Thread by @rlippmann

Good morning everyone. Happy Tuesday from City Hall.

Why yes, that is the #stlboa chambers. They added a special meeting this week to get bills moving ahead of sine die. This is the second to last meeting before the election break.

I took amazing notes on the agenda, and then promptly left those documents at the office so that's how today is going. 🙃

But I do know that there are a # of important issues on perfection and final today, including incentive reform, changes to ward capital, and updates to the Civilian and Detention Facilities oversight boards.

As a note - to preserve my sanity, my editor and I decided that unless some of the things we are following (incentive reform, tenant's right to counsel) move to final passage today, I am bailing at 3rd reading.

It's not that I don't think the measures on that calendar item are important. But to make the workload a little more balanced, we are limiting what we cover.

I also absolutely bought my lunch with me today.

No special order of business today. @Alderman14 asks for a moment of silence for the victims of the earthquake in Syria and Turkey.

.@saintlouispres has two social work students interning in her office this semester. They'll help with policy research, especially around the transition to 14 wards.

Nothing moves from the informal calendars. That includes emergency signal pre-emption.

Coming out of committee today - BB120, which allocated ARPA $ to capital needs, especially pedestrian safety.

This got a bunch of attention in committee because of the back and forth on amendments, but it appears that it came out essentially as proposed except for clarity on the division of $ for Marquette and Hyde parks.

Also out of committee today - @chryssi's tenants right to counsel.

To get any of these bills out before sine die in April will require a suspension of the rules.

Vollmer asks to move some speed hump and street vacation bills to perfection consent today. (BBs 133, 143, 158, 166, 171.)

Bosley, Evans, Davis, Spencer and Gras have not been here at roll call.

We have moved BB120 (pedestrian safety) and 187 (a street hump bill) to regular (debate allowed) perfection calendar. Tyus also asked to have 162 moved to regular perfection. (I think it deals with aligning the charter and the city code with the new 14 wards.)

.@saintlouispres is continuing to ask for roll calls on perfection even though by rules they are not required.

It is entirely possible that the chairs in the gallery are more uncomfortable than the chairs in the Kennedy Room.

Show time on perfection.

First up - BB137 from @schubbard26, which reconfigures the DFOB and COB. It's an effort to address some of the concerns in a lawsuit filed in August.

I didn't get through all of it, but some of the changes included adding Garrity protections into the language - that is, cops can't face criminal charges for compelled statements.

Hubbard - I am not against the police. Transparency and oversight is not anti-police.

.@STL4Ward (Narayan) - I know how hard it is to go back through and clean up and adjust legislation.

I see @OldenburgSTL standing to speak on this bill. There are a bunch of confabs going on on the floor.

(I missed @AnnieRiceStL as well). She asks to be added as a cosponsor to the vital work.

.@OldenburgSTL - these are the stumbling blocks we are going to run into when you don't sit down with the @SLPOA or the department.

He will remain in opposition.

BB137 perfected by a vote of 20-3, with 2 abstaining and one voting present. Roll call when I have a sec.

Up now - changes to ward capital (183CSAA)

It adjusts to 14 sub-accounts, and says that 30% of funds collected would be distributed based on needs. (70% would still be divided by 14.)

Coatar had some questions about the categories that will be used to divide the 30%. He says it's meant to be for the nuts and bolts of the city, and large but wealthier wards like his own current ward will get left behind.

.@Aldermanjoe raises the same point about his own current ward. (He is running again. Coatar is not.)

.@STL4Ward also raises concerns about giving SLDC this much power.

@Alderman14 - I am not running again, but I will be a citizen. I don't want my services cut any further.

Like Coatar, she says the alders should just divide it equally now, and let the new board make any changes.

Oldenburg - ditto.

Oldenburg offers Amendment 1. It strikes the categories, and goes to equal division among 14.

Oldenburg - there is merit in this conversation, but let's take care of the housekeeping here and let the new board have that convo.

Schweitzer rises in support of the amendment. My constituents are not in favor of taking these funds away, she says.

Schweitzer - when I took over as alder, we had 400K in outstanding sidewalk needs, and that's more than I get every year.

Schweitzer - ward capital should not have to be used for things like dumpsters and street paving. This changes that problem. It doesn't fix it.

Vollmer - we need to get capital needs into administrative hands. Alders should not really have control of their funds.

Narayan - ditto. We should defer this to the experts.

Tyus is standing to speak on the amendment.

Tyus - the problem with getting things done isn't the fault of the alders, it's the fault of the departments in charge of getting things done. If you give them more power, they will be vindictive.

I don't have the exact language of the bill in front of me right now, but I don't think there's language in there that blocks the budget office from cutting ward capital to plug holes elsewhere.

That happens regularly.

Tyus - why shouldn't the alders have say in what projects are needed. That's our home. Everything I did, I did in my whole ward.

Tyus - we are going around the voters with these changes.

(Because this was a sales tax, it had to be approved. That was back in 1993.)

Tyus is now raising questions about the distribution of other funds, such as the portion that is allocated to major parks.

(She isn't opposed to the changes to ward capital allocation, she is against not taking the changes to the voters.)

Howard and Evans are talking to Walker. I can't read lips, unfortunately.

Oldenburg is up, but I can't tell if he's talking to Ingrassia or waiting to speak.

My guess is both - he's talking to Ingrassia and also as the amendment sponsor is waiting for discussion to complete.

We still have ARPA pedestrian safety, BB64 (incentive reform), and the bill directing $30M of the Rams settlement to the Convention Center on perfection.

Today I learned that after ward reduction, there will be the same # of department heads as alders. (14)

Tyus - why would anyone say that administrators (directors) can do it better when they haven't proven it.

The alders are going to have to make changes to ward capital, because it's currently divided by 28.

Conceivably, there would be some wiggle room before the budget is due to make administrative changes (ie, 28 to 14) after the new alders are sworn in in April.

And now we have Bosley to speak.

He is raising questions about changes to the major parks allocation (which is not part of the amendment on the floor.)

Green raises that point, so Narayan goes over to help Bosley.

We are now voting on the amendment. Roll call when I have.

Lots of people holding their powder, but I think the amendment has the votes.

The amendment eliminating the 30% distributed by certain factors passes with 18 votes. Roll call when I have it.

Because of the amendment, @shanecohn voted against a bill he had sponsored.

Perfection vote was 19-3 with 4 present.

Up now - directing $30M from the Rams settlement to the convention center.

It plugs some of the holes in the cost of the upgrade.

Tyus is standing to question Coatar, the sponsor.

Tyus - it always boggles my mind that the attorneys are getting more than the city.

(It was partially because they took the risk to file it.)

Tyus - is this from the city's share? Coatar - no. It's from the settlement pool that was left over after fees.

Coatar - I wasn't in the room, but I expect that it would have either gone to the RSA (which owns the Dome) or the county.

This bill passed with 3 present. Moving down to BB64, which is the incentive reform measure.

It does NOT include the language related to letters of support. I don't remember what that was originally.

It requires meetings of SLDC and its various entities to be live-streamed, and members of those entities must disclose conflicts of interest.

Here is the letters of support language that was struck.

First section

Second part.

Tyus - a lot of things that are blamed on the alders, the agencies could have been a check and balance.

Cohn - nothing in the board bill eliminates the ability of alders to put restrictions on a property, or to provide letters of support or opposition.

Tyus - why would you have eliminated the right of an alder to write a letter of support or opposition? Cohn - that's why we struck the language.

Tyus - it's not that the alder from the 21st Ward (Muhammad) was corrupt (?), he had help. You are dragging people who weren't solely responsible for this.

Link to the full text of the bill. stlouis-mo.gov/government/cit…

Cohn was trying to raise a point of order because Tyus was talking about the Board of Adjustment. She says it's the same general thing - the departments and the administration are the ones who are helping cause the problems.

Cohn - they are going to have to disclose if they have conflicts of interest. We aren't an enforcement agency when it comes to crime and corruption.

Tyus - people already ignore requirements in the charter or ordinances. This stuff is all going to be ignored.

Tyus seems to think that the original language regarding the letters of support stands. Cohn's point is no. The bill doesn't make any changes to that. Alders can still give letters of support or denial, or set conditions on a property.

Okay, I think I have figured out what board bill Tyus is talking about. I suspect it's the North side corridors.

Tyus is basically saying, even with a letter of nonsupport from the alder, incentives can still be approved. The answer is yes. That happens with all board bills.

I suppose you could put language in the bill that says if alders of the ward don't support the project, you can't vote yes. But you can't dictate how people vote.

Tyus - we need to make sure that agencies are also getting the same attention.

Tina Pihl now to ask questions of Cohn.

Pihl wants an amendment regarding public input. There is language that says community input shall be given in a manner acceptable to SLDC.

She says in a project in her ward, SLDC took old input on a new project that had changed substantially, and wants to ensure that input is recent.

Pihl wants to add "neighborgood and community" after "acceptable to"

Schweitzer asks her who would determine what is acceptable to the community. Some wards have some standard processes because they have development corporations, but others don't.

Cohn to Pihl - can you help define community and neighborhood?

Pihl - I believe the alder should bring together their community, and develop a process to do so with standards.

She says she could add it to the amendment. I feel like that opens a gigantic can of worms in terms of, what acceptable input looks like

Cohn won't support the amendment as currently written. Pihl withdraws the current amendment and says she will come back this meeting.

She wants a recess. Tyus is just going to get up and talk so Pihl can get an amendment written.

Cohn wasn't sure about yielding.

Since this is basically a filibuster, I'm going to run and hit the bathroom.