done at Washington University. Uh it was done on secondhand smoke. It was published in Missouri Medicine, which is the journal for the Missouri State Medical Association. I'm going to not read the whole paragraph, but it ends with saying, "Our results show that ventilation systems are not effective in removing secondhand smoke from the air. Therefore, no policy should be adopted that exempts establishments based on the presence of ventilation systems." Uh, the concern I have is that this is a public building. The convention center is not included under our smoking bans because just for some reason, it's because it's a building that is accessible to the public and thus has a public health interest. So, I I do have concern for the employees. Uh, and while I I do hear you that said they can choose whether or not to work this event, that also means not potentially not getting a paycheck. Maybe they could go work another convention, but it's not a choice that I want to force on anyone. Smoking is a personal choice, but secondhand smoke is not. There has been a long history of smoking bills uh at the board of alderman, and I'm going to just go through that for a little bit. So, thank you, Alderman. I I'm done with my questions with you. Uh but I just like to get into this history. Uh in 188 in 1989, Freeman Bosley Senior started to try and ban smoking. and he did it right here uh in the aldermanic chambers where people were openly smoking back then. Uh and uh he he was quoted as saying, "I'm diametrically opposed to smoking, it kills you." He also said, "If we aren't willing to bite the bullet in city hall, we can't very well try to instruct the public." And that is a concern of mine, too. If we can provide an exception for ourselves, who are we to try to enforce public health in the rest of the city? In 1991, the board of alderman finally banned smoking in city- owned buildings, but they designated certain non-smoking areas and allowed other areas smoke. They wouldn't ban smoking in all city built until 2003. In 2009, they banned smoking in most public places effective in 2011, with some bars being able to continue for 5 years before those exceptions sunseted. So there's been this long linear progress moving in one direction and that has been in the direction of banning smoking in the interest of public health throughout our city. First here in the chambers, then in city hall with exceptions, then in public buildings and areas, then in private establishments with limited exceptions, and then even those expired after 5 years. The design was that fewer exceptions would be allowed in the future, not more. So, I understand the desire to bring more people to our city to experience everything great about St. Louis and contribute to our economy. I want St. Louis to be known for many wonderful things, but not allowing vices in our public buildings. I want St. Louis to be known for curing cancer, not allowing things that cause it. We cannot be hypocritical and make exceptions for ourselves while telling private industries what they cannot do. We cannot say we're four workers and then roll back regulations that protect their health. And we shouldn't go backwards undoing the work of previous authors like Freeman Bosley Senior and many more who did the hard work of moving our city forward. So I'm not supporting this bill today. I can't believe we're having this debate in 2026 when we know the dangers of secondhand smoke. The health risks of smoking are not up for debate. So why is this? Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the >> Thank you, Madame President. Um, I would just like to rise again uh since the debate on this bill has been raised. Um, and address some of the concerns that the alderman from the 9th brought up. Um, obviously with the convention center being shared from between the 14th ward and the eighth ward, uh, we have had extensive discussions and we had an extensive discussion on this bill just last week. Um, a couple of things I do want to clarify that uh, the altman from the ninth brought up with concerns about where conventions could take place and what this bill opens up for discussion. I think our city has a very clear policy on the authority and body that designates soliciting conventions and outside trade shows. And we know that those conventions are narrowly focused with Explore St. Louis's practices to the convention center itself. I understand there may be some ambiguity in the definition. Um, but I think as the alderman from the 14th mentioned, it is very clear where conventions are designated and where Explore St. Louis has the right to solicit and place conventions. And so I think it will be permanently clear that that is the convention center unless Explore St. Louis is authorized to solicit trade shows for other locations around our city. Um, and I also just want to mention too, um, again, I completely understand the concerns about optics as it relates to public health and public health, uh, is part of, I believe, public officials duty to make sure that we inform folks about proper decisions. At the same time, I think there is a thin line, as it was brought up last week, between making sure we give good instruction to public health and also making sure that we allow discretion and clarity between the types of events we're trying to have. I think there are many people that might consider alcohol or other things a vice. Yet, we know that St. Louis is well known from a business community for having a number of alcoholbased businesses that take place across our city and different events. So I do think it's important to delay in discretion where our authority lies and also where we allow people to have choice. And I think in what we've structured here with this bill is making sure that we don't necessarily rule out opportunities for business to come to our city and take place in the types of events, but rather make sure that we're protecting the interests of the residents and people that want to come that event by offering alternatives. As the alderman mentioned, if workers in the convention center do want not want to work this particular event, they do not have to do so. They can opt out. And I do think and I hear the alderman from the night's comments about whether ventilation things of that are effective. I won't pretend to be a engineering or public health expert and bel. But I do think the fact that the convention center is willing to make that investment is a protection of interest in the public health of the people if they choose to go to that convention or not. I also want to say um that again it is very clear with our intention of this event not to open any additional can of worms. We're not saying that the convention center will be a new location where the city of St. Louis is allowing people to smoke permanently. We are talking about potentially solid sitting a 3-day event. um which does not occur on an annual basis. By the way, we've talked to the folks that potentially would be hosting this event. They only host it every 3 to 5 years. So, we're talking about a very short time in a very short window. And again, making sure that we are putting in place those protections so that people that have concerns about this type of activity um will be able to have choice. And I think that's the importance here. I don't want to make this any bigger than what it is. And I do think it's important for us to make sure that we educate people about public health interests, but I don't think those considerations apply to what we're trying to do here with this bill. >> Alderman from the third. >> Thank you, Madam President. I uh was not uh anticipating speaking this afternoon um on the matter as I've already talked about this pretty extensively in both the committee and on the floor. Um, you know, my colleague from the 9inth uh enumerated a couple of my concerns or reiterated some of my concerns that I've shared previously. Um, but he did bring up a really important uh point which is that there is no definition of a convention center in this bill. Um, it refers to previous definition. If you look at the six-page bill of the original uh which is now, you know, law, there is no definition of a convention center in that either. Um, you know, that's not ambiguous. That is a lack of a definition. So, by virtue of what is in the existing board bill, you know, what is in there currently in this three-page document is a convention s facility as defined by this ordinance, which there is no definition located within the city of St. US may host a timelimited private and ticketed specialized convention and convention involving on-site smoking activities upon satisfaction of all requirements set forth in this subsection solely for the duration of the permitted event and trade show and shall not constitute a permanent exemption for the requirements of this ordinance. There's no definition of what that convention facility is. And so, exactly to his earlier point, there is, you know, other facilities either adjacent to or nearby that could host conventions and work with the CVC on conventions, hotels that have ballrooms, casinos that have ballrooms. These are entities that regularly work with the CBC on hosting events and conventions. There is no definition in here that specifically spells out, you know, and he's right. You know, right across the street on 14th and Clark, that's still a publicly owned building. Uh, you know, whether or not you want to get into the semantics of all of that is fine, but right now there isn't any to debate because there's not a definition and the original language of the bill defining what a convention facility is. And there's no definition in this existing bill that defines that either. You when we bring forth this legislation, it's important to make sure that we have definitions that define the parameters of what we're trying to do either within a section dedicated to definitions or in a whereas clause. And this has neither. Alderwoman from the 12th. Madam President, members of the board, um what the alderman from the ninth has pointed out is what's called poorly written legislation. And any non-smoker who's out there, let's get together, take this to court. It's poorly written legislation. and we can we can sue about this legislation. Um, when you have you're sponsoring a bill like this, this is the time that you put it on the informal and try to correct it, maybe bring it back. Um, I want to point out that the alderman from the ETH talked about what I think this I think that when you're speaking to legislation as the alderman from the third talked spoke to, you need to be able to go to that legislation and say it says this right here, not what you think. If you think that is poorly written legislation, we have so many times board of alderman uh done think and that's why we have head board of alderman kicked out of the um the uh city I mean I'm sorry the city sheriff's uh whole uh arrangement about if we could call for a a uh a um a election or not or if we could be part of the whole discussion because we don't understand how to fight good legislation. Alderman from the ninth is right. The alderman from the third is right. That is core legislation. And I heard the orderwoman talk about what I think. I think I always cringe when people say I think not point to what it says in the legislation because that means there's a problem the legislation. Also, as I heard her talk about, well, this is only going to be this short time, this short time. And so we are changing our whole entire smoking legislation which I've been a part of from when 1989 when I was a attorney with the public defenders when I was calling over when Freeman Bossley was passing and and fighting for this legislation saying what could I do to when I got here in 1991 and got to sit by the famous Freeman Bossley who became my mentor and we were coharts about the antismoking to watch this legis legislation rest as the author from the ninth has talked about so that we finally get rid of smoking only now we're going to open it up to something that only comes every once in a while because we're so uh desperate that we want any kind of of of uh event to be at the uh convention center. We not want of event. Again, every event is not a good thing to have. And as is with in politics, all money is not good money. I have never taken cigarette money. I have never taken liquor money. If I have had fundraisers because I did not want that. It's something that I want to be responsible. I would be part of the mothers against drunk driving, but I'm not a mother. I would be the person that is an antismoker and don't let people smoke in my house, in my car. And I I thought it was awful when we passed the legislation, we allowed for an exception for uh offices. That was awful. um we should have clean air. The fact that that we when we came back from the pandmic, we spent a lot of money on uh cleaning up the air in our chambers because we were frightened about uh or concerned at least about uh the pandemic and how we could u um uh be exposed to the pandemic. So we at some points were meeting over SLDC in the building, I'm sorry, LRA uh conference room. We went and met in room 208 and it took us a long time to get back to chambers because of our concerns. Um the cigar um convention is not enough for us to go back in time because once you start to pick at things, the next person will come along and say, "Well, they did it for the cigar convention, which only happens what, one, every two years or whatever." And they did it even though they don't have it. and they didn't try to put uh booths or anything that probably may work a little bit, but I I agree with uh the the alderman that it may not work as well as it should, but it would at least be another step. It's we're trying to find the cigarettes cigars is really a bad um it's a bad uh precedent and um it's a health issue. even talk I heard woman from Nate talk about liquor liquor is a health issue drink too much but in moderation it doesn't be and then when you drink liquor it doesn't affect me but when you smoke it can affect secondhand smoke can affect me the only way liquor affects me is that if you get in the car and drive drunk or you hurt somebody else but secondhand smoke can affect me and if it's filtered incorrectly it can affect me so they're not the same thing and if um so we should not be comparing liquor and cigarettes although um we could really cut back on we we have a timeline when you can now uh buy liquor and we didn't always have that we have a a law that holds we have a drram law that will hold the people who serve liquor to certain people responsible are we going to hold the convention center responsible somebody gets sick this is a bad ball I am antismoking for a reason even to the fact that we have marijuana we should not you My concern with the allowing marijuana is not the gummies or the brownies but the smoking. That's the same thing with cigarettes. Same thing with cigars. We health issue that has been a uh death of a lot of people and for us to then say uh oh we well that's okay we can have this exception. Um from the seventh talked about that uh in uh the sixth and the seventh about people who have certain concerns. I have a concern for people who don't smoke, don't want to change. Right now, they have a right. They have a right to work in the convention center and not be concerned with smoking. For us to come and change that is shameful. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves. We should even be and it's not worth especially when the alderman from the third points out that we could have these conventions at places that already have their own exception. It still would be in the city. It does not have to be the convention center. And I would like to request that if we're going to give this money that we take back the $30 million of the Rams money we gave to the convention center and then we gave them another $15 million of the ARPA funds uh uh interest that ought to be made to be repaid back cuz if we're going to support smoking they ought not to get a dime from from us. We ought to we we this is not good health. Uh this is not a healthy uh way to progress in our city. We were doing so well for so many years. Literally 1989, 2006, we have been taking steps the right way and now we want to carve chunks into it and say with these exceptions, it will not stop with this. We'll continue and and we don't need a convention that's not going to bring that much money anyway. And even if it is, our health uh important and it cost us more who get cancer or who get all kind of diseases from smoking. It cost us our health uh cost and even maybe even the rise in health insurance when we do these kind of things. The other thing that happens is insurance companies give non-smokers now into places where you work that may be smoking. So we have all the protocols. Are we really making um something more important than making money and it is is our health. We cannot take money with us when we go, but we hopefully will live a long healthy life if we practice good health practices. And allowing cigar smoke is not one of the things. And when you're smoking cigars, not only do you get cancer, you get the mouth and tongue and everything else. Um, so um it's just something we don't need to do and we don't need to defend as well. We can make a little money here and there and and and what if we don't get the conventions? Will we then use it for something else? And again back to the original point that the alderman from the ninth made. We do not this legislation. It is not to define. The alderman from the third followed up. It is poor legislation. And um the good thing is if you pass this hopefully we can get together as a group of people who are opposed to smoking and challenge it um because it's poor legislation. Thank you. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, alderman from the 14th, you're recognized to close. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Uh I hear all my colleagues uh you know, comments. I do want to uh talk about the bill a little bit, but do want to echo something that the alderwoman said. The same energy that we keep around not smoking. I've seen at least from this board encourage to go to events where there's drinking or we uplift Annheiser Bush who is one of our biggest uh drinking outlets that provides beer. We know that beer and alcohol also kill people right you know what whichever vice you want to choose but I want to be very clear that this in the language this is only again I think it's important for the facts I respect everyone when it comes to kind of the the making sure that we're not turning back the clock um and I think we made a lot of progression when it comes to health but the facts of it is even if you go back to the previous bill that was passed by alderwoman uh former alderoman Kusen you got a lot of definitions like elevator is not defined. Do we need to, you know, kind of define what an elevator is? There's a lot of things in that previous legislation that is not defined, but I think we're pretty clear of knowing what a convention facility is without saying the American dome that was not defined back then. Um, also on page two of three, we talked very clearly this is only for permitted per private events and trade shows. So, this is not an ongoing thing that would be happening at the convention center. You know, this has been something that has worked out with the convention center. To be very clear, this is a 3-day event that is looking to come in 2030. So, some of these questions that folks may have, please, let's get with Brad Dean to just put all those safety measures in. And I think what's is also important because I've heard the narrative continue to be put out there and after stating it on the mic uh I heard the ultimate from the 9th again say that workers won't be able to work this event which just isn't true. If you read the bill the last um language in the bill that is voted that says workers can work and opt out to be in the permitted areas that is smoking. So there is the ability for workers still to work the event where there is not ongoing smoking. Um and again I appreciate all the dialogue. Um I think this is going to be something good for the convention center. I think this is something that uh bring over thousands and thousands of people to other cities. Um this is something in correlation that we're talking with the convention center we thought could be great as we're trying to bring more attraction and bring more people to the city. Um, and with that, I renew my motion on board bill 67 >> 67. >> Roll call. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 11th that we third read and finally pass board bill 167. Madame clerk, please call the role. >> Alderwoman Schwitzer. >> Alderman Oldenberg. >> Hi. >> Alderman Con. No. >> Alderman Orion. >> Alderman Devote. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. >> No. >> Alderwoman Sonier. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Cox. >> Alderman Brownie. >> No. >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard. >> Hi. Alderwoman Keys. >> Alderwoman Tyus. >> No. >> Alderwoman Boyd. >> No. >> Alderman Aldrich. >> Hi. >> President Green. >> I. Autumn Devote, >> eight I votes, six nos, one abstain. >> By your vote, you sustain the motion from the alderman from the 14th to third read and finally pass board bill 167. >> That is the extent of third reading and final passes of board bills. >> Report of the finally passed and signed by the president. Board bill number 119 as amended on the floor. Board bill 155 66 committee substitute and 167 that is 16 report of all other b business being suspended. The president shall in open session affix her signature here to stand that these may become law. We have the same. >> Yeah. It's not even good enough to win. >> First reading, resolutions in reference to committees. >> We have none. >> Can dispense with line item 22. Second reading resolutions, committee reports and adoptions. >> Report from the HUD committee. Mayor appointments to the board of adjustments. Annie Grace, James Dallas, and Camello Desimon. >> Alderwoman from the 10th. You are recognized on Mayor Spencer's appointments to the board of adjustment. >> Thank you, Madam President. I move that we approve the mayor's appointments to the board of adjustment. >> Second. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointments to the board of adjustment. Is there any discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th. as I have for so many times and will continue. I oppose um not any particular person. In fact, one of the people my personal friend again we have a law on the books that says that when you make an American make more than a certain amount of appointees that they have to be spread out around the community. We have two people from South St. Louis and one person from the central quarter and none from the uh north St. Louis. This has continued now for the last 20ome odd years. We have not had people on the board of adjustment that live in south in North St. Louis. It is totally ridiculous. We had one person was a uh alternate that lived between Martin Luther King and uh Delmare. None that have been over 24 26 years that have lived uh north of Pa. It is ridiculous. should not be. Uh I've wrote wrote to several of the mayors about it. I have not written to this mayor, but I will be following up with this. Again, one of them is my personal friend, and I know it's a good person, but representation matters. And the fact that you can have a part of a community for over 24 26 years that cannot have anybody appointed to the board of adjustment is just plain wrong. And so I am voting no for that reason. Surely there's somebody that lives north of uh Paige that lives in the 11th ward uh the uh 12th ward the 13th ward that would merit being a member of the board of adjustment. How would you like people to make these decisions? And this follows what I say about the nuisances. That's why our nuisances are allowed cuz it's been the board of adjustment who have allowed this kind of thing to happen in North St. Louis cuz it's real easy to make that decision when you don't live any place near the the reckless and disregard of certain parts of the community. And so for that reason I will oppose it and ask for a roll call. >> Any further discussion? Alderman from the 14th. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Uh I just wanted to thank the individuals who came in front of the HUDs committee um this past week to kind of hear from them and figure out why they want to serve on the board. Um, I do think sometimes we forget the 14th award is north of Paige. And I'm glad to have somebody who lives north of Page who actually served on this board, Miss uh, Denine, who was also recently approved uh, through the HUDs committee a few uh, weeks ago. So, there is a member that is uh, north of Page that serves on the board of adjustment that lives in the 14th ward. Thank you. >> Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 11th >> out the board. Okay, there I am. Okay, thank you. So, uh I'm rising in support of uh uh Ald alderwoman Tyus's comments and there have been many times over the few years that I have been here at the board of alderman, but even more when I served as a committee woman uh in what was then the 21st ward for almost 15 years. This has been a constant and chronic complaint. I don't know why this is so hard for there to be people who live in what I call true north St. Louis to be on the board of adjustment. And my frustration has come from watching decisions be made about the place where I live and my constituents live that give no consideration to the people who actually live there. And so I will be opposed to this. Thank you. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Uh alderwoman from the 12th, is your hand back up again or is it up from the last time? It is back up again. I'm sorry. >> Okay. Uh then alderwoman from the 12th, you're recognized. >> Okay. I'm sorry. We're having a um Can you hear me? All right. Cuz all of a sudden it's delaying and going in and out. >> Yes. It's It's lagging a little bit here. We c it's lagging a little bit here, but we we can hear you. Okay. Um, I want to say that um, this is going to be real easy. We're going to get a map and show not only about the board of adjustments, but most all other major boards except for little boards that only pertain to something in your neighborhood. We don't exist. This is wrong. All of you all who think this is all right, this is wrong. Okay. So, um, uh, the automan from the 14th says, "You forget that, uh, the 14th ward is from is in North St. Louis. Most of it, a lot of it is not. Some parts of it are." Um, the auto from the 11th, I just said her ward is really an illegal ward. It runs across three neighbor uh, three different parts of the city. That's an legal ward that is not compact and contiguous. But the majority of North St. Louis is that part and the real that we always talked about North St. Louis was is in the 11th, 12th, and 13th and yet we cannot find one person that is uh suitable for these past mayors. And the last mayor is really egregious about this. I wrote her and I asked her uh why are you doing this? Why would you just continue to put Francis Slaves uh uh people and leave them there? Because he started this whole mess. We didn't have this under Vince Shamal. We did not have it under uh Frank Bosley. We did not have it under Clarence Harmon. It was Francis Slay that did this. Continues this will not have my support. If I can't have a major between the three of us cannot have a major position on the board of adjustment, I'm just done with okay because it makes no sense. And I've made this uh argument over and over. And as I said, Laida Crusen at least listened and said, "Oh my god." uh and start trying to do some other things. But when it comes to the board of adjustment, somehow you negroes over in this area do not admire representation and it is wrong. So we'll just get a map every time and we'll bring the map up and it's very easy to show that there's a whole part of the city that is being left out of major boards and speeches and it should stop with this mayor. she could reconsider. And as I said on several occasions, Denine Busby is a friend. Um I won't say the person that's here, but um there's a person on there now. But the friend of mine is not the point. The point of the law and the point of running in uh wards is to be represented in certain areas and we are being left out and it is wrong. So the maps will come out from known and again I will be opposed to this. Thank you. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved by the alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderman 14th that we approve Mayor Spencer's appointments to adjustment. There's been a request for roll call. Madame clerk, please call the role. >> Alderwoman Schwitzer. >> Alderman Odenberg. >> Hi. >> Alderman Cole. >> Hi. >> Alderman Norion. >> No. Alderman Orion, Alderman Devote, Alderwoman Velasquez. >> Hi, >> Alderwoman Sonier. >> Hi, >> Alderwoman Cox. >> Alderman Brownie. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Claude Hubard. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Keys. >> No. >> Alderwoman Tus. >> No. >> Alderwoman Boyd. >> No. Alderman Aldrich. >> I, >> President Green, >> I. >> 12 I votes, three nos. >> By your vote, you sustain the motion from the alderwoman from the tent to approve Mayor Spencer's appointment to the board of adjustment. Resolution number 197 committee substitute introduced by Alderwoman Sonier, Alderwoman Clark Hubard, Alderwoman Schwitzer, Alderwoman Boyd, Alderman Browning, Alderwoman Coxantu supporting urgent quick bill safety improvements along Gravo Avenue. >> Madame Clerk, if you could please make sure I'm also a co-sponsor on 197. So noted. >> Thank you, Alderwoman. From the seventh, you are recognized on the second reading resolution 197. Thank you, Madame President, members of the board. Um, I this resolution um has been talked about quite a while. I know many members of this body saw me announce a Gravaway corridor town hall that was held by myself and various others who um touched Gravaway. Um this resolution is proposing quick build uh quick build traffic calming measures um which are very kind of easy to put in place, very inexpensive and are also good for trial period. see how things work or and are in place across our city. Um, and with that, I would like to make a motion to accept. >> Second. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 7th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we adopt resolution 197. Alderwoman, you may proceed. >> Thank you. Um, I just kind of gave a lot of what I had to say. The only other thing I would just like to say is I really am appreciative of the very collaborative conversations we've been able to have. several alers Mo died uh CP2 which is a group of residents that I would absolutely charge them and thank them for their advocacy coming to us and saying hey we know that this big improvement is planned for 2029 people are dying now so we would like to know if there's anything that can be done now and then I would just thank my colleagues Mo Dot Mr. Nelson from the streets department for us sitting down and coming up with these concepts and I look forward to us being able to put them in place and see how they work. >> Alderwoman from the six. >> Can you please add me as a co-sponsor? >> Please make note of that. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved by the alderwoman from the 7th, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we adopt resolution 197 committee substitute. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. >> Resolution number 266 introduced by Alderwoman Swicer, President Green, Alderman Browning, Alderwoman Clark Hubard, and Alderwoman Cox Cox Entry and Alderwoman Boyd. opposing Missouri Senate Bill 1586 and supporting the continued local administration of solid waste management districts. >> Alderwoman from the first, you are recognized on the second reading of resolution 266. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I move to second read and adopt resolution 266. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the first, seconded by the alderwoman the eth that we adopt resolution 66. Alderwoman, you may proceed. Thank you, Madame President, members of the board. Uh earlier this week in the public infrastructure and utilities committee, we had a great conversation about this. What this resolution does, very similar to a recent resolution we passed by this body, is oppose Senate Bill 1586. And like the House bill that we already uh voiced our opposition of, this Senate bill is going to try to well it's going to dissolve the local solid waste districts which if you are familiar with Earth Day 365, the Green Dining Alliance, so many other um organizations in our community that are handling so much waste product in St. Louis. All of these nonprofits basically rely on this funding which is from local landfill tipping fees going to the 20 solid waste districts across the state and allowing for uh so much waste to be handled locally. Um which makes a lot of sense. Uh so this would uh the Senate bill would dissolve the local waste districts and put much more power in the hands of the state uh around this uh landfill tipping fee costs which I will say you know the state does need money to handle landfills across the state and to handle waste. Um but dissolving the solid waste districts is not the way to do it. So I appreciate your time and the unanimous support um from the public infrastructure and utilities committee uh and I hope to earn your support today. Uh this bill has left committee uh in the Senate and is on the floor for perfection. So there is some urgency to get this out today and get this opposition to uh the Senate. So thank you for your time. >> Alderwoman from the seventh. >> Thank you Madam President, members of the board. Um I did get a chance to hear that robust conversation. I completely agree with the older woman first in the resolution and would like to request to be added as co-sponsor. >> Madame clerk, please make note of that. >> So noted. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the six. >> Thank you. Please add me as a co-sponsors. >> Madame clerk, please make note of that. >> So noted. >> Any further discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved by the alderwoman from the first, seconded by the alder woman from the eth that we adopt resolution 266. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. That is the extent of second reading. Resolutions, committee reports, and adoption. >> Alderwoman from the seventh, you are recognized on the motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolutions 72 and 273. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I would like to make a motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of introducing resolutions 272 and 273. It's been moved by the alderwoman from the seventh, seconded by the alderwoman from the eth that we suspend the rules to introduce resolution 272 and 273. This is a non-debatable motion. Madam clerk, please call the role. >> Alderwoman Schwitzer, >> hi. >> Alman Oldenberg, >> hi. >> Alman Con, >> hi. >> Alderman Orion. Alderman Devote. Hi. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. Hi, >> Alderwoman Sonier. Hi, >> Alderwoman Cox. Alderman Brownie. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Keys. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Tyz. >> I. >> Alderwoman Boyd. >> I. >> Alderman Aldrich. >> I. >> President Green. >> I. >> 15 I votes. >> By your vote. You sustain the motion from the alderwoman from the 7th. Madam clerk, if you could please place resolutions 272 and 273 at the end of the courtesy resolutions calendar. >> So noted. >> Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adopt the courtesy resolution calendar. >> Madam present. >> Oh, alderwoman from the first. >> Uh, thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I would move to make resolution number 269 in bank. >> It's been >> objection. Okay, there has been an objection to the motion to make it in bank. Um, sorry, what was the >> 269? It's honoring Eagle Scout in my community. >> Okay. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I withdraw my objection. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Alderwoman from the 12. So uh with that there was a motion from the alderwoman from the first and seconded by the alderwoman from the 7th that we make resolution 269 in bank. All those in favor signify by saying I. I >> opposed. Motion carries and alderwoman from the first. >> Thank you. Uh similarly to resolution 269 for the same purpose I would like to uh make a motion to make resolution number 270 in bank. Second. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the first, seconded by the alder uh woman from the seventh that we make resolution 270 in bank. Is there any discussion? This is another Eagle Scout. For those who are following along, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Alderwoman from the 10th. May I please be added as a co-sponsor to resolution 273? >> Uh, madame clerk, if you could please make note of that. >> So noted. >> Alderwoman from the eighth. >> May I also be added as a co-sponsor to resolution 273. >> Madame clerk, please make note of that. >> So noted. >> Alderwoman from the seventh. >> I would also request to be added as a co-sponsor to resolution 273. >> Please make note of that. >> So noted. >> Alderwoman from the 10th. You are recognized on the motion to adopt the courtesy resolution consent calendar. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move that we adopt the courtesy resolution calendar. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 10th, second by the alderwoman from the 7th that we adopt the courtesy resolent calendar. Is there any discussion? Alderman from the 14th. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. I just wanted to uh thank the ones who signed on in 273 um honoring Mr. Otis Williams and his leadership and service to St. Louis SLDC again um as he came back. Uh today is his last day uh with us with the city of St. Louis. I know he's having a going away event um from 2 to 4 I think at the mini pitch. Just want to give him a huge thank you uh for coming back and and kind of filling in the void and helping out uh with the SLDC as he done in the past. And also I want to acknowledge his body has passed a previous resolution but the individual was not here. We also passed a resolution acknowledging our very own Elliot Davis for all the great work that he's done in the city of St. Louis. So two amazing great individuals. I just want to uplift on those resolutions. Thank you madam clerk. Madam president >> you any further discussion? >> Alderwoman from the seventh. >> Uh thank you madam president members of the board. Um, I would like to a motion to embank resolution 272. >> There's uh it's been moved by the alderwoman from the 7th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 11th that we embank resolution 272 honoring Lane Foreman. Uh, alderwoman from the 12th. Was there >> I'm sorry. And I, Madam President, did we already vote on this? Are we going back and trying to embank after we voted? >> No, we we have not. There um there's been a motion to adopt, but we have not voted on it yet. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Second. >> All right. So, it's been moved by the alder woman from the 7th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 11th that we embank Resolution 272. Is there any discussion on the motion to embank 73? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, it has been moved by the alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 7th that we adopt the court resolution consent calendar. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Miscellaneous and unfinished business. We have none >> announcements. >> Tuesday, March 24th, sorry, Wednesday, March 25th, 2026, budget and public employee, 6 p.m. in the Kennedy room. >> Any further announcements? Any further announcements? Alderwoman from >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Since this is our last meeting um before the end of the month, I want to announce our 10th board 101 that we have every last Monday of the month. uh as we move it around the entire ward, all eight neighborhoods to be accessible this month will be Monday, March 30th, uh at the regular time at 6:30 p.m. It'll be at Union Avenue Christian Church. That's located at 70 um think 75 or 70 73 73 Union Boulevard. Uh this meeting will have our collector of revenue, Greg Daly. Um of course myself, the neighborhood improvement specialist representation from the second um St. Louis Metropolitan Police District who I had the pleasure of sharing time with yesterday. Thanks to Alderman Devoteation for their business lunchon and got to meet uh my new second district captain Abashan. Thank you for your service. and also um our neighborhood improvement specialists. Uh in addition to that, we will have Laura again um from the St. Louis recovery and vacancy offices here in the city of St. Louis as well as the building um divisions, building inspector supervisor will be there to talk about the upcoming demolition here, not just uh from the tornado, but even some of the demolition that we're catching up on prior to 10 months ago, May 16th, when the tornado hit. So, um I'm excited to have this meeting this month. The bigger reason also is because the intentionality and why we're choosing this space, um for the first time in the history of Union Avenue Christian Church, there is an African-American female pastor at Union Avenue Christian Church, Reverend Levetta J. Ross. excited to welcome her, continue to serve and see how we can help her in the neighborhood and that church that sits as a pillar there um of hope and light on the corner of Union and Delmare. So again, don't forget our 10th Ward 101, Monday, March 30th, 6:30 p.m. at Union Avenue Christian Church, 7:33 Union Boulevard under the direction of Reverend Letta Ross. I hope to see you there. >> Any further announcements? Alderman from the 14th. >> Thank you, Madame President and members of the committee. Um, I wanted to announce since we are thinking of ways to support our convention center on Saturday the 28th. We are kicking off. The Battlehawks are back in St. Louis. Kaka and I am inviting everybody out to the kickoff. The convention center is shared between myself and the older woman of the eighth ward. Um, we have the best XFL team. We sell out uh and have the most people that come out to the game. So, in spirit of continuing to make sure that our American center is vibrant, please come on out to the official game of uh the Battlehawks, which will be next Saturday, March the 28th. Kaka, Alderwoman from the ETH. >> Thank you, Madam President. I just wanted to announce and wish the best of luck to all the teams playing in the NCAA tournament which is taking place in St. Louis. St. Louis is proud to host host the first round games this weekend here at the Enterprise Center. So there will be lots of exciting activity downtown taking place this weekend along with those games and I wish all the teams best of luck. Any further announcements? Any further announcements? So I would like to say go bilicans. On that note, um woman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to >> Thank you, Madame President. Members of the board, all members were present this morning. >> Alderwoman from the 10th, you are recognized on the motion to adjurnn. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move that we adj till Monday, April 20th, 2026 in the board of alderman chambers for signing die. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 10th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 7th that we adjourn until Monday, April 20th, 2026 in the board of alderman chambers for snee die. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. >> Motion carries. We are adjourned. Yes. >> Thank you. >> Not too bad. >> It was long, wasn't it?