The board will now come to order. Madame clerk, please call the role. Alderwoman Schwitzer, Alderman Odenberg, Alderman Conn, Alderman Norion, Alderman Devote, Alderwoman Velasquez, Alderwoman Sonier, Alderwoman Coxantu, Alderman Browning, Alderwoman Clark Hubard, Alderwoman Keys, Alderwoman Tyus, Alderwoman Boyd, Alderman Aldrich, President Green, >> I are present, >> Alderman Odenberg, Alderwoman Velasquez, >> Alderman Odenberg, I can't either. I can't hear. >> I can't hear. >> Those on my can't hear. >> Alderman Old Odenberg. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. >> Who's the Got it on? >> Alderwoman Sier. Alderwoman Cox and Twe. >> Uh, I can't hear them. I can hear you, Pam. >> I'm assuming they're rolling. >> You keep calling around. >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard, Alderwoman Keys, Alderwoman Tus, Alderwoman Boyd. Somebody Okay. Alderman Aldrich. Alderman Odenberg. >> Hey, sweet. >> Hey, we can see you. We're trying to get the volume worked out. So, we can't hear you all. You can't hear us. So, we're working on that. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. >> Thanks, Pam. >> You're welcome. I was like, I see mouth moving, but I don't hear anything coming out. >> We are having a few technical difficulties on our end. Apologies to those who are online at the moment. We can't hear you and are trying to figure that out. >> Okay, >> we just heard you try speaking. >> Ottoman Odenberg >> present. There we go. >> Alderwoman Velasquez, Alderwoman Sier, Alderwoman Cox Antweee, Alderwoman Clark Hubard, >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard here. Alderwoman Keys. Alderwoman Tyus >> present. >> Alderwoman Boyd >> present. >> Alderwoman Sier. Alderwoman Cox. Alderwoman Keys. We have 11 present. Is she present? Alderwoman Sier >> 12 present. >> A cororum being present will be led in an opening reflection by city of St. Louis treasurer Adam Lake in honor of National Financial Literacy Month. >> [sighs and gasps] >> Good morning to everyone, especially those who call St. Louis home. My name is Adam Lane and I have the pleasure of serving as a treasure of the beautiful city of St. Louis. I want to thank the board of alderman for having me. I want to thank you, President Green, and all the staff here at the board of alderman that make our city's legislative process possible. I want to wish everyone a happy financial literacy month. The time we take every year to put emphasis increasing financial literacy, promoting financial well-being, and ensuring access to the financial tools necessary for everyone, all, not some, to realize economic success. My vision is that we have a city and its citizens financially fit. And I'm proud of the work that we've been doing in our office of financial empowerment to ensure just that. Over the years, we've been able to support tens of thousands of St. Louisans get banked for the first time, begin their home buying journey, increase their credit scores, and grow their economic potential. With our focus on whole home financial literacy, we've been able to open over 20,000 bank accounts for young people in St. Louis in kindergarten, meaning that they'll have 13 years of a positive banking relationship. All this is in efforts to break generational cycles of poverty and narrow the gap between the halves and the have nots. Last year, we kicked off our inaugural St. Louis Saves Week, which had the goal of making sure that St. Louis residents and employees right here in city hall and across all of our city departments could set realistic savings goals and get the support needed to meet those goals. Over 150 city employees took the pledge and collectively committed to saving over $700,000 to buy a home, to reduce debt, to care for their loved ones, to support their children's futures, or to simply start a good financial habit. I appreciate them all, not only for taking the pledge, but for trusting me in my office and my team to support them along their individual journey. But a budgeting workshop can't undo decades redlinining. A savings workshop can't erase discriminatory lending practices that saturate long-standing policies perpetuated by financial institutions to this day. A financial counseling session in April is not going to repair my roof that was destroyed last May. One month in April every year cannot combat historical disinvestment in St. Louis's most marginalized communities. St. Louisans are waking up every day unsure of what the economic burden of tomorrow will bring. I can create the most perfect budget, but if our overseas war is going to bring ga gas prices from 269 to$469 overnight, going over budget is not me being bad with money. Going over budget is me making sure that I can get to work and that my kids can get to school. When tariffs increase the cost of essential products and rising costs make the price of a grocery basket increase by a rate that outpaces my earnings, spending that extra money to make sure my family can eat doesn't mean that I'm bad at managing my resources. It means that my country is hindering my ability to live. Trying to survive in an economy where costs are going up exponentially and wages remain unchanged is an economy that sets a majority of us up for failure. Sometimes this financial outlook looks hopeless and I am hopeful when I see our local legislators like you all advocating for increased wages for our city employees. I encourage I am encouraged when I see our city legislators advocate for a livable wage in our city, in our state, and in our country so that working families don't have to struggle to meet their basic needs. I am hopeful when I see that this board has a champion in Shamim Clark Hubard who advocated for a basic guaranteed income program at the city and her colleagues in this room supported to allow us to put a program for that supported over 500 St. Louisans with deep financial needs. I thank this board for the work that you have all put in time and time again to make sure that the people of St. Louis can live their best economic lives. I thank you for your advocacy here in our state capital to ensure that policies put forward do not set households back and that decisions are made to make sure that our citizens can live at an economic advantage. April may just be a month, but it allows us to build momentum for a movement. And like I said, I am hopeful through the advocacy and legislation put forward by this body that the work in our office, the work in our local financial institutions, our community organizations, and our partnerships are going to move the conversation about economic prosperity forward. I am very hopeful and I'm very thankful and I thank you all of you uh here legislating on a daily basis for St. Louis citizens and I appreciate all the work that you all do and I I thank you for giving me this time here to speak to you all today. Thank you and happy financial literacy month. We can dispense with line item four. Are there any introduction of honored guests? Any introduction of honored guests? Alderman from the 14. Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Today, as my honor guest, I want to have the hardworking men and women of our fire department, especially individuals. I got to make sure I get it right. from uh local 73 that continues to make sure that we are safe every single day. Uh their job is very thankless, but it is a great appreciation for all the great work that they do. So, if uh the board of alderman can have the firefighters as my honored guests on the first day, I would greatly appreciate it. >> Any further introduction of honored guests? Any further introduction of honored guests? Seeing none, we can also dispense with line item six as there is no approval of the minutes. 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 review. >> We have no bills on any of our informal calendars. So we may dispense with line items 8 through 11. First reading of board bills. >> We have none. Can dispense with line item 12. Reference to committee of board bills. >> We have none. >> Dispense with line item 13. Second reading. Report of standing committees. >> We have none. >> Can dispense with line item 14. Uh report of special committees. >> We have none. >> We can dispense with line item 15. Perfection consent calendar. >> We have none. >> We can dispense with line item 16A. Uh board bills for perfection. >> We have none. >> We can dispense with line item 16B. Report of engrossment. >> We have none. We can dispense with line item 17. Third reading and final passage of board bills consent. >> We have none. >> Dispense with line item 18A. Third reading and final passage of board bills. >> We have none. >> We can dispense with line item 18B. Reported the finally passed and signed by the president. >> We have none. >> We can dispense with line item 19. First reading resolutions in reference to committee. >> Resolution number one introduced by President Green, Alderman Conn, and Alderman Aldrich. Board of Alderman rules. >> Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the first reading of resolution number one. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move to perfect resolution one. >> Do you want to ask for >> I ask for unanimous consent on resolution number one. >> Hearing no objection, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move to now perfect resolution number one. >> Adopt resolution number one. >> Adopt resolution number one. It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the third that we adopt resolution number one. Alderman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Resolution number one that is in front of us is the proposed or it will be the document that we govern with our rules at the board of aldermen. Um I do want to thank uh director deputy director chief engracia for sending out kind of a fact sheet that I'll read about. This year there's not many uh rule changes. If anything, there's not none at all. Uh what we did, if anything, we improved consistencies when it come to the rules as well as removing crossover reference numbers of rules that recognize the rules and changes. We correct some mechanics and some small errors that was in our rules and added some language to the appendix as well as we are allowing for bills and resolution to be submitted both either through Microsoft Word or Google Docs. Um I am going to go through a couple of the rules that was just updated not necessarily changed but um updated to be a little bit more clear. So on rule six that talks about our regular and special meetings. We added extra uh regular meetings were added to provide a mechanics for additional meetings to be added to the session calendar that will move the full agenda forward. As well as we uh included language around special meetings are now limited to an agenda for only urgent and currently defined items. Um, we know we caught a lot of special meetings last year. Just clarifying that if a special meeting is needed, it is due to uh uh urgency. Rule 19 withstanding committees uh and legislation and rules, we added language that will only engross bills that have been changed via amendment committee substitute or floor substitute. And there's some explanation with that under rule um 28 or 68 and 70. And rule 20 and personnel and administration committee we added a provision was added to clarify that the personnel administration committee serves as a human resource uh authority of the board of alderman. As we do the hiring and firing at the board of aldderin uh we are kind of that human resource. If there is an issue with a staff member, any staff member uh can always come to personnel to make that complaint. But just to be very clear that the personnel and administrative committee is the human resource uh body of the board of alderman rule 22 and committee meeting order of business and rules. Uh we added that written testimony items may be addressed prior to the vote. We didn't say shall. There has been some um issues during committee where a written testimony is uh skipped, not necessarily on purpose. I will say I've been one of those individuals that have done it on accident, but we just want to make sure that uh the written testimony and that uh people's uh input when it comes to the testimony is actually being heard on those pieces of legislation. Uh as well as on um resolutions that come in front of the committee. uh that written testimony is an item that may be addressed prior to the vote. Rule 24, committee subs, it fix mistake and link section two and three together uh in that rule. It was just uh trying to combine those. They kind of overlap saying the same thing. Rule 68, perfection uh perfection bills uh was only being referred to legislation rules if they had been amended or were perfected via committee on the floor substitute prior to our rules. There is charter language in article 4 section 15 uh that amends to be engrossed. All amendments adopted shall be incorporated with the bill. Uh all engrossments under this section of the committee shall report to the written such engrossment. So again this goes back to if there is a change to a bill on the floor, it is in the charter that technically we supposed to engross bills. if there's any changes. Bills will only be engrossed if a change is made during kind of the amendment process on the floor. Rule 70 uh talks about the engrossment where we eliminate the requirement that all perfected bills are engrossed and instead confronts the charter um language by limiting engrossment bills that uh to be amended after its introduction. Rule 71, no amendments after perfection or engrossment unless adding language that process will remain the same whether the bill is either perfected. And then in the appendix D, uh under the media access, we added language that says any credentials for media of denial approval has to go to the legislation and rules. Um, instead of personnel administration committee, when we passed the rules last year and we came up with rules for our uh, credentials for media, we had them going to personnel administration. Um, but also the approval of the credentials go to legislation and rules. So, we just wanted to be consistent that it should be only one committee uh, if there's a denial or approval of the rules and not trying to separate them with two different committees. And with that, that was uh the the small changes that we made in the rules. Again, if anything, it was more cleanup. There's no new rule uh that was added to our rule book that changes the structure of the board of alman. But just clarify some things that wasn't clear uh in our rule book. And with that, I would open up for any questions for my colleagues. And I believe we have some amendments as well. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 12th. >> So, you spoke so fast that you couldn't hear most of what you were saying, but um I want to uh understand again what you are saying about in um the engrossment of >> Alderwoman from the 12th, can you pause for one second? We're having trouble hearing you again, but we think it's an issue on our end. If you can just pause for one second. >> Yes. Thank you. Okay. Alderman from the third. >> Madam President, may I uh I'd like to make a motion that we recess for 10 minutes while we try to figure out the >> It's been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderman from the fourth that we recess until we get the sound system issues worked out here for about 10 minutes. Um, Madame Clerk, could you please call the role? >> Alderwoman Schwitzer, >> hi. >> Alderman Odenberg, >> I. >> Alderman Conn, >> I. Alderman Norion, Alderman Devote, Alderwoman Velasquez, Alderwoman Sier, Alderwoman Coxantu, Alderman Browning, Alderwoman Clark Hubard, >> I. Alderwoman Keys. Alderwoman Tus >> I. >> Alderwoman Boyd >> I. >> Alderman Aldrich. President Green. >> I. >> Alderwoman Sonier. >> Alderwoman Coxantu. Alderman Browning. >> 13 I votes. >> By your vote. You sustain the motion. We are going to go into a short recess. My understanding STL TV needs to reboot the system to try to get our sound working. Um, so should only h uh happen for about 10 minutes or so. And we are back. We will uh pick up with where we left off which was with the alderwoman from the 12th. >> Oh, sorry. We need to first take a motion to return from recess. >> Second. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the first, seconded by the alderman from the third that we return from recess. Uh, Madame Clerk, please call the role. >> Alderwoman Schwitzer. Alderman Odenberg. >> I. >> Alderman Con. Hi. >> Alderman Orion. >> Alderman Devote. Hi. Alderwoman Velasquez, >> Alderwoman Sier, >> Alderwoman Coxantu, Alderman Browning, >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard, >> Alderwoman Keys, >> Alderwoman Tyus, >> present. Oh, I I'm sorry. >> Alderwoman Boyd, >> I. Alderman Aldrich. >> President Green >> I. >> Alderwoman Coxantu. >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard >> I. >> Alderwoman Keys. >> 12 I votes one no. With that, we are returned from recess and we will pick up uh where we left off, which is with the alderwoman from the 12th. So, alderwoman from the 12th, you're recognized. >> Um, yes. I was asking uh if the alderman from the 14th would yield regarding um the rules. >> The alderman from the 14th yield to the older woman from the 12th. >> Yes. >> Alderwoman, you may proceed. Um, and I also want to say I keep hearing chatter in the background, so I don't know if that somebody has their mic open or not. Um, and all of a sudden I don't see the board anymore. Okay. Anyway, can you hear me? >> I can. >> Okay. I don't see you alderman at all. So, I just see two pictures of me up here. But anyway, so I was want to I wanted to ask you a question regarding your statements about the rules changing with engrossment, but you were speaking so fast I couldn't understand what is the change for the engrossment that you say is is uh occurring in the rules that as they are presented before us today. >> Yes ma'am. Thank you for that question. So what we're doing is uh when it come to engrossment is actually going to be following the charter language that is in section four article 4 section five that says >> I know where it is. >> Well do you want to continue? >> I'm just saying I understand that. >> Well if you don't I know I know you may not but it's for the general public that maybe don't know where it is. So if I could continue charter language again in article 4 section 5 it talks about uh when it comes to engrossment that engrossment only happens when uh amendment when and it's amended the bill is amended. So what we're going to do moving forward is only do engrossment when a bill is either com uh amended from its original form. also a committee sub or if it's amended on the floor or um those would be the only times that we will now request that the bill go to engrossment to actually follow uh what the charter says um when it comes to engrossment. >> Okay. So other than that there will uh there will be no checking to see if the bills are correct if it's not not a committee sub or a floor sub. Is that what I'm understanding? If it's a committee sub, that would be part of engrossment. If it's a floor [snorts] sub, that also anytime that the bill changes from its original for form, committee sub, floor sub would also will go through the engrossment process. If the bill comes out of committee as its current process and go to the floor as its current process and is never changed, it will not go through the engrossment process. >> Okay? And I want to say to you, that's a big mistake. I'm a rules person. Um, the best rules we've had for the last 10 years was when I was the chair of rules. Anybody that was here will tell you. And the reason why is because there were so many mistakes. The committees don't do a good job of reading the board bills. Of course though, if you just sign it without having hearings, it doesn't make any difference, which is what we've been doing. But the real reason of having engrossment um with all the bills was because there were so many mistakes. In fact, while I was the chair, we had to bring Dale Rat and uh Mr. Jamie Wilson in, not Jamie, Mr. Wilson in um to um have a meeting with us to just go over the rules and and I mean the bills that were were uh had so many errors in them. And in fact, the most errors came from HUD when Joe Roie was the chair. every other thing. We would have pages and pages of mistakes and that is an embarrassment when it gets passed and we have everybody sign off into it and then there are so many things. You really do need to not just only have an engrossment committee, they need to go over it and they need to have the meeting like twice to make sure everything is right. And I'll give you uh an example. the stadium, the current soccer stadium, Bill. Um, and Bill Couling and, um, who was the other person that came before us? Um, oh, I think it was Dave. Well, our former Dave Sweeney might have been the other lawyer, but both of them. And it came out of committee with so many mistakes that over the weekend, we had to work to redo that bill and correct all the mistakes and errors. So you may think that is a good idea, but what would be a better idea is that you actually had a committee that met and went over those rules and cleaned them up um so many times um engrossed me caught that um we perfected a bill and then third read it and it had not gone to ENA. So it was not legal and I had a whole string of bills that we had to reintroduce and redo because it was not legal. So, um I think this is um I know and it doesn't say you can only do it. It says that's when it's done. But the reason why and even before I came when they used to do it the correct way and they had stopped doing it years ago. But when they originally put that into effect, it was to make sure that we had correct board bills that left out of uh the board of alderman that we could be proud of. and the clerk and I worked at that time, clerk Kennedy and I worked um a lot to make sure that that happened and the committee that we had um we worked really hard. So, I think that's mistake to change the rules like that. But as I've seen the last year or so, we haven't had any rules meetings, people just signing off on stuff. But there are so many mistakes in our bills. There are so many things that are incorrect that if anybody takes this stuff to um to court, we're going to be an embarrassed group of people. Um so I think that's a mistake for that reason. Not cuz I need to do it, but the board of alderman needs to have a better appearance of what we put out. And that's correct. So just become a just because it comes out of the committee, it should be correct. It should in committee be correct enough so that it could be um signed by the president. But it's not. And we know that because just since you've been here, we had a whole bill come out uh that the alderman from the forth sponsored about um changing the the excise and liquor uh licenses and um the rules about around excise and from page one it had mistakes. So the bills only as good as the committee and the engrossment um committee was something that was a final step to make sure that we were getting our bills right. If we had not if I had not caught it on the floor cuz I do read a lot of the bills that bill would have went into law and it would have meant absolutely nothing. And there are some that have done that because the committees do not read the um the bills. And if we're going to do that, I still think we need a final step of submitting it to some place to make sure it is correct. And if it's not going to be a committee, which it should be, then maybe our lawyer could spend his time going over these bills [laughter] to make sure they're correct. You should not have a uh get rid of that. That is greatly needed. It's like getting rid of your tax account or something like that. So, I am opposed to that for for the reasons that our committees do not send good bills out that are correct and we need somebody as a final kind of a uh final authority to make sure they are correct. >> Thank you. >> No, I agree. All woman >> Go ahead. I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> No, I agree. Um, I know there's a kind of a commitment uh from the clerk and the staff to be, you know, looking over these bills and I know we're in a transition right now, but one thing that I agree with, you know, as we move forward in this legislative session that I would love to see between our legal clerk and our legislative uh researcher is um and this something that I'm um asked to be on agenda without going to detail personnel is how do we have our our legal work with our clerks to be able to catch um the bills on the front end. Um as we have uh a legal clerk as well as a legal researcher to actually be helping out with the clerk and um hopefully there'll be a deputy clerk coming very soon to catch these on the front end even before we get to a place um of the bill actually changing. So that is definitely on my radar uh as somebody at the board to make sure that legal is looking at these on the front end with our clerk and hopefully be full staff soon with filling the deputy clerk as well. >> So I will tell you that the clerk has enough to do and that's going to be hard um to do. Um and what I'm telling you is is when we have a lot of new alderman, they don't know what a good board bill looks like. Um, also we had the problem um that they put a lot of blanks in board bills that should have been filled in and I started making them come back and fill them in. These are all the things we're a legislative body and people may not like it but we're supposed to go by rules and be fair. We're supposed to be accurate and we're supposed to present something to the public that we are going to be proud of. I can look at these last 30 years and I can guarantee you a lot of our legislation we are not proud of just with the mistakes that are in them. And if we don't insist on having people um look at them correctly and and and give a critical eye and make sure it presents the best uh foot forward for the board, shame on us. The president knows about it because when I was the chair, I made her my vice chair and we did go over stuff. Um who else? Nobody else here I guess was on it. But it was also a good place for new people to come and learn the rules. And I took time to try to teach new people the rules so that you're not sitting around here going along with stuff that doesn't even make any sense at all because you don't know anything. You just want to be the chair of a committee and you don't know anything. And so I find it really sad. It's hard for me to sit down here and watch this board of alderman operate because we do not operate as a legislative body and we are a joke out in the community oftent times when people talk to me because we don't get it right and we're not about trying to be inclusive and to be fair and to do good legislation. We make a deal but we don't know what half of the stuff means. We don't know when there's a big blank in the middle of a document that that was supposed to be filled in. And Dell Rousac got really upset with me when I brought him over. And then later we had the conversation and he was like, "Well, we didn't know it was this many mistakes." Well, before it even comes to the board of alderman, SLDC should be making sure that the board bills are right. But they didn't. And they didn't care about leaving gaps. And then Joe Roie and his committee didn't care about it. They didn't read it. This is not the first uh set of uh board members that didn't read things, but they were shocked because they tried to make uh the rules committee like a punishment and it became the most powerful committee. Not because it was trying to punish people, but it was trying to make the board of alderman have accurate legislation. And I don't think we should pass that off on to the clerk. he or she has enough to do as the assistant clerk, but maybe we can since we got a lawyer and assistant, maybe we could give them more to do by having them go over that we're not going to have the committee. But I really would prefer that we have a committee. And it's as said as I said before, it's especially important for young um alderman who do not understand what the rules say or need a way to find out because when they see the application of the board bills and see where the mistakes are and see how that works, it helps them to learn the rules. So I am opposed to what we're doing. I think we're going to just um open it up for more mistakes. I have no further questions or statements. Any further discussion? Alderman from the second. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, uh, will the alderman from the 14th yield for questions? >> Alderman from the 14th yield questions from the alderman from the second. >> I do. >> Alderman, you may proceed. >> Thank you. Alderman, can you can you um refresh my memory on the the rule change you were you're uh proposing around uh consent calendars um and board bills that are adopted unanimously out of committee, they automatically are sent to the consent calendar. Can you just walk me through some of the thinking and the process behind that? >> Yes, thank you for that, Alderman. Uh I haven't brought it the amendment forward. I know it's on everybody desk. The amendment would uh >> alderman I think we need to have that amendment before us in order to discuss it. >> Oh, >> I thought it was I thought it was part of the the resolution. My apologies. >> No, it is not. >> All right. Understood. I I'll withdraw my line of questioning, Madame President, but why I have the floor, I was hoping that that I could um uh move to adopt an amendment. I move to adopt amendment one to resolution number one. It's been moved by the alderman from the second, seconded by the alderman from the fourth that we adopt amendment number one. Uh alderman from the second. You may proceed. >> Thank you. Um it's a pretty straightforward amendment to our rules. I think you should all be pretty familiar with it. It was something I attempted to do uh in the toward the end of um the our last session. Uh and that's simply to uh amend uh said resolution chapter 13 voting majorities adding appendix B with the addition of a new rule B6 to be read as follows. The passage of board bills for the appropriation of RAM's settlement funds shall require the affirmative vote of 2/3 of all members of the board of alderman. I think that's an important uh amendment to adopt. Um, I think it forces agreement. We often hear that this is once in a generation, once in a lifetime transformative money. I think this rule uh embodies um thoughtfulness, allows us to to have broad agreement. I think it prevents an abuse of power. Says that that we've got 10 10 wards representing um and their representatives coming to an agreement uh on what is very important money and it puts us all on front street in terms of being accountable to say that we have consensus on on where these critical funds should be spent. Um I think there's go governments often at all levels deliberate on on um twothirds vote and and the importance that it brings um to um to the issue or to the use. I think a simple way to think about it is 50% is most people agree 2/3 is a large majority agrees and shame on us if we can't get there in terms of this forced compromise to ensure that 2/3 um of this body uh decides where where those transformative once in a generation funds go. I have nothing further at the moment. Any further discussion on amendment number one? Any further uh alderwoman from the 12th? >> Thank you. Um alderman from the second if you would yield. >> The alderman from the second yield to the alderwoman from the 12th. >> I will. >> Alderwoman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Alderman. I told you before um I didn't support this amendment because I've been really disappointed in how we've had two pots of transformative money. We have almost $500 million of ARPA funds that uh [laughter] we changed our original agreement of how we would spend that. Until this day, I can't tell you where that money is. uh you know it's uh some place floating out there and on any given day um I hear we got a hundred million left over. I hear no we don't but because we took out the alderman out of the process um we don't have any idea of what that money was spent on. I tell you what I don't see. I don't see new grocery stores. I don't see a hardware store that was in our original bill. I don't see any of that. So, um, I hear what you're saying, but we gave $30 million of the Rams fund off of the top to the convention center like it was nothing. I do know where $15 million of the ARPA fund is because we came along and gave another $15 million of the ARPA fund which I was opposed and um questioned um the former eighth ward alderwoman who is now the uh mayor about how could we bring more money when the first original 30 million was supposed to be all that they asked then they went over budget and so that's the only thing I can tell you of the two pots of money that really we spent stuff on and we didn't have we I don't know if we had 10 votes for that ARPA fund because that was ridiculous to me to this day to give $45 million to a building that when I got here was not here that we built while I was here and we spent a lot of money on it. So, I do understand your financial concern that it be spent in a correct way, but I only find I find that the only things that people seem to be able to agree on is these large items downtown. And I know you come from a banking background and so um the money is sitting there and I I've told you why I wanted I want to tear down the raggedy buildings in North St. Louis that have set for years and years and years that are L that the alderman did not create that I did not have my original ward. If you go back and look at the original comparisons when I got elected they would talk about the 16th ward and the 20th ward both high silk stocking wards. Now I've picked up all these other uh wards that are were a lot different than me. So now all of a sudden I went from 20 vacant properties to then I got the first w and it was 100 200 vacant properties and now I got what used to be the fourth ward and I got like 23 2,300 vacant properties and lots. So now they're not all properties but no citizen in in in the city of St. Louis should be sitting or living by rather vacant properties. And just to point out, and people worried about how the money is spent downtown, um the press pointed out that there was a tree growing on top of the Millennial Hotel and that made that blighting. Then all the woman from the 13th knows this, myself now, uh Alderwoman from the 11th and North St. Louis citizens, no matter how nice your neighborhood is, at any given time, you can have a LRA property that needs to be torn down that sits there forever and doesn't get torn down. So, when you talk about putting this money aside, because most of the people who live south don't have to deal with this, they don't know that that's an important issue. Okay? that if we think it's important to tear down a building downtown that has one little tree growing um on the top of it, that it's very important to tear down the properties that the city uh gets through at the LRA process and then let sit in your community for years destroying your property value, diso destroying your ability to get taxes. And so you don't have that urgency. And so I that's why I don't um agree with the amendment because there's nothing that says we're going to set some money aside like let's take that $15 million uh that we gave of ARPA fund and set that aside for Rams to tear down the vacant properties in North St. Louis then I can hear that. But just to say you got to have 10 because what I've heard often times down here is that at the board of alderman is that alderman from other parts of the city are tonedeaf about what the urgencies are. They hear, "Oh, we got to fix downtown up." But they hear, "Oh, that's just North St. Louis." And so they don't care. And so when you want to just put that money up and put it so it's out of reach so that we can't spend it with the needs that we have that are urgent, that makes me not be able to support it. And just wanted you to understand that and to um explain to me how do I say that and then go back to the 12th ward and say, "Hey, I said we ought to have 10 votes for this." And um literally during the tornado and every year I want to tell you I drive my ward from when it was 20th ward when it was only three and a half neighborhoods and we voted the highest in the city Democratic and one of the highest tied with the 16th, 23rd, 12th in the city overall to um now the votes that we used to get in my three neighborhoods, we don't get in my 12 neighborhoods because my middle class and upper class population, upper income left with the way city was fund, but I drive it to turn in every year. These are the properties are LRA mostly, but private properties that need to be tore down and we used to get them tore down and then with the Jones administration, we didn't. But with the tornado, they came down on people's houses. That's how important it is. They came down and I saw on the news I don't know a year ago about you had a vacant house and the people were going in and I was just thinking to myself a vacant house. Woo if I would love to have that problem again cuz I used to be that person. I was that person when I got elected. We did not have vacant houses. We did not we were not in when you when the census came out if you go back and look in the 90s we were not in the low income census uh data. And so, but but I got a different ward that I represent now. How do I tell the people, "Oh, we're going to sit that money aside and let 10 people decide that that's important that we tear down these properties when we haven't decided that all along." And I beg the f former mayor to put that money in there. So, how do I do that? That's what I want to ask. >> Thank you, Alderwoman. it it's a it's a fair question and it's a it's a certainly an understandable conversation that you're having. I would argue, you know, to your point that saying that that you felt like the board of alderman was cut out of ARPA dollars, I would think setting up this construct in our rules puts the board of alderman squarely in power to decide where these funds go. Uh on a side, you have my vote to to prioritize um the demolition of vacant properties um and the board up of vacant properties as the first dollars out in this. And I guarantee you and I can get 10 votes for that no matter what. Um so I do think that this sets up a construct to exactly have power, put the board of alderman at the center of this decision to say, "Hey, we got to get 10 votes. here's where we should prioritize these funds first. And I think through compromise, we can get that agreement pretty quickly. I I I I look back at the vote um that that we took on originally deploying some of these ramp settlement proceeds for tornado relief instantly off the top. I I think it was unanimous. So, I think when there is urgency and the topic is is is of a matter of grave concern like like the issues you're speaking about in your community, I I don't I don't hesitate to think that we can't get to can't get the twothirds vote here because it is that important. And um an overwhelming majority of board of alderman members would would agree to that. Um and and I think it also I'm not suggesting a set aside of of of funds at the moment. I I think we should have uses for them. I think there should be some savings associated with the overall pot of dollars. Um because we are going to need some operational help in the out years. But that's that's part of the conversation. Um all I think we we need to do here is is this sets us up to take a prudent step um and and really put the board of alderman in power to say, "Hey, well, we've got to get a we've got to get a a twothirds majority down here. So, in order to do that, here here's how we should be prioritizing these very thoughts. >> I hear you. And you know what? You're one of the few people that when you've given me my word, your word, we worked well together in a previous board. Not not since this board's been down here in a previous board. We worked really well when we had 28 alderman and a different president. So, I hear you. So, part of me wants to work with you because I do believe it. Uh, but the other part of me is just I'm disgusted looking at my neighborhoods and I'm disgusted that we give $30 million off of the top to the Rams. I mean, I'm sorry, to the convention center. I call it the Ram stadium, [laughter] >> right? No, I'm talking about the 30 million we gave off >> Oh, the Ram settlement. We gave 30 off the top. Okay. And so, but we I could never get the former Merida here cuz although she talks about I like I I grew up in North St. Louis. She did not cuz I lived in South St. Louis. She grew up on Shannonoa cuz I lived on Clam and she did not. So people don't tend to care about neighborhoods in which they don't live in sometimes. I'm very fortunate. I lived in the central quarter when I came here. I lived in South St. Louis for 9 years. I've been in North St. Louis for a number of years. Didn't grow up here. But it's given me a sensitivity about the difference in how you get services and things like that from even the press talking about botanical gardens or the Shaw neighborhood or whatever neighborhoods and then and North St. Louis as though we don't have uh neighborhoods. Okay. So that's that that's their way of saying and that's where those negroes live and that's how they desert and they don't want to say that. That is what they I feel like it is. Okay. So, I think people are desensitized, but coming down and we're going to change it and we're not going to use seniority anymore. That's what they do to black elected officials. When you get to be somebody, when you get the most education, the most experience, then we change the rules. That has been not my experience. It's been the black experience. What they do to black people is, oh, the 20th ward is voting high and they're building $50, $60 million. It's tough. Let's tear that ward up and put it into all the wards that were not performing. That's been my experience down here. Okay. So, I do want to be with you and I really don't like the way we've managed the people who've been down here managed the ARA funds. As I said, oh, we can put a million dollars to take people to get abortions. I'm pro choice for abortion. And I used to give money to uh uh Planned Parenthood, but I wasn't for putting a million dollars to drive people across uh the state to I mean across the uh state line to get abortions. And there's a lot of things that we just put the money in and it hasn't been spent. And I think that we're going to come to a time and energy when it's going to come up and say, "Okay, we haven't spent this money and now we're going to put it downtown." And that's the go-to. In my experience, when I came downtown, none of the stuff that's down here now, the problems that you're having with Washington Street, that wasn't a problem when I got here because there was no Washington Street. And one of the things we did is we put all the money downtown and built up Washington Street. and then surprised cuz the young people go there. I was opposed to it uh when Barrett Clark proposed back in the 90s saying you need to spread this money out so that people can go other places. I've watched uh put just billions of dollars downtown. Yet our downtown is still saying, "Oh, we need some more of that money." Um, after they got the 30 million from the RAM settlement and then another 15 million for the ARPA funds, the people who are the proponents of downtown said, "Well, but we still need we want to partner with North St. Louis." And I said, "But first we got to take 45 million off the top and give that to North St. Louis cuz the convention center, the last time I looked, is downtown." Um, so I watched the money really carefully, okay? and I've been putting together little odds and ends of where the money is and we do have a lot of ARPA money that has not been spent. Um, so like I said, you have been very fair and when you've given your word, you've kept it. I could probably not speak to four other people down here, but I would say that. But you are one of them. Um, and we I do not want to see this money peacemeal into nothing, but I do not want to see this money given to um downtown anymore. Uh, because go get that $45 million from uh the convention center. Um, and go get those billions of dollars. And I'm not against downtown. I actually want downtown to thrive, but not at the expense of the public safety in North St. Louis. And that's where I'm at now. There is a public safety issue that ought to have to be a tornado. I know everybody said, "Oh, tornado, get the money." It shouldn't have been a tornado. It should have been we got this L property, six to seven thou a thousand parcels that we need to take care of. No community can absorb that and be a real community. If I took the 16th W and combined it with the old fourth ward, you would be in over your head. we'd be like, "Oh my lord." Because you wouldn't know what to do with it. I've been next door to it for many years, but we always kept it at bay. For me to now just have to uh look at uh the problems that are there and it's for the last 3 years I've spent all my time. And so um I don't want the money to just sit there. That's what I said. And I believe you that you would work to get the money. So I'm struggling right now is what I'm telling you. Okay? So, I don't know. Let me get off because I'm struggling because I do believe you. You try to keep your word. That's what I'll tell you. Okay. >> Thank you. >> I don't know. Tell me something else that would make me make a better decision. [laughter] [snorts] >> Understood. I do understand. Old one. >> And so tell me again if we put this up then we What is the point again? I want to hear it again. Sure. Sure. I mean, I I think the point is that this is this is sort of transformative money the way everyone has been thinking about it. I think adding a a a higher level uh of of of voting uh approval um makes it more important. I think it gives the board of alderman the the power and control of these funds. Uh that that the mayor's office and others are going to have to work with us because they know we have to get to a 2/3 majority. Um I I believe that it that it also sets the stage um for compromise, ultimate compromise, which I think everybody wants on this. And and within that compromise, Alderwoman is priority. and and I I can't speak for my colleagues, but I but I but I think I have where their minds are is in terms of priority. Um North City needs to be needs to be the the top of the list. Um and let's agree on on a a good amount of money that goes there. Um a majority, right, of this money goes there and the uses um underneath that uh large sum. And I I think I think I'll work with you hand in hand to ensure we get 10 votes cuz I think it puts us in the driver's seat here at the board uh to in fact prioritize these dollars to first go to to North St. Louis and to the vacant properties and to the community deterioration that that that that you have to that you have to work with. Alder woman >> and Okay. So, but what about water? So when we first got the ARPA funds, one of my proposals was to take half of the ARPA funds and put toward the water. Okay? And nobody wanted to do that. To me, that was transformative. That touched everybody, every neighborhood. Water is something that is important. Now we're peacemailing water because the people in charge would not listen. Listen. Okay. But if we had put $250 million of that ARPA fund into and being with a bond issue, we would have had $500 million working on there's not anybody at that board of alderman that did not their ward didn't didn't need to see the water improve. And so we just went away. We didn't do that. We missed that opportunity because people who were running it and it's like the children to me get the keys to the house and then they don't want to hear the parents going to say you got to pay the mortgage, insurance, the light and gas and things like that. So I don't discount water. Okay, that's still important to me. Um we all need it. So I'm not saying North St. Louis gets it all, but I'm saying some big things. I mean we still need to do something with water. So >> yeah, >> go ahead. No, I was going to say I agree with you. I think I think this just really sets up the construct for us to have those important conversations and make sure we prioritize those things that are important to you or your community. Citywide infrastructure, water, I would argue those are at the top of everyone's list. At least I would assume so. So, again, this is not debating where we're going to spend this money right now. This is setting up a construct that puts it in an ultimate level of importance and puts the board of alderman in complete control in my mind uh of how these funds do in fact get prioritized and spent. >> I'm going to trust you and I'm going to give you my vote and support it. >> Thank you, old woman. >> That means a lot to me. I appreciate it. >> Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the seventh. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members, um I am in strong opposition to this rule proposal, rule amendment. Um I do think that 10 is good and if we weren't in the specific circumstance we were, I would be supportive of it. I'm just really uncomfortable with us as a board of alderman and as a city doing something that requires even more votes to send funds out while we have thousands of people who are still intents. Um, this rule came up before uh in last session and we saw an outpour of folks from the community and got an outpour of communication from folks who were very opposed. I do think that some of the comments that came up I don't agree with. You know, I've been able to, especially carrying the last RAM settlement bill, have conversations with every single member of this board at this point about RAM settlement. And I do think that most of us definitely agree that some of the funds have to go to the tornado impacted areas and have to go to North City. I do not I do not think we've reached a point of agreement on what that number is. And so my fear would be that we would pass this and then it would end up leaving a community that is devastated um and has nothing. And if I had better evidence of of us being able to kind of build consensus around those types of things, I would come to the table. I understand that the sponsor has said that, well, every time we've talked about ram settlement funds for a tornado, you know, it's been a success. That's true and that's false. Before when we talked about North City prior to a tornado, we could not come to on what North City could get. Um, Alderwoman Taius and Alderman Aldridge actually went back and forth on different amendments the last time we had the RAM settlement bill conversation trying to figure out what that number could be. And I can tell you that there are people who felt very strongly and passionately about um, you know, having the conversation and trying to build consensus, but we could not get there for North City. And so for me, I just cannot vote for this in good conscience because I do not want people who are already waiting on resources. We have an office of recovery that is telling us at every budget meeting we're running out of money. They're saying that they do not have the funds. You know, they're about to run out very quickly and are looking forward to more funds coming that way. And this amendment could potentially put us in a gridlock if we did not have the situation of the tornado. I would be like, "Okay, we can take all the time to figure this out." But I'm just really fearful that the outcome and the consequence of this could be that areas of our city who have been long been waiting for investment and have been long been waiting for this put them as a priority will have to wait even longer. Um, and I would say that if we're very passionate about making sure that we have consensus on this, then we shouldn't limit it to consensus for just these funds. Because again, I do think there are portions of our city that are waiting on every dollar and every part of relief that they could get. And they're going to receive this as, oh, the board now wants to build consensus when we didn't try to build consensus. We were moving millions of dollars in ARPA funds when we just moved millions of dollars for water. We didn't need consensus for that. And I think that's important because water needs those dollars and water needs those funds. So, I wouldn't want us to do anything to hold, you know, things that need the dollars up. And I would really caution us to, you know, if we were to approve this today, the message that they may send to the public and particularly members of the public that again, um, just went through a very bitter cold winter or just get into a w a summer and still don't have the amount of relief that they need. and our our city's very own office of recovery is saying, "Hey, we really need some dollars soon because our ability to continue to support operations and plan strategically and more long term is really tied to those dollars. So, I uh do rise in strong opposition and I would encourage um many of my colleagues to do it. I do understand the sponsor's intentions and I do think consensus is good but I think it's dangerous to talk about consensus for one pool of money that folks who are you know I mean a tornado means you don't have anything you don't have any funds and again I I I can say I haven't seen us been able to have that conversation particularly about North City I want to be clear I think we can build a consensus on the other parts of the conversation I think the last time we had this conversation the reason that there was a committee substitute is because the saying was well what we can build consensus around is water. I I I just I'm very fearful of this stopping us our ability to deploy funds to folks who are in need of every single dollar that they can get. That is my only hesitation for this. If we were under normal circumstances or, you know, perhaps didn't have a tornado, I would be able to, you know, consider this a lot more. But I think for me, I just cannot take a vote on something that might make it harder to get resources to folks who have nothing at this moment. Thank you. Alderman from the 14th. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board with the uh alderman from the second yield for questions. >> The alderman from the second yield to the alderman from the 14th. >> I will. >> Alderman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Um thank you for bringing this amendment forward. Alderman, I know you uh attempted to like do this last session um and try to get I think you know you're asking there'll be 10 and tried to get 10 votes last go around to try to be fair, but I get why you're bringing it. Um now when you think about you know we got 250 in Rams fund. Um and when I say thank you, not that I agree, I'm kind of stuck on where to go with the amendment. Um but at least we're having a conversation. When you think about the 250 Rams fund, do you have like a a vision of, you know, as we have these conversations of how much you think need to go to North St. Louis? >> I mean, I think it's it's 100 million or north of 100 million of the 250 for sure. >> Yeah. And well, I say I'm also stuck with it. You know, I tend not to try to uh well, not that I tend not. I usually I think we don't always agree. um um me and the old woman from the 12. But one thing that I can agree is when we do have when me and you have had conversations um you have you know kept your word. You are somebody who um I think try to uh lead with integrity at least on the things that we worked on. Um, so I I get what you're trying to get at with making sure that we're all on the same page with a Rams bill because um but my fear I guess of maybe supporting it um is how the last conversation um happened and I think the older woman from the 12th and the older woman from the seven touched on it. You know before there was a tornado we couldn't even try to get a penny to North Side. We seen strategic actions that was being either from the alderwoman from the seventh bill or another avenue of the old woman from the 13th bill to strip out uh funds that would went to the north side and said only advocate for water which I think the old woman from the 12th even mentioned that nobody is against water but it it kind of feels um I think some people are a little burnt from uh that last conversation. And it was probably one of the the proudest moments even though we didn't do anything and I'm glad we didn't because of tornado but one of the best moments of working at the board of having an alderwoman from the 12th seconding every uh amendment that I was bringing forward that was going to put money uh to North Side understanding just the the critical need that is there and I'm sure folks that are older than me can talk about the disinvestment in North Side way before I was around and the tornado has only made it even worse. Um, and I fear that if we can't, and as a downtown Alder, um, while I would love to see some go downtown, um, also know that in my opinion, we need, uh, majority, you know, like 115 to 20 to North Side. Um, and I'm just nervous if we lock oursel in a position that if we don't get the 10 based off of like $2 or $3 million that we may not be doing anything knowing that uh there's an urgent need for North St. Louis. And I agree. I do think some need to be in reserve because I think what's unique about the Rams money, this is the only pot of money that we got that's making money for us. No other fund doing that. We're talking about a storm in North Side that's uh you know a billion dollar storm. So why not have an account that's going to make money for us to continue to pump into North Side? Um you know I just I'm just not sure of if we're going to actually get those funds committed to North Side. A majority of it because of just the the past history that has happened with the Rams bill. Um >> when we tried to get it done. >> Yeah. you know, and really quickly with all due respect, you know, we do work together like you was a different spot, but I know you was like part of that like process of, you know, stripping it down to water, right? So, um, and not allocating it to North St. Louis. I just want to make sure with people being intense and and and people not literally knowing where they're going to live that we're not locking ourselves in a box. Well, I want us all to ultimately agree and I think 10 does in a very strong number. I'm happy to respond to that, alderman, and I I I get that there might be some some hesitation regarding that there was in fact eight aldermen who said, "Well, we can't seem to agree on these funds, so let's just do a water only investment and punt on the uses for the rest of the dollars." I think that was the intent of the eight or so alderman that that had it. This construct would have made that point moot. We would have only had eight votes to say water only right now. We'll argue about the other uses later. We wouldn't have been able to have that conversation, nor would we have been able to put a a stick in the spokes of of the larger bill cuz we only had eight folks saying they agreed on water only for the time being punt on the rest of the uses. And this this forces collaboration. Now that that those eight aldermen who voted who wanted water only in the last cycle, we'd be dead in the water. No pun intended. Or maybe it is. we'd be dead in the water because we'd only have eight votes and we know we wouldn't be able to get anywhere on Rams dollars until you get to 10. So, it would force us all back to reach consensus and agree maybe with what the larger uses were there. So, I I thank you for an extension of my argument, Alderman. I appreciate that. >> Yeah, but I would say on the opposite side, now that we know we need some now that we know we need to do something for North St. Louis those eight with you now being part of that now we're like changing the goalpost and saying well let's make it let's let's change it because you know I think it's very clear everybody want to do something north St. Louis now post tornado and there was an opportunity to do that last go round and you and other several alders only said no let's just do water and now I think there is consensus post tornado whatever the number is I don't think any of us disagree I don't think you disagree either with that alder but now we're saying let's let's get to a consensus on something that um didn't have that opportunity the first time which is probably even more critical to do this go around. >> No, I think I think it's it's it's the opposite alderman. It's it's not allowing those eight folks who only wanted a water investment to be able to collaborate because because 10 is the threshold now. So now we have to make sure we're at the table prioritizing um North St. Louis and then water our other infrastructure needs. So it it this is this suppose we're learning from that. This would allow us to make sure that there that we're not that we're not putting our we're thumbming our our our nose um at North St. for us needing to get to 10. >> Yeah, I appreciate you alderman. Thank you. >> Alderwoman from the 12th. >> Um, Mr. Oldenberg, Alderman Oldenberg, I already uh told you that I was going to support it, but I just kind of want to follow up from the autowoman from the seventh. I have represented North St. Louis since 1991. Okay, this is 2026, right? I live in North St. Louis proudly. I can live pretty much where I want to live on Lindo if I want to live on Lindo. Okay, I want to live in North St. Louis. I have spent my career down here making I took a pay cut from uh and um what was it? $18,000 to leave the public defenders office to come here in 1991, which was the lowest paying legal job you could have. Okay. But I still took a $18,000 pay cut and I've done it full time because I believed in North St. Louis. So, um, I appreciate the Ottawa from the seventh talking about North St. Louis, but nobody has walked the walk and talk the talk like me. Nobody. Nobody. You ask the people at North St. Louis. I built new schools. First one, new grocery stores, Walgreens, strip malls, housing. Spent my time and my husband also spent our time. took our education that we got thanks to standing on other people's shoulders, which some of the young people down here that are black don't seem to understand. They're on my shoulders. I appreciate that. I stood on other people's shoulders. That's why I was able to go to law school and do things for people the generation before me did not. So, I would uh ask the other one from the seventh not to speak for North St. Louis because they do have elected officials that actually live there and have represented it. Okay. So, um, when I take you at your word word, I do that not because you haven't compromised because we had a compromise of $7.6 million and I don't want to go all in to it, but we worked that out and you kept your word and I know it. That's why and that's why I trust you. It's some of these other people down here that don't keep their words. They talk about North St. Louis, but North St. Lewis sent me back down here when I beat the mayor, the president, and the treasurer to be the most senior altered person cuz that's what had been our rule. And they don't have a problem in stripping North St. Louis of their seniority. If you want to do something, then give North St. Louis back their senior person. Don't come down here and attack and then try to attack you cuz I'm going to stand up and say you have no right to talk about that. be quiet because the people in my ward don't like that you stripped my seniority. I don't care. I can live without it. But they don't like it and they talk about it all the time. And it's not something that you did without being malice. Okay? That you don't know more than me. None of these people speaking from North St. Louis know more than me about North St. Louis of of the deals that were done over the years. Okay? So when I say I trust you, it is from um having a relationship with you and you keeping your word. Okay? And the reason why he's only telling part of the tale when he says, "Oh, well now you came to the Rams money and you only wanted to do water cuz you the people who are talking had misused or cut up so much of the offer money. It's frightening. It's one of the reasons why I'm going to trust you because I don't trust what they've done because they just Everybody asks me about $37 million. That's all I ever hear is the ARPA money, the $37 million. That money was supposed to be set aside for black businesses and that was all of North St. Louis. That left approximately $463 million of ARPA funds. But it was so badly maligned because once the other three gentlemen got in trouble, we changed the whole ARPA funds. We took all the checks and balances out of it. Everybody took I stood on this floor for an hour and spoke against changing the ARPA funds because that $37 million was not going to hurt anybody. But it also left checks and balances that the alderman, you had to bring the alman into it. You had to say why you didn't agree with it or why you agree with it. And to this day, the ARPA funds are messed up because the very people that are speaking voted to change the bill and they stripped seniority. So you cannot come and talk about checks and balances when you stripped them out of the ARPA funds. I don't know who has money from the ARA funds in my ward now except for when now things are going south. They're calling me in like, "We need your letter of support, but you didn't let me do the letter of support in the first place." Thanks to the alderman from the 14th. thanks to the alder woman from the seventh because you didn't understand checks and balances. So, I do understand besides having a law degree, I have a a degree in management and a minor in uh accounting. So, I do understand wanting to make sure you know where your money is. I also understand that the things that I just told you I built in my community, schools, uh, grocery stores, those are the things that are still there and they served all the population whether you were wealthy or poor. Okay? And so, um, we have put a lot of things into programs and people got money, but I don't see anything. And certain parts of us in parts of our ward didn't see any of it. It's like if you own houses in North St. Louis, you don't deserve to have anything. If you're a working and middle class person in North St. Louis, according to some people down here, those are the neighborhoods that don't deserve to have anything. So, you just give it till we keep building low-income housing and um that kind of housing. And that's all that North St. Louis saw. We didn't see anything substantial. We didn't see that. And that is why I'm going to trust you and I'm going to say that I have more standing than the other two young people that just was talking about what North St. Louis wants. Okay? I have that standing from getting elected over and over and over again, no matter who the opposition has been. And I have that standing from being out in my community and talking to people. And so when they talk about North St. Louis, they're not talking about the 12th Ward. I don't know what part that uh the Seventh Werwoman uh represents. Oh, I do know she doesn't represent any part of North St. Louis. She is not speaking for us. And the 14th W alderman lives downtown and really traditionally that was not North St. Louis. And if you ask the three women that represent North St. Louis, they will tell you that he has a small portion of it. That didn't get really the damage that I did. My own house was damaged in the tornado. Um, my half of my neighborhood that I lived in was damaged in the tornado. They want to see things that affect the people who are still there. If you got a house and then next to you is a um L property and it's falling on your house, you want that property taken off of your house. You don't want that to ever happen again if there's a storm. So, I do believe that we can come to a consensus and I believe that because I've had a better working relationship with you than I have with the 14th and seventh because they would understand that what they're saying. Talk about the seventh war. Talk about the 14th war, but don't speak for the 12th ward because the 12th ward or the 20th ward or the first, whichever one you want, has spoken loud and clear over and over again. And we're going to rise from this tornado. And I believe that uh more planned basis that we consider long-term issues and water is one of them. As I said before, I brought up water and th those people poo pooed at the time and didn't want to hear it. They weren't talking about water. They were talking about taking the ARPA funds and doing all these other things which landed us in the newspaper with conflicts of interest. And to this day, I dare anybody to tell where is that other $463 million? because all we talk about is that 37 million cuz this board made the mistake of changing a board bill that had all the checks and balances in it. So, I'm going to go with a check and balance issue this time because the people who did that and carried that bill were irresponsible. And I never hear them only Annie Schwitzer when I brought up that she didn't support the water bill said well I made a mistake. But I don't hear them getting up and saying, "We made that mistake. So maybe we're going to look at a different way to do it." I didn't make that mistake. I didn't vote for that bill. It was a mess. It still is a mess. It's why we had problems. But I am going to support your amendment because I I think it might be a measured way to make sure that not only that we get some things that we can see done, but that um we understand that all parts of the city are important. So I I because we didn't agree and I'm the person if you remember that asked the alderwoman from the 7th and the otherwoman from the 13th to put their month their board bills on uh the informal calendar at the end. Um and that's how we come to this day. That was me in the middle of that. And I want to thank the other woman from the 7th and the 13th because they did and we do need this money. Okay? But they both did that. So thank them for that. But we misused a lot of ARPA funds and we didn't use them in the ways that we should. So I think we do need a measured approach and I'm going to support you for that. And I don't think either one of them speaks for the people in my community. I'm speaking for the people in the 12th ward. >> Any further discussion? Alderwoman from the 7th. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. Um, you know, just for the sake of wanting to keep the conversation focused. You know, I think whenever we talk about Rams funds, for me, I always want to let the people that that we represent and that we serve direct my comments. So, I'm going to just stay focused on there. What I will say is that if we do vote this rule together, then I do have an amendment on the drive um that I will propose next. That will be amendment proposal number three that will propose that we do a twothirds vote majority for the allocation of any city funds. Um, I think if we're saying that we want to make sure we have these conversations and we really want to have consensus before we put money out, um, for me, I would be okay with that if it was a rule for all of our procedures and not some. And if we made it as easy as possible certain, you know, again, while certain folks are in need, um, to to not feel that way. I do I'm very honored to represent people who just are extremely compassionate people and really care deeply. And I know for them a message that they have for me over and over again is that they want to see North City get money. I have residents that do not live in North City, but they feel very strongly that they had a tornado. They lost everything they had. They were disinvested before that. Had that happened to us, we would want you to be moving some money right now and talking about getting us funds. We understand that you won't move the bill. But, you know, I do have just a constituency that cares deeply about their all of their residents that feels that all of the city is connected, that some of it cannot fail while some of left to thrive. And they've made it abundantly clear to me that they expect North City to get some funds. and they do not want me to see they don't want to see me do anything that could look like it is harder for them to get funds and I thank them for their compassion and I'm honored to you know represent that and I think that's a part of what makes St. Louis look great but I just want to say that if this rule passed then I will be proposing an amendment next that says that we make this the case for all city fund allocations. Thank you >> alderwoman from the 13th. >> Uh thank you madam president. I I just have a comment. I keep hearing um everybody talk about the Rams dollars and how we vote and so the other woman from the seven, she knows the uh challenges we went through with the Rams dollars when we thought we had something that was going to happen and somebody put a wrench in that. But nobody's talking about the offer dollars. And I keep asking the question, why are we focusing on something that it can build interest? And if I when we started with those RAM dollars, I said in the beginning, I said I do not want it in that session. I would rather for this bill to be moved to the next session. And Alderwoman Ty has asked me on the floor, would I hold it? Now, if I hadn't held that bill, we had a tornado, where would we be? But people need to be real clear. That tornado money we released in the emergency for the tornado pe the victims, the people in that part of the city that were impacted, that money has not left. So, I don't know what they talking about. We need money because that money has not left. And so we still got people over in that tornado area that never received dollars. CDA has not released money to those organizations to make sure that these people can be housed. So let's quit playing games. The money is not been released. I cannot see continuously dipping into that money and you have dollars still on that table. I agree with Alderman Odinberg. We need to have some kind of structure to ensure that people can get dollars, but people need to follow the dollars and they have not hit the street. So don't keep telling me you need money to victims and you got the money from the border audit and they have the people have not got the money. The organizations haven't got the money. So where's the money? And so that's what I need people to understand. You have awkward dollars still on the table. Why would you keep nitpack nitpicking at these ram dollars and you have money that's sitting there? So I don't I don't understand. Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I'm not as senior as a woman Ty cuz she can follow those dollars and she can follow those bills. Maybe I'm not good enough to see that, but I'm like Stevie Wonder. I can see that money's not on the street. >> That's right. That's right. >> And that's what I that's all I have. Thank you. >> Any further discussion? Alder alderwoman from the 12th. >> Um I want to just add a few things. The altman from the 14th said that it was good to put some money aside because uh the rams money grew um and and and had finances and interest. We also got that from the ARPA dollars. I just said $15 million of interest from ARPAD dollars went to the convention center and Cara Spencer carried that bill as the eighth ward alder woman. Um and that was one of the bills uh that gave them the additional. So we are building interest. I would dare to say I agree with autowoman from the 13th. I every day almost I'm calling over where is the money? Why is it taking so long? It's still sitting there. People who applied for the money 3 years ago, three and a half years ago, whenever we put it over there, they don't have the money mostly. Only a few political friends got the money. Other than that, the ARP money is sitting there. Um it's not in the streets. It was not and because it wasn't structured to have any oversight. We the board of alderman gave over gave a all of our power away with the changing of the board bill that came after the three gentlemen left and then we changed it. It was a mistake. It was a mistake. It was a mistake. And I would like to correct the order from the 13th. I talk about the ARPA money all the time. Every time somebody asked me about the 30 uh the $37 million, I said, "What about the $463 approximately that's out there?" Because the ARPA funds are continuing to get interest and while they're not being spent. So again, um, and I want to tell the Ottawan from the 7th, I'm glad your people are so compassionate, but the people in my ward tell me, we are so tired of people who don't live in our community speaking for us, who don't represent us, speaking for us, telling us what should happen when we're telling you what we want and you going down there and saying what we want, and then people going up standing up and saying, "But I know what you want more." I never try to speak for the seventh ward. And I'm compassionate for the people in the seventh ward, too. But I don't try to speak for them cuz they got a representative. So until you come over here and become the alderwoman of the 12th, let me speak for the 12th ward. We're going to be okay. We're going to rise like the phoenix. We're going to do what we need to. We're going to be okay. And we don't need pity from people saying, "Oh, I'm just those pathetic people over there, and this is what should happen." What we need is a a comprehensive plan that I have put in place that I've been quietly working on and we need it to be executed and I've said one of the things that you do is you get rid of vacant buildings. When you do that, you bring developers over and you have uh you get developers to come and do things. Now, contrary to what an alderman said a few weeks ago about nobody wants to do development in North St. Louis, just not true. I have a group of developers. In fact, I've brought several of them to the mayor's office and she met with them. So, there are developers that want to do things in North St. Louis. We have plans you don't happen to know about because you do not live in St. Louis and I tend to meet with the people who live in my community and I was uh elected to speak for them and I'm telling you I do trust that we will be able to work some things out. It's not just you, Mr. uh Odinberg. get some other alderman down there that I trust, but it's not the ones that uh nickel and dime the pennies away and I don't see anything. I like to see things that are built so when I drive by I can say look at that building. This is what we did what we did. I'm not against social services. I'm for that too. But you do not give all the money to social services. So but you don't have anything to show for it when you get that kind of money. And right now, literally, we have very little to show for what the kind of money we've had almost a billion dollars with interest between the Rams money and the ARPA funds. And yet, I don't see anything really except for a few social programs and some money that should not have been spent on some things that I don't even want to go into. But mostly what the order from the 13th says is that it has not been put out in the streets. And so it is better that we protect the rams fund until we know and we need to have a full accounting of every dollar of that ARPA fund like yesterday of where is it and why they don't uh put it out in the streets. I the woman from the 13th and I have had we both represent certain sectors of um Annie Malone. So I've had to call them and get on them. So then they're like okay they're in the process now but why does it take 3 years to be in the process to get some money that you applied for? I don't want to have to talk about all these problems, but we can. So, the ARA fund should be protected, and the more that they get up and argue against it, the more I'm for it. Thank you. >> Any further discussion? >> Not the AR funds, the Rams funds. >> Alderman from the 14th. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, will the alderman for the second yield for questions? >> The alderman from the second yield to questions from the alderman from the 14th. >> Yes. Alderman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Madam President. Alderman, um uh I guess my question is if if we do move forward with your amendment, um are you committed to uh you know, working with this board and uh ensuring that there's a significant amount that goes in North St. Louis and you know actually showing up, picking up your phone call or actually coming to work to have those conversations about how do we move uh that legislation forward. Of >> course. >> Okay. And I appreciate that cuz it is, you know, uh sometimes it's hard to to catch people when they actually are aren't here. Um, and you know, my ward was, as much as you know, I'm not going to talk about years and all of that, but the 14th ward was impacted by the tornado. However, some alders want to try to make it seem that the ward's black and others. The 14th ward when it come to college hill, which is is touches the elevated 11 ward was impacted all the way down to St. Louis place was impacted. And if we take this approach to uh make the process just in my opinion a little bit harder for those funds to get out the door for North St. Louis, uh, I want to, you know, make sure that there's a commitment that you will actually, you know, show up and and be present and keep your phone or your email open a response actually make sure that we can have that line of communication to get to an end goal and not just, you know, have conversations on the board of alderman meeting on Fridays, but actually everything in between that as well. >> I take that as a yes. Yeah, I I think you you asked the the same question. Uh again, my answer is still yes. I I think I have open lines of communication and and happy to to work with with this body on on whatever improves the the residents of the city of St. Louis's lives. >> Thank you, Alderman. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Are from the ninth, are you up? Yes, you're recognized. Wasn't sure if you were walking or at the mic. >> All right. Is this microphone working? All right. Um, would the alderman from the second yield? The >> alderman from the second yield. Questioning from the alderman from the ninth. >> I will. >> Alderman, you may proceed. >> Uh, thank you. I, Alderman, I I'd like to believe and I I do trust that this is being brought with the best of intentions. Uh, I think that we're definitely trying to make sure this is responsible. >> Alderman, can you speak into the mic a little? Maybe you need to raise it a little bit. It's hard to hear. work on that. >> Yeah, it is. >> All right, let's try that again. Alderman, I what I was saying is I think that you're coming at this with good intentions. I think the um I think the intent is to make sure that we spend this money responsibly. Uh alderman from the 12th, I hear you and saying that we want to make sure we actually see the result out on the street. uh that you know how we handled the ARPA money uh how uh we've proceeded as a city is not being felt by people right now and that leads to distrust in government and I think if I'm going to speak to the general feeling o especially over the debate over this amendment it is a debate about a lack of trust uh and something that we need to do in order to make sure that we are all working together and I we've all trying to represent our awards and making sure this money is well spent. Uh is to trust trust each other a little bit just a little bit to be able to go far enough that we understand that we're all at least advocating in a way that we believe is best for our city. And so I don't want to go into this assuming ill intent. Uh but speaking of how the the debate went last time we really circled up around Ram's money, Alderman, my question for you is when you uh were in support of the amendment to uh dial it down just to water, were were you in support of that because you didn't want to send money to North City? No, I was in support of that because it felt like that might have been the the the one use in the conversation that folks uh that a that a a simple majority of folks could agree on. >> So I I think the reason I ask you that question is just that I think when we think about how we're voting, sometimes people assume our intentions, but very much in that case it was more about the programming of the rest of the money. At least I can say for myself, my issue was with the programming of the rest of the money. And similar to yourself, I believed that the only piece that we could agree was uh programmed well was the uh the money for water and the need was there and urgent at the time. And I I regret that we weren't able to pass anything because I think that just led to more distrust. But uh from what I've heard from you today, I think our intention is still to make sure money goes to especially tornado relief uh and making sure that it goes towards tornado relief in an impactful way. Uh is that your your intention as well? >> Yes. >> And I'll right now I'm going to and that's that's my questions for you alderman. Thank you. Um so as a member of the budget committee uh for the past year we've been having hearings over how the uh 30 or so million dollar that we allocated to the office of recovery has being spent. And what we've seen month after month as the office of recovery comes and updates us is that they've spent a lot of time recommending uh not just recommending setting up new programs to do things like home repair uh to do things like infrastructure repair. Uh a lot of our old systems like the healthy home repair program were not set up for this kind of uh massive event. And typically FEMA is responsible for a lot of these uh heavy lifts that our office of the recovery then had to step in and create really from scratch some new systems to get these programs set up and running. Now we are getting an idea through the applications we've received uh who is in need of that money. We're parsing through that information and figuring out exactly who is eligible. We've had elements of uh I don't know what to call it other than maybe some misended people like trying to get money that maybe bought their house after the tornado and so they have to parse through that to make sure that we're giving money to people who really are occupying the homes and need it. We had a lot of vacant properties that were hit whose owners have been non-responses non-responsive as we tried to reach out and work with them. Uh there's just enormous challenges with this um tornado recovery effort. And so as we're moving forward, I think it's going to be really important how we budget this RAMs money to be as effective as possible. And I want to make sure it goes towards the programs that we've just spent the last year setting up. Uh otherwise, uh we're just going to end up spending a lot more of it on overhead. uh if if we are committing today to work together and make sure that we can find a solution that we all agree with, I I hope we can all recognize just exactly what this money can pay for. Um unlike the ARPA money which had restrictions in many ways had to be allocated by a certain date had to be has to be spent by a certain date. This Rams money is as close to free money as we can get in this city. It can be spent on anything. It has no restrictions. We want it from the NFL and it is supposed to replace the revenue lost from losing an NFL team, but obviously it it's not going to do that. And I hesitate to even use words like transformational because it's not even a quarter of our city's annual operating budget. I I think that part of this distrust we keep building is that we keep referring to this money as if it is a magical fixall to all of St. Louis's problems. Over the last 3 years that I've been elected, I've heard endless proposals for how this money can be spent, from the absurd to the absolutely needed. And it does not make this job any easier on how to spend this money. But moving forward, I hope that we can work together honestly and very forth, you know, being very forth with with people, being very even frank if we have to be about what this money can do and what it can't do. Uh because even though it has no restrictions, we do still have to operate within reality. and 250 million is not enough to fix decades of disinvestment in North City. Uh it it won't even repair six blocks, six complete blocks, I would say. That that's how little money this is. So I don't want to get in a situation where we promise people the world and then we can't even get repair in in every neighborhood that was impacted. Uh, as someone who represents an an impacted ward, uh, I I hear a lot of falsehoods already being spread about how the city has helped the central west end. I want to be clear, the city hasn't really helped the central west end. The money you see being spent is private money. That's money that the special business districts or the community improvement districts in the area, which come from local taxes, uh, that's how that money is being spent. So, if you see sidewalks getting repaired or you see trees being replanted, that's because those citizens have taken it upon themselves to pay for those things. And I'd also note that if you go drive down those streets right now, you'll see homes that are still under repair, still have tarps on their roofs. Uh it's not true that we're making a faster recovery. It takes a long time to rebuild a house. And so it is a situation where I still have residents in my ward who are not living in their house right now. They're living somewhere else because their house isn't ready to move back into. And I know there are people all over the city in that situation. I know there are people who are even living in their broken homes hoping for money to repair it. And I don't want to have this conversation go to a place where we make false promises. I don't want to over represent what we're capable of. If you think that this amendment will get us to a place where people can have trust that the what the board of alderman is doing is actually going to make a difference, then I'm in favor of it. But if this makes it harder to spend the money that we have already struggled to spend, then I'm not in favor of it. And I think that is I'm I'm honestly standing here right now not sure which way to vote on this because I I do hear what both sides are saying. Uh but if anyone wants to speak to how they think we can go forward and make sure that we all agree on what's being done, make sure that what we're doing is effective, that we're being honest with people about what's possible. If we can commit to that, then I think we can move forward today. But I what I don't want this to turn into is a debate on how we should spend the Rams money today because I don't think we're going to settle that today. And I'll be honest, I just had to cancel my meeting with the mayor's office to discuss the Rams bill because this meeting is running long. So the irony right there is that we're not having communication because we're standing here arguing about this. Uh so Alderman, I don't know if you want to speak to the amendment anymore, but those are my concerns and um I I yield back. Thank you. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, then alderman from the sec, you are uh recognized to close on the amendment. And there's been a request for roll call. >> Thank you, Madam President. colleagues. Um, this is nothing sinister or diabolical with my intentions here. I honestly think it's an awesome responsibility to represent uh the public in the search of public virtue, I do believe getting to a threshold of 2/3 is important. While while this may not be transformative money in some people's minds and eyes and and it's up for debate, it is a it is an incredible responsibility uh to get it right to get it right. Uh because it is a seed of money where we can we can grow a much larger harvest of economic development and revenue that the city desperately needs and and is screaming out for. It is a it is a a a a data point that says this is an important vote and it forces compromise. Um and everyone can come to the table um with their particular use um having some power um and some wherewithal because they know they have to compromise on some of it to get to 10 votes. um with what is very important decisions ahead on the actual uses. Um I will conclude and renew my motion. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the second, seconded by the alderman from the fourth that we adopt amendment number one to resolution number one. Madame clerk, please call the role. >> Alderwoman Schwitzer, >> Alderman Oldenberg, I. >> Alderman Con. Alderman Orion. >> Hi. >> Alderman Devote. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. >> Yes. >> Alderwoman Sier. >> Alderwoman Cox. Alderman Browning. >> Alderwoman Clark Hubard. >> No. >> Alderwoman Keys. Hi. Alderwoman Tyus. >> I. >> Alderwoman Boyd. >> I. >> Alderman Aldrich. >> President Green. >> No. >> Alderman Conn. >> No. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. >> No. Alderwoman Cox who sponsor >> Alderman Brownie Alderman Aldrin Brownie. Hi, >> Alderwoman Cox. >> Alderman Aldrich. >> No, seven I votes, seven O's. By your vote, you failed to sustain the motion from the alderman from the second. Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized again on uh resolution number one. Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move to adopt amendment number two or amendment number two to resolution number one. >> Is there a second? >> Second. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderwoman from the 7th that we adopt amendment number two to resolution number one. Alderman, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Madam President, members of the board. This just adds to the end of um rule number 69. at the end of that uh language where it says no bill resolution shall be placed on the consent count calendar automatically after being voted out of committee unless it receives unanimous support from all committee members present and voting along with a due pass recommendation from the committee from which it was last reported. There has been um times that I have seen where a bill has come out of committee uh either with uh everyone voting uh in favor and was not on the consent which somebody potentially could have pulled it off. Uh but I've also seen bills that have come out of committee where there was a vote that was either present or against not vote not voting in the affirmative and the bill still landed on the consent calendar. So this is just to be very clear that only way it can be on the consent if it comes with unanimous support and um does not stop anybody from pulling it off. But it makes a clear process that uh that to be honest either from your office, Madam President, or the clerk cannot automatically put a bill on consent uh even if somebody voted against it, but it has to have unanimous support on it. And with that, I'll open up for any questions. Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, then it's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, second by the alderwoman 7th that we adopt amendment two to resolution number one. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. Alderman from the 14th, you are now recognized on resolution number one as amended. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I renew my motion on resolution one as amended. >> Is there any further discussion on resol resolution number one as amended? Alderwoman from the 12th. Madam President, members of the board, I oppose resolution number one for many of the reasons I've said in past sessions. Um, one of them is putting people in charge of committees. We have no business being in charge of them, stripping seniority. I will continue to oppose that and I will request a roll call vote. >> Any further discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, then it's been moved by the [clears throat] alderman from the 14th. seconded by the alderman from the third that we adopt resolution number one as amended. Madame clerk, please call the role. >> Alderwoman Schwitzer. >> Alderman Odenberg. >> Hi. >> Alderman Conn. >> Hi. >> Alderman Orion. Alderman Devote. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Velasquez. Hi. >> Alderwoman Sier. Alderwoman Coxantu. Alderman Browning. Hi. Alderwoman Clark Hubard. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Keys. >> Alderwoman Tyus. >> No. >> Alderwoman Boyd. >> No. >> Alderman Aldrich. >> Hi. >> President Green. >> Hi. >> Alderwoman Cox Antui. 11 I votes three nos. >> By your vote you sustain the motion from the alderman from the 14th to adopt resolution number one as amended. Resolution number two introduced by President Green and Alderman Browning. Hiring of staff. >> Alderman from the ninth. You are recognized on resolution number two. >> Thank you. I move that we adopt res number. >> First you need to ask for unanimous consent. Uh, I request unanimous consent. >> Hearing no objection, alderman, you may proceed with adoption. >> Uh, thank you. I move that we adopt resolution number two. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the ninth, seconded by the alder person from the first that we adopt resolution number two. Alderman, you may proceed. >> Uh, this is a simple resolution just hiring the staff for the year. Um, and, uh, you'll see a lot of familiar names on this list as well as a couple vacant positions due to some recent moving around. Uh but uh I think we all appreciate all these people for the work they do. So we'd like to rehire them. >> Any further discussion? I'll >> Sorry, pausing for one second. Okay, with that, because we are discussing the hiring of staff, we are going to go into a quick close session to discuss >> I think we need a motion for that. So, I move that we go into close session uh pursuant to uh I don't know have the rule in front of me, but um it to discuss personnel matters. It's been moved by the alderman from the ninth, seconded by the alderwoman from the first that we go into close >> order. Madam, we need the second and >> correct. I would remove my motion to adopt resolution two. >> Okay, you're fine. >> And I motion that we go into close session pursuant to Missouri statute 262.010 subsections 1 and 12. >> [laughter] >> Nice. It >> has been moved by the alderman from the 3rd, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we go into close session. Madame clerk, please call the role. >> Alderwoman Twitzer, Alman Oldenberg, >> I. Alderman Alderman Norion, Alderman Devote, Alderwoman Velasquez, Alderwoman Sier, Alderwoman Cox, Antwe, Alderman Browning, Alderwoman Clark Hubard, >> Alderwoman Keys, Alderwoman Tus, >> I alderwoman Boyd, I >> Alderman Aldrich, President Green >> I alderwoman Sier >> Alderwoman Cox Antwe 14 I votes >> by your vote you sustain the motion STL TV if you could please place us in close session and if anybody who is not uh member of the board of alderman or uh our clerk Sharita please exit the chambers. and we are back. Uh alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on resolution three. [cough] I move for unanimous consent on resolution number three. >> Hearing no objection, you may proceed. >> Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I move to perfect resolution number three. >> Adopt. >> Adopt resolution number three. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderwoman 7th. We adopt resolution number three. Is there any discussion? >> I do. Alderwoman from the 12th. >> Where are we with we still wasting paper? I know we cut it to 15 journals, but where are we with uh is it because and I'm wanting to think that it was because it's in the charter. >> It's in the charter. >> Just going to digital journals. I think that is such a waste of paper. >> Is that for me all the delay? Are you asking me to yield or? >> Um I I Yes. I'm sorry. I'll ask if the ninth 14th ward will yield. >> The alderman from the 14th yield to questioning from the older woman from the 12th. >> Yes. >> Alderwoman, you may proceed. >> Alderman. Um we used to print more than 15 copies. We cut back to 15 copies, but um is there any thought that we could go to digital at anytime soon and stop destroying trees? >> Yes, ma'am. And I knew you was going to ask that question. I think since I've been carrying the resolution since 23 you have asked this question and I've said the same thing and then the next session come you ask the question I say same thing. I know it isn't chartered that we have to print some. Um, but I literally just cuz I knew you was going to ask, I talked with uh the um some staff members to make sure that as we transition with now having hopefully full staff very soon at the board that we can actually also make these digital. But I do think we at least have to print like one or something per the charter. Um, but I totally agree digital is a way to go and save the paper. Well, then could I make a friendly amendment and still not and say that we not say we print 15? Uh oh, it says in no event to exceed 15 copies. Okay. So, that's fine. So, it could be under 15 copies cuz I'm still getting them. And I'm one of the people that do not want them. I really want to have the access on digital. So, long as it says not to exceed 15, we can cut back to one or two if we we get a process that we can make them digital. All right. Thank you. I have no further questions. >> Thank you, Alana. Further discussion. >> Any further discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the 7th. We adopt resolution number three. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. >> Resolution number four introduced by President Green and Alderman Con. Automatic and mailing expense. >> Alderman from the third. You're recognized on the first reading resolution number four. >> Thank you, Madam President. I ask for unanimous consent on resolution number four. >> Hearing no objection, you may proceed. >> I thank you, Madam President. I move that we adopt resolution number four. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the third, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we adopt resol number four. Alderman, >> uh thank you. This resolution is pertaining to the uh expense accounts for alder and I would ask for folks favorable consideration. >> Is there any discussion? Any further discussion? Seeing none, it's been moved by the alderman from the 3rd, seconded by the alderman from the 14th that we adopt resolution number four. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. >> Resolution number five introduced by President Green and Alderwoman Hubard. Last day for introduction of board bills. >> Alderwoman from the 10th. You are recognized on resolution number five. >> Ask for unanimous consent on resolution number five. >> Hearing no objection, you may proceed. I move for the adoption of resolution number five. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the tenth, seconded by the alderman from the third that we adopt resolution number five. And alderwoman, I'm not seeing you on the screen right now. Is your camera on? There we go. Is there any discussion on resolution number five? Any >> of order? Point of order. Uh, >> she has to make her motion as per your she has to restate her her motion and and because she was not on the screen. >> Okay. Alderwoman from the 10th, can you please restate your motion >> to move for resolution number five? >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the 10, seconded by the alderman from the third that we adopt resolution number five. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. Opposed. Motion carries. >> Resolution number six introduced by President Green and Alderwoman Velasquez. Conflict of interest disclosure. >> Alderwoman from the six, you are recognized on resolution number six. Thank you, Madam President. Uh, I would ask for unanimous consent for resolution six. >> Hear no objection. You may proceed. >> Thank you. I move to adopt resolution six. >> It's been moved by the alderwoman from the six, seconded by the alderman from the third that we adopt resolution number six. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed. Motion carries. >> No, I had no >> second reading. Resolutions committee reports and adoptions. >> Report from the personnel committee. >> With line item 21, courtesy resolutions. >> We have none. >> In dispense with line item 22, miscellaneous and unfinished business. We have none. >> Dispense with line item 23. Announcements. >> Wednesday, April 22nd. We have none. Thursday, April 23rd, 2026. Personnel and administration committee in the Kennedy room at 11:00 a.m. >> Any further announcements? Any further announcements? Well, I do just um quickly want to say before we Oh, sorry. Alderman from the third. >> Uh thank you, Madam President. And um just a personal point of privilege uh for announcements this morning or this afternoon. Keep thinking that. Um this is uh more than likely the last meeting that President Green will be presiding over before she becomes Mama Green. um and having her baby uh which is currently scheduled for next week. And so um I just want to thank you uh for your leadership as you're uh going through this new journey in motherhood. And um you know, I think we can all agree that we're very excited for your next uh chapter as uh being a new mother and uh look forward to working with your team and your staff and the colleagues down here uh to carry the the lantern as you uh navigate those waters yourself. So, thank you, President Green, and good luck. And we can't wait to meet the new baby. [laughter] >> Thank you, Alder. [applause] >> Thank you, Alderman Con. and thank you for you know stepping up and helping to perform the duties while I am transitioning to some other duties in life for a little bit. So any other announcements? >> Seeing none then uh alderwoman from the 10th you are recognized on the uh alderman from the 14th you are recognized on the motion to excuse. Thank you, Madam President. Members of the board, I'd like to make a motion that we excuse the alderwoman from >> Second. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the third that we excuse the alderwoman from the eighth for necessary absence. Any discussion? >> Seeing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? No. >> Motion carries. Alderman from the 14th, you are recognized on the motion to adjurnn. I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn >> until May 1st, 2026. >> Second. >> It's been moved by the alderman from the 14th, seconded by the alderman from the 9th that we adjourn until Friday, May 1st, 2026 in the board of alderman chambers. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Opposed? >> No. >> Motion carries. We are adjourned. I say that email.