2026-09-30 - Public Infrastructure and Utilities Committee

00:08Good afternoon. This is the public

00:09infrastructure and utilities committee

00:11meeting. It is Wednesday, September

00:1330th, the last day of September. Um,

00:16Madame Clerk, would you please call

00:18roll?

00:19>> Alderwoman Alderwoman Boyd,

00:22>> present.

00:23>> Alderwoman Clark Hubard,

00:26Vice Chair Schwitzer,

00:27>> present. Alderman Devote

00:31>> present.

00:32>> Alderwoman Cox Anti

00:36Chair Browning

00:37>> present.

00:39>> Alderwoman Clark Huard. Alderwoman Cox

00:41Anti. We have four present. We have a

00:43quorum.

00:44>> Thank you so much. Uh with that, uh

00:47we'll move on to approval of the

00:49minutes. I'll accept a motion to approve

00:51the minutes from September 23rd, 2026.

00:58I I do need

00:59>> I move to I move to approve the minutes

01:03from what' you say September the 26th

01:07>> minutes were from the 23rd

01:08>> 23rd from September 23rd 2026

01:14>> second.

01:16>> Thank you. It was moved by the

01:17alderwoman uh from the 13th and seconded

01:21by the alder woman or the alder man from

01:23the 5th. Um, Madame Clerk, please call a

01:26roll.

01:26>> Alderwoman Boyd,

01:28>> I.

01:29>> Alderwoman Clark Hubard,

01:31>> I.

01:31>> Vice Chair Schwitzer,

01:33>> I.

01:34>> Alderman Devote,

01:37>> I.

01:37>> Alderwoman Cox Santo,

01:40>> I.

01:41>> Chair Brownie,

01:42>> I.

01:42>> We have six eye votes.

01:44>> Excellent.

01:46Uh, with that, we're going to move on to

01:47the next item on our agenda, which is

01:48board bills for review. Uh, we have two

01:51board bills for today. not seeing the

01:53sponsor for board bill 64 uh yet. I will

01:57go ahead and skip down to item number

01:58two uh which is board bill number 85.

02:02With that, I'm going to pass the

02:03chairmanship to my vice chair, Alder One

02:06Schweitzer, and uh we'll go from there.

02:10>> Thank you, Chairman Browning. You are

02:11recognized on board bill 85.

02:30Thank you so much. Um, so board bill 85

02:34is a simple uh donation letter and quick

02:39claim deed uh which is moving a piece of

02:42property that is currently owned by our

02:44St. Louis water division over to the

02:47Missouri Department of Transportation.

02:49Uh the Missouri Department of

02:50Transportation has a project on this

02:52land. Uh but it is currently owned by

02:54the city and uh it is not a piece of

02:56land to my understanding that the city

02:58needs anymore. Uh but to speak on this

03:01more, we do have somebody from the city

03:03council's office. Uh and um I invite

03:06them up to speak as my speaker at this

03:08time. Please introduce yourself and your

03:10title and uh say what you

03:13>> Thank you for coming.

03:14>> Thank you, Chair Browning. My name is

03:16Patrick Patterson. I'm a an attorney

03:17with the city councelor's office. Um uh

03:21thank you to the members of this

03:22committee for the opportunity to speak

03:23on this bill. Um essentially the city

03:26owns a piece of land in the county um

03:29that's known as Stacy Park. Uh most of

03:32that we lease to the city of Alvette to

03:34use actually as a park. Um, but the

03:37water division also has a large

03:39reservoir there that, pardon me, it has

03:42about a hund00 million dollars of

03:43treated water that's used uh in

03:46conjunction with the uh Howard Ben

03:47treatment plant. And um

03:51the north edge of that park is uh Olive

03:54Boulevard, which is also State Route

03:56340. So it's owned and operated by uh

04:00the Missouri Department of

04:01Transportation, MDOT. and MDOT reached

04:04out to us about a project they wanted to

04:06do on the very northeast corner of Stacy

04:08Park um to essentially improve the

04:12sidewalks to make it more accessible to

04:14wheelchair users uh which is something I

04:16think we can all support um and uh the

04:20water division reviewed this determined

04:22that they don't actually use that piece

04:24of the land um it would be about the

04:27total amount of deed that we'd be doing

04:29would be about 1,300 square ft But much

04:32of that is already in the MoDOT ride

04:35ofway, so we'd really only be giving up

04:37about 250 ft. Um, and so they asked if

04:41they could have an easement. We said,

04:43you know what, we'd rather just not own

04:44this at all. Um, let's go ahead and do

04:47this as a deed. They said, great, let's

04:49do that. Uh, they first suggested a

04:50warranty deed. Uh, we suggested a quick

04:53claim deed, which sort of limits the

04:55city's liability more. They were fine

04:56with that. Uh, and so that's how we got

04:58here. Basically, um we're donating a

05:01very small piece of land to a government

05:03entity for the purpose of improving we

05:06accessibility and um taking very little

05:10risk on for the city. I'm happy to

05:11answer questions if that is something

05:13y'all do here.

05:14>> Uh thank you very much. I will move

05:16through members of the committee for

05:18questions starting with Alderman Clark

05:20Hubard or Alderman Boyd. I apologize.

05:25>> Uh thank you. Uh this seems like a very

05:29simple process.

05:31While you were explaining it seemed

05:33complicated, but after you went through

05:36after you went through the lawyer jogle,

05:39it it became really simple. So I think

05:43this would be a good thing, you know,

05:45and to help the city too. Thank you so

05:47much for being here.

05:51>> Thank you, Alderman Clark Hubard.

05:53>> No questions. Thank you for being here

05:54and thank you for the ex really helped.

05:58>> Alderman Devote,

06:03>> I don't have any questions, but

06:05Alderwoman Boyd, thank you for the

06:06chuckle. Uh the I forgot what the

06:10language was, but but the lawyer jumble.

06:13Uh I'm going to adopt that. So, just so

06:15you know, but but uh Mr. Patterson,

06:17thank you for the presentation.

06:21>> Thank you, Alderman Cox. An entry.

06:25Thank you, Vice Chairwoman. Um, I'll

06:27echo my colleagues. I really appreciate

06:29the thorough explanation and overview,

06:30Mr. Patterson. I think you explained it

06:32very well and this does seem like it

06:34makes a lot of sense for the city. So,

06:35no question for me as well.

06:38>> Thank you. Um, I actually do have a

06:40question. You know, I read through the

06:42the bill and it wasn't clear to me that

06:44there was a park involved. We have a

06:46city charter that says we can't sell or

06:49do anything with the park. That's not a

06:50park uh without a city vote. Um, how

06:53does this relate to that?

06:55>> So, this isn't a park within the city

06:58limits. This is a park existing in the

07:00county. Uh, I don't have the text of

07:03article 27 on me. Is that 27 says we

07:06can't do parks

07:07>> article? I'm fairly confident that it's

07:09it's within the city. I can verify that

07:11and uh confirm to you by the end of this

07:13meeting.

07:13>> Yeah, I would I would appreciate that

07:15information. We've had some uh

07:16controvers controversial um bill uh

07:20related to that in the past and I just

07:23want to have a consistent voting record

07:24on this topic. Um and um I would like to

07:29to have the answer to to that whether

07:31this would have technically required a

07:33vote. Um all right, any any further um

07:39any any is there any public comment?

07:43>> We have none. Okay. I would like that

07:47information before I vote. It's

07:49>> Sorry, someone just raised their hand.

07:50>> Okay, fantastic. Um, if you are a member

07:53of the public here to testify,

07:56please turn your camera on.

08:05>> Can't see you quite yet. Let's see.

08:08>> Hello. Can you guys hear me?

08:09>> We can hear you, but not see you.

08:11Fantastic. Do you mind raising your

08:13hand?

08:14Hi. Hi. You guys can hear me?

08:16>> Yes. Raise your right hand. Do you swear

08:18to tell the truth, the whole truth, and

08:19nothing but the truth?

08:21>> Absolutely.

08:22>> Okay. You have three minutes. Please

08:24proceed.

08:25>> And state your whole name, please.

08:27>> Thank you.

08:27>> Tommy Oanasi.

08:29>> All right. Please proceed.

08:31>> Thank you for having me in a meeting

08:33about public infrastructure to discuss

08:35the most important issues impacting St.

08:38Louis's public infrastructure. And I

08:40just want to summarize the two bills

08:41that you guys have been bringing up here

08:43to make sure I'm staying on topic. And I

08:45know, you know, this is an important

08:46meeting, so I want to kind of make sure

08:48I stay on topic. Um, one is about

08:50closing a random street in the city. And

08:53the other is about executing a donation

08:55letter and a quick claim deed in St.

08:57Louis County. These seem like super

08:59important bills, like the most important

09:02issues that everyone in the city is

09:03talking about. Like there's one public

09:05relations issue going on right now the

09:07committee for public public

09:09infrastructure should care about. It's

09:10absolutely these two bills. So can any

09:13of you tell me why these bills are more

09:14important than passing a bill to

09:16expedite the train crossing repairs,

09:18getting additional funding, and cutting

09:19red tape?

09:28>> Are you finished with your comments?

09:32Yeah, I mean I'd just like to hear from

09:33from you guys.

09:34>> Thank you. I appreciate that. Um this is

09:37a time for a comment on board bill

09:39number 85. We generally don't do back

09:42and forth question and answer. Um but

09:44I'm happy to if you want to provide your

09:47your phone number to the clerk to give

09:48you a call after this meeting and uh

09:50answer any questions I can about about

09:52that and provide you any information

09:54that I can. I appreciate you coming to

09:56comment today.

09:58No, I mean I just really like to hear

10:00from you guys like obviously these bills

10:01are really important. You know there it

10:04seems like um you know my real question

10:06here is will you cut red tape to make it

10:08easier for contractors to bid permit and

10:10work on these crossings? Will you

10:11expedite the timeline? So this has been

10:13done mid December but much sooner and

10:15will you hold yourselves accountable to

10:16that timeline? Is anybody here willing

10:19to do that?

10:19>> As I as I said this is a time for

10:21commenting on specific bills. I

10:23completely understand the frustration

10:25and why you've come to speak on this

10:27today, but it is not uh the appropriate

10:29time to do so. So, if you would like to

10:30put your phone number in the chat for

10:32the clerk, I'm happy to give you a call

10:33after the meeting. Thank you for your

10:35comments.

10:36>> All right. Also, Chairman Browning, you

10:38are recognized again on board Bill 85.

10:43>> Uh thank you. So, um, while we try to

10:46figure this out, uh, I was going to

10:48recommend that maybe we go into a short

10:50recess while we're looking into issue.

10:53Plus, we have another bill on the

10:54calendar. Sponsor isn't here yet. So,

10:57>> sure.

10:57>> If uh the committee members don't mind,

10:59is a 10-minute recess okay with

11:01everybody or do we all have that on our

11:03>> We need a a motion. So, Oh, we have our

11:06alderwoman. Look at that timing.

11:08>> We'll we'll put this on the calendar and

11:10then we'll uh let the other uh alder

11:12woman go. So,

11:12>> thank you. I appreciate you taking my

11:14question so seriously, Alderman. Um, all

11:16right. I'll pass the chairmanship back

11:18to you.

11:29>> Okay.

11:31Alan, Sier, you are recognized on board

11:34bill number 64.

11:36>> Thank you, chairman, members of the

11:39committee. Um, board bill 64 is

11:42something that many of the residents on

11:44this street are awaiting. Um, it is, um,

11:48an ordinance that is directing the the

11:50streets to permanently close, barricade,

11:52or otherwise impede the flow of traffic

11:54on the 2600 block of Oregon Avenue by

11:58blocking the traffic flow from the PLO

12:00street about 124th north, 120 ft north

12:04of the curb um, of line on Oregon. Um

12:07the goal is really if maybe folks are

12:11not as familiar but it's a very busy

12:13intersection very much near Gravo. Um it

12:17has been just an ongoing issue for quite

12:19some time uh for those uh residents and

12:23the president of the Fox Park

12:25Neighborhood Association, Sarah 11,

12:26actually uh sent in some testimony that

12:29I am happy to read for folks just kind

12:32of explaining the busyiness of the

12:34street and why street closure is the way

12:37to go. I have also taken the time to

12:39kind of do an initial assessment with

12:40the streets department. I always go to

12:42the professionals and say, "Hey, like

12:43what do you think is recommended here?"

12:45Um, we explored several options, but

12:47they did deem that street closure was a

12:49viable pathway forward.

12:54>> Thank you. Um, appreciate that

12:56introduction. Uh, we'll go through the

12:59committee real quick to see if anybody

13:01has any questions. Starting with Alder

13:02Boyd.

13:06>> Uh,

13:08>> I have no questions.

13:11>> Thank you. Uh, Alderwoman

13:14uh car covered.

13:16>> No questions. Thank you.

13:18>> Alderwoman Schwitzer.

13:20>> Uh, thank you for bringing this forward.

13:22So, is it the plan to put planters of

13:25some sort or what's the actual closure

13:27plan?

13:28>> Um, well, we preliminary assessment. I

13:30can show you the design. Um, yeah.

13:32Basically like planters without any

13:34vegetation and then we have some artists

13:36that are like paint them and make them

13:38cute.

13:39>> Okay. And it's a two-way street already.

13:41Yes.

13:41>> Okay. And the the neighbor, you said the

13:43neighborhood association was involved,

13:44but how about people on the direct

13:46street?

13:47>> Yes. And I have a letter from and I

13:49think it's in the testimony. I think I

13:50believe I sent it to the clerk from her

13:52from the neighborhood president. Um I

13:54myself and my David went to the street.

13:57Sorry, Mr. Steel. My LA went to the

13:58street to talk to the residents there.

14:00They've been asking for it for a while,

14:02but I wanted to make sure that the

14:03streets department thought it was a good

14:05idea. And so that part took a bit longer

14:07just to make sure that they they wanted

14:08to kind of do a walk through, explore

14:10all the pathways and make closure was

14:12the best. So once we landed there, then

14:14I found the bill. But honestly, the

14:15residents on the street probably have

14:16been asking me since I originally got

14:18elected three.

14:19>> This is something that the the fire

14:21department has already looked at as

14:23well. Is there any concern for three

14:24traffic or anything?

14:25>> Um, yes. Because there's like the way

14:27that the streets angle, there's tons of

14:28other ways that they can go that are

14:30right directly there. Um and I think too

14:32even the fire department obviously most

14:34people who move in a city are aware of

14:35the way that any streets that are near

14:36Grava just deal with a high amount of

14:38like traffic intensious issues in this

14:41particular street. They basically

14:42accelerate down gravel and sometimes

14:45continue to accelerate through this

14:46street but it's in a residential

14:48neighborhood as opposed to gravitate is

14:49much more through main thorough affairs.

14:51>> Sure. It'll be really interesting to see

14:54the amount of street closures that are

14:57recommended as the Gravo plan continues

14:59to come out. Yeah. you know, um with how

15:02many streets end up turning onto Gravo

15:05or where um where these intersections

15:08are, we have so many of those kind of

15:10angled intersections that are so

15:12dangerous. Um and I wonder, it's

15:14interesting to hear you talk about

15:16closing this one because it's just

15:18interesting to think about how much

15:19that's going to either happen or whether

15:21or not people are going to be for it or

15:23against it depending how often they use

15:24the streets to get to Graphway.

15:26>> Yeah. And I I mean I would say it needs

15:29to be a conversation because you know

15:31you know we've had tons of conversations

15:33about Gravaway and the issues and like

15:35in this one what's interesting too is

15:36it's by Gravaway it's also near Quick

15:38Trip. So in addition to dealing with

15:40that like all the traffic and speeding

15:42that happens on Gravaway they have the

15:43little neighborhood street but then you

15:44got a quick trip that's right there. So

15:46that's basically what barricading

15:47through is there be a separation between

15:50this like kind of residential street and

15:52the quick trip because essentially right

15:54now people just speed all the way

15:55through.

15:56>> Sort of envisioning barriers already at

15:58that quick trip. Are there other other

16:00parts of the street blocked off?

16:01>> The barriers are not positioned that

16:03kind of close off the street.

16:04>> Okay. Just to for visibility or

16:07something.

16:07>> Yeah. And to slow down traffic.

16:08>> Okay. But it hasn't worked as well as

16:10you've wanted. So Okay. All right. Well,

16:12thank you and I appreciate the uh

16:14answering my questions. Alderman

16:17Devote.

16:20>> Yes. Thank you, Chair. Alderman, thank

16:23you. Uh thank you for bringing this

16:24bill. Uh you all are much more familiar

16:28with the the study that's going on on

16:30Gravo, but is this I I guess I have an

16:35understanding and this is I I need

16:36education. I have an understanding that

16:39that there is a bunch of development

16:42work going on. Is this premature? Should

16:45we wait for that work to be completed?

16:48>> Um, I would say if this street was a

16:50little bit more closer to the main

16:51thorough of Gravo perhaps, but this is

16:54really a residential street that's more

16:56adjacent to the Quick Trip than as

16:57opposed to Gravoy itself. So like I'm,

16:59you know, obviously Gravo runs a lot

17:01through the seventh floor. So I talked

17:02to them a lot. I've given them a lot of

17:03input. A lot of my residents engage in

17:06that process. Um, I don't think this NP

17:08with anything any Gravo, you know,

17:10anything that's planned with Gravo. I

17:12have talked to the police department. I

17:14talked to the folks at MODOT. Um, they

17:16weren't really even really interested in

17:17this part of the conversation because

17:18it's a residential street. They didn't

17:20feel like it interfered enough with a

17:22fair to really have a role or a feeling

17:24one way or another.

17:27>> Sure. And public safety does come to

17:29mind. Uh, I know that that you mentioned

17:31a discussion with local fire department

17:34or the the the local uh uh engine house.

17:38Uh, what about the the the district

17:40folks? What do the do the police have a

17:43thought with respect to this closure?

17:45>> Um, honestly, I have not talked to

17:47SLMPD. Um, the only conversation that I

17:50had was relevant to SLMPD was just

17:52making sure like it wouldn't stop any

17:53first responder activity. So, I didn't

17:55have any direct communication with SLMPD

17:57outside of just one check-in with our

17:59director of public safety to make sure

18:00that it would not interfere with whether

18:02it's a police car or a EMS truck, you

18:05know, that it wouldn't interfere with

18:06any first responder, you know, transit.

18:09Is is that a a conversation that that

18:13should happen? That is a conversation

18:14with the local captain.

18:16>> I wouldn't mind it. We do talk all the

18:18time and are in communication. So, I

18:20wouldn't I wouldn't mind it. And

18:21honestly, like our police captain in Fox

18:23Park, uh, Mr. Captain Dickerson is very

18:26involved. I'm sure she's like heard of

18:28just the issues. And what I know she's

18:30familiar with as a police officer

18:31honestly is the amount of act the amount

18:32of cars that have been hit on the street

18:34because of people speeding through. You

18:35know, SLMPD unfortunately is very

18:38familiar with a lot of the issues that

18:39come because obviously they enforce the

18:41issues and so a lot of times SLMPD has

18:43been engaged in terms of issues that

18:45come from it being just such horrible

18:47driving on the street. So they are

18:49familiar with that, but I certainly

18:50wouldn't mind like having a conversation

18:51with her specifically about the street

18:53closure.

18:55>> Great. Thank you, ma'am.

18:58>> Thank you, Alderman. Alderwoman Cox.

19:04>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,

19:05Alderwoman Sonier, for bringing this

19:07bill forward. Um, I know you and I share

19:09Gravoy as well, and we we both share

19:11some of the challenges with residents

19:12speeding and and getting onto the

19:15thoroughare. Um, so I do always

19:16appreciate your work and trying to bring

19:18these types of safety measures forward.

19:20Um, and looking at the board bill, I did

19:23just have a clarification question on

19:24how far up uh the barrier would be from

19:28the exhibit that you attached. It looks

19:30like the barrier is going to be sort of

19:32on Oregon Street and um I believe the

19:36intersection is Oregon and Pestallozi.

19:38So can you just explain maybe more on

19:40sort of where and why you're

19:41strategically positioning the barrier

19:43where you are?

19:44>> Um so Oregon and Pesto Lozi was my ask

19:46and then the specific location was the

19:48streets department suggestion. So I just

19:50had a bunch of constituents like we want

19:52the street clothes, we want to close

19:53here. I went to I said hey we want the

19:55street closed and this was their point

19:57that they pinpoint it. So I can ask them

19:58more specific are I really didn't

20:01challenge them or ask any follow-up

20:02questions. I just said okay works for me

20:04and kind of move forward. Um but I would

20:06imagine that for them I'm sure whatever

20:08assessment they did they just want to

20:09make sure it doesn't interfere. Like I

20:11think the conversation I had with them

20:13they were very interested in making sure

20:14that the residential goal of separating

20:16kind of the commercial part which is the

20:18quick trip and the other activity that

20:19happens separate from the residential

20:21street. And so I think they picked that

20:23location because maybe they think that's

20:24where it's best. Um but it was kind of

20:26picked by the streets department. I just

20:27made a general ask and I let them pick

20:29the point honestly.

20:32>> Okay. Thank you for for that. I I think

20:34that is good to know that they did have

20:36some discretion in that because it does

20:38look like it's kind of not right at the

20:40end of the street, just a little bit

20:41farther up. And I think that street

20:43looking at the map is a oneway. So, I

20:45just wanted to make sure you know all of

20:46that conversation have been coordinated

20:48um and talked through um just because it

20:51is a little bit of a weird end of street

20:53barrier versus kind of what we normally

20:55see. Um, but as always, I appreciate

20:57your thorough um, you know, research and

21:00coordination with the streets

21:01department. So, I have no further

21:02questions on that.

21:03>> Thank you.

21:06>> Thank you. Um, although like the rest of

21:09my colleagues, I'm just trying to get an

21:11understanding of this. Uh, Gravo is a

21:15beast and it is, in my opinion, the

21:18worst road in St. Louis. Um, it is

21:21deadly. it is uh dangerous and uh part

21:25of the problem is is that it is cutting

21:27diagonally through our street grid as if

21:29it doesn't acknowledge that there's a

21:30city around it.

21:32>> Um I totally understand your residents

21:35desire to calm this and the issue at

21:38hand of people zooming off of what is

21:40essentially a highway uh onto their

21:43neighborhood streets. And so I'm uh very

21:46supportive of closing this and uh making

21:49sure that we can um really protect our

21:52neighborhood streets uh from reckless

21:54driving. You also just have a

21:56complicated situation there with a gas

21:57station and all sorts of other kind of

21:59anti-pedestrian um anti- people types of

22:03uses. And so this hopefully will help

22:06you take a step closer. Um, so

22:11in closing the street, um,

22:15is there going to be more of an

22:17indication that that turn won't be

22:19available like or is it just that

22:21because I'm a little worried about where

22:22the barricad's going to be placed that

22:24people might start to turn down and

22:25realize it's closed and then have to do

22:27a dangerous maneuver to reverse course.

22:30>> I've asked for some signage to go along

22:33with this. Now, we know we don't we do

22:35the legislation for the planters and not

22:36the signage. So my hope would be that

22:38that relationship between the signage

22:39just to it because technically the

22:41street is supposed to be a oneway but it

22:42does not operate that way at all because

22:44there's no signage. It honestly does

22:45basically operate as a two-way people

22:47whichever way they feel fit. Um but it

22:50would be my hope that we can get up some

22:51signage on the street to also indicate

22:53that there's you know there's not a

22:54thoroughare here. There's a dead end at

22:56block. Um and I've asked for that to be

22:58in coordination with once you know this

22:59is installed that that signage will go

23:01up quickly. Fingers crossed we know how

23:03that goes in.

23:05>> Oh thank you. That that's helpful. And

23:07um I also just want to say thank you for

23:08working with the streets department on

23:10how to best do this. I do not think all

23:12the people should be in the business of

23:14closing streets. I think that should be

23:16left up to people who really know the

23:18traffic flows how to direct traffic. Um

23:22but in this situation and really all

23:24down gravo, there are a number of

23:26streets I think need to be closed in

23:28order to improve the safety of that uh

23:31street and really restore our street

23:33grid. Uh, but this seems to be very much

23:37in the interest of safety for your

23:38residents and I just really want to

23:40shout that out and say thank you for

23:42looking out for people's safety and

23:44being responsive to their needs.

23:45>> Thank you. And I completely agree with

23:47you. I don't think that these are

23:48decisionly. I don't like being the

23:50person that has to decide on a street

23:51closure. It's taken me some time to

23:53officially file the legislation and I

23:55think I probably got on some of my

23:57constituents nerves with delaying to

23:59department so much and saying, "Hey, I

24:00want to make sure this is good with

24:01them." I know um when I originally did

24:03the walkthrough with streets department,

24:04they were like, "Well, don't you have

24:05the authority to just file a bill? Why

24:07do we have to even do a walkthrough with

24:08the department?" I'm like, "Well, yeah,

24:09I have the authority to file a bill, but

24:10I don't have the expertise to really

24:12know like what greater impacts might

24:13be." And obviously, we're a whole

24:14neighborhood. So, as we make decisions

24:16on street, I want to talk to the

24:17professionals who can make that

24:19determination. So, I completely agree

24:20with you that this is not, you know, I

24:22wouldn't be proposing street closures

24:23willy-nilly. I would never do it without

24:25talking streets department. I really, it

24:27feels a little weird that this is even

24:28kind of under my decision- making

24:30umbrella. So I just tried to work with

24:31the streets department as much as

24:33possible and I think even my

24:34constituents are adjusting to you know

24:36having an alter person that leans so

24:38much on departments and really wants the

24:39expertise and doesn't you know I'm not

24:41going to go around a department unless I

24:43feel like I have a moral reason and in

24:45this case I think they are the right

24:46people to make the determination and

24:48make sure it could go. My initial

24:49concern was actually about paramedics

24:51and like would it impact their flow?

24:53Like I I was kind of concerned about

24:54those things. So I I totally agree with

24:56you.

24:57>> Well well thank you. Thank you. I really

24:58appreciate that. And um with that uh I'm

25:02going to see if there's any public

25:04comment. Madam clerk, anyone signed up

25:06for public comment?

25:07>> We have none.

25:08>> Okay. And uh with that, Alder one,

25:10you're recognized to close.

25:12>> Thank you for closing. Um uh Sarah, if

25:14you're reading, President Leven, um I'm

25:16going to go ahead and read your letter.

25:18She did indicate like she wrote this

25:19letter. She would like it read on

25:20record. Understood. Yes, ma'am. Um, the

25:23residents of the 2600 block of Oregon

25:26Avenue and Avenue requested the

25:28permanent closure of our block at the

25:31intersection with Pestoi Street. This

25:33request stems from years of persistent

25:35traffic and safety concerns that remain

25:37unressed despite prior outreach dating

25:40back to 2018, including a petition and

25:42ongoing pleading with city officials.

25:44Our block is a southbound one-way street

25:47that unfortunately continues to serve as

25:50an informal northbound cutthrough,

25:51frequently used illegally by everyday

25:54drivers, city service vehicles, utility

25:56of trucks, quick trip customers, and

25:58more disturbingly by individuals fleeing

26:00criminal activity. A petition signed by

26:03residents nearly six years ago

26:05documented the following ongoing issues.

26:07Regular illegal northbound traffic

26:09endangering drivers, cyclists, and

26:11pedestrians. frequent near miss

26:13accidents and driver confusion at the

26:15intersection of Oregon and Magnolia. Use

26:18of the street for illicit activities um

26:20including criminal flights and drug use,

26:23drug deals, ineffective traffic calming

26:25measures, shame pots and concrete

26:27barriers that have created additional

26:29confusion without resolving the

26:30underlying issue. While the prior

26:32installation of barriers and signage

26:34were appreciated, these efforts failed

26:36to meaningfully deter wrongway traffic

26:38or improve safety. In fact, the current

26:41street layout often misleads drivers

26:44into believing the street is already a

26:45dead end, promoting prompting a sudden

26:48U-turn that creates further hazards on

26:50Magnolia Avenue. Block in Oregon just

26:52north of Pestoi with a permanent barrier

26:54and adding a stop sign at Magnolia

26:56Avenue would accomplish the following.

26:58Eliminate the ability for drivers to

27:00enter the block illegally from the

27:02south. Prevent high-speed cutthroughs

27:05and reduce the risk of criminal activity

27:07using our street as an escape route.

27:09Improve safety for residents, guests,

27:12and pedestrians, including children and

27:14elderly neighbors. Reduce confusion and

27:16conflict amongst drivers on our block.

27:19Deter criminal activity. Produce a

27:22barrier between the commercial

27:24industrial properties and residential

27:26homes, creating a safer and more

27:28peaceful neighborhood. Thank you for

27:30your time, continued support, and

27:32consideration. We hope that the

27:33committee will vote this forward and

27:35prioritize the project. We have been on

27:37a mission to block the street for nearly

27:39a decade and it can't come soon enough

27:41for our safety. Respectfully, President

27:44Levan.

27:47>> Thank you. With that, I will take a

27:49motion, accept a motion uh to pass board

27:52bill number 64 out of committee with

27:54fast recommend.

27:56>> I'll move second. It's

27:58>> moved by the other one from the 10th,

27:59seconded by the other one from the

28:01first. Madame clerk, please call roll.

28:04Alderwoman Boyd.

28:07I

28:11>> Alderwoman Clark Hubard

28:13>> I

28:14>> Vice Chair Schwitzer

28:16>> I

28:17>> Alderman Devote

28:21>> I

28:24>> Alderwoman Coxentui

28:26>> I

28:28>> chair Brownie

28:29>> I

28:29>> we have six I votes

28:31>> congratulations alder one

28:33>> thank you

28:34>> with that um I'm going to go ahead and

28:38uh just announce that we're going to be

28:39holding board bill 85 for now. Uh and

28:42just in the uh in the interest of

28:46transparency,

28:47uh I'll explain that in the course of

28:50today's hearing, it came up that this

28:52land is part of a public park or

28:55potentially part of a public park that

28:57exists in the county. Uh but

28:59nonetheless, the wording of our charter

29:01references real estate owned by the

29:03city. And so we want to double check

29:05that this is something that we can

29:07legally sell uh and do this necessary

29:11work. Um we we definitely support every

29:14part of the increasing accessibility and

29:17uh the project in general, but we got to

29:19make sure we're doing this right. So in

29:21the interest of being uh consistent and

29:24transparent, we're going to hold this

29:25bill today uh and come back to it at

29:29another date. Uh so with that, we'll

29:32move on to uh resolutions for review. We

29:35have none of those. Not to committee

29:38discussions.

29:39Um Madame Clerk, was there any written

29:41testimony today?

29:45>> There was one written testimony in

29:47support of Bill 64. It's in the Google

29:50Drive

29:51>> and I believe the Alder one read that.

29:53So, we're uh appreciative of that and we

29:56went ahead and did take action on that

29:57today and we're excited to see the

29:59results. Um

30:02do any members of the committee have any

30:04announcements?

30:07Seeing none, I do have one announcement.

30:09Uh I'm going to reach out and sorry to

30:13surprise them but uh on October 7th I'm

30:16going to ask that uh the someone from

30:19the sheriff's department come and

30:20address uh this committee on the action

30:24that's being taken towards resolving the

30:27train horn issue. Um, those of us who

30:30represent wards next to the train tracks

30:33know well that they have been sounding

30:35their horns at all hours of the night.

30:37And this is because uh we have

30:40non-compliant train crossings that the

30:42FTA warned us about years

30:46perhaps decades ago uh but were not

30:48updated until recently when they said

30:51they were going to stop being silent

30:52coming through city and start blowing

30:54their horns at every non-complant

30:55intersection. Uh so this has been a

30:58quality of life issue for residents in

31:01several different wards in the city and

31:03while there is a website and I do want

31:05to make people aware that there is a

31:06website uh that the city hosts that

31:09provides updates on the progress towards

31:11resolving this issue. I'd like to give

31:13the department a chance to come and talk

31:14about uh what is being done and provide

31:19uh estimated timelines for people

31:20because uh people are are literally

31:23losing sleep over this. So thank you

31:25all. Uh really appreciate your time

31:28today and uh all members are present so

31:30there's no need to excuse anybody. If

31:33that I'll take a motion to adjourn.

31:35>> So moved.

31:36>> Second.

31:37>> Moved by the alder one from the first

31:39seconded by the alder one from the 10th.

31:40A call for previous role from the alder

31:42woman from the first. And hearing no

31:45objection we are adjourned.