2026-10-08 - Budget & Public Employees Committee
Summary
- Rasheen Aldridge chaired. The September 30 minutes were approved on a roll call of four ayes (Michael Browning moved, Daniela Velázquez seconded); Matthew Devoti did not vote and was excused at the end of the meeting.
- The only bill heard was Board Bill 59, which would put a question on the April 6, 2027 ballot on reallocating the transit portion of the 2017 half-cent sales tax from the North-South MetroLink light rail alignment to a bus rapid transit line or other mass transit initiatives. Aldridge presented while Browning chaired. See Bus Rapid Transit Sales Tax Ballot Measure (BB 59).
- Aldridge said the light rail plan would cover about 5.6 miles and 10 stations at an estimated $1.1 billion, against a longer BRT line with more stations at a lower estimated cost (figures as transcribed).
- A Metro/Bi-State presenter said BB 59 adds no new taxes and that over $100 million is already reserved, and discussed federal Capital Investment Grant competition, noting many projects have shifted to BRT.
- Citizens for Modern Transit and St. Louis Realtors supported the bill, citing a study in which homes near the most frequent bus routes appreciated 144% against 67% over six years.
- Two committee members questioned whether "other mass transit initiatives" was too broad and could let later decisions move away from BRT without another vote; Aldridge acknowledged the language is broad.
- Browning supported BRT but warned that public understanding is low and the measure could fail without education. Open houses were announced for October 19 and October 22, plus a virtual session on October 26.
- Public speakers asked for an electric-bus amendment, for express-bus language, or for no vote that day so the community could revisit the language; one opposed the pivot away from light rail. No vote on BB 59 was taken at the meeting.
- There were no resolutions or committee discussions, and one written testimony was placed in the committee's shared folder. The committee adjourned by voice vote.
Sources
Video
Transcript
These are auto-generated captions; names and numbers may be misheard.
Transcript
05:05Good morning. This is the budget and
05:07public employees committee. Today is
05:10October 8th. It is 10:01. Madame clerk,
05:13please call the role.
05:15Alderwoman Sier,
05:18Vice Chair Brownie
05:20>> present.
05:24>> Alderwoman Velasquez
05:26>> present.
05:28>> Alderman Devote.
05:31>> Chair Aldrich,
05:32>> present.
05:34>> Four present. We have quorum.
05:37>> Thank you, Madam Clerk. With that, we
05:38have established a quorum. Next item on
05:40the agenda is approval of the minutes
05:42from Wednesday, September 30th, 2026.
05:44I'll take a motion for the approval of
05:46the minute.
05:47>> So moved.
05:48>> Second.
05:49>> It was moved by the alderman from the
05:51ninth, seconded by the alderwoman from
05:52the sixth. Madam clerk, please call the
05:54role.
05:55>> Alderwoman Sier
05:59>> I.
06:00>> Vice Chair Browning
06:01>> I.
06:02>> Alderwoman Velasquez
06:04>> I.
06:06>> Alderman Devote Dvote.
06:09>> Chair Aldrich
06:10>> I.
06:10>> Four I votes.
06:12>> Thank you Madam Clerk. With that, we
06:13have approved the minutes from September
06:1530th, 2026. The next item of the agenda
06:18is board bills for review, which board
06:20bill 59, which I will turn it over to
06:23Alderman Browning to chair the committee
06:27meeting while I go up and present the
06:28board bill.
06:31>> Thank you, Chair Aldridge. Um,
06:36you are recognized on board bill number
06:3959.
06:56Thank you, Alman Browning. Madam Clerk,
06:58would you read the summary of board bill
07:0059?
07:04Board bill number 59 introduced by
07:06Ottoman Rashene Aldrich and President
07:08Green, an ordinance calling and
07:11providing for the holding of an election
07:13in the city of St. Louis on April 6,
07:162027 for the purpose of submitting to
07:18the qualified voters of the city of St.
07:21Lewis a proposal to reallocate the
07:23portion of a 1/ half of 1% sales tax
07:27dedicated to North South Metro Link to
07:30bus rampant transit north south metro
07:34link or other mass transit initiatives
07:37as authorized by the governing body of
07:39the city of St. Louis and containing a
07:41cability clause.
07:44>> Thank you madam clerk and members of the
07:45budget committee. Um so board bill uh 59
07:49as I stated in the summary um is
07:51changing the language of a tax that was
07:54passed here in 2017
07:57um what this language is trying to do
07:59for board bill 59 is open up uh it a
08:02little bit to make it a little bit more
08:04flexible. So back in 2017 voters in the
08:07city of St. Louis approved Proposition 1
08:10which was a half cent sales tax that
08:13went to various items. uh one was
08:15transit, another one was neighborhood
08:17revitalization, workforce development,
08:20public safety and infrastructure. Um and
08:23in the transit part of the uh language
08:26uh that tax was collecting as the tax
08:29was collecting 60% of that tax went to
08:31transit, 10% went to neighborhood
08:33revitalization, uh 10% went to
08:35workforce, 10% to the public safety um
08:39area, as well as 10% to infrastructure.
08:41Um and as we've been hearing uh over the
08:44last few years uh that tax for the
08:47transit was supposed to be used for uh
08:49the north south metro link uh light
08:52rail. Um as we've over the last few
08:56years what we end up uh noticing is that
09:00uh light rail without having kind of
09:02friendly partners uh in our federal
09:05government and other agencies is just
09:07very costly. Um, so with also still
09:10trying to make sure that we uh listen to
09:13the voters and do what they asked by
09:16passing Proposition One to make sure
09:18that there is funding for transit. Um
09:21leaders kind of pivoted to a different
09:24model to make sure that there is still
09:26um accessible but also fast transit in
09:28the city of St. Louis, which is um
09:31potentially looking at how do we go from
09:33the light rail uh method to BRT. So
09:37board bill 59, what it does is it
09:39changed the language. And on board bill
09:41on page four of six is the language that
09:44would go to the ballot, which just opens
09:46up the language a little bit more to try
09:48to make it more flexible to allow bus
09:50rapid transit or any other transit uh
09:53incentives that would allow uh for the
09:56city of St. Louis um to go into an
09:59agreement to allow a different kind of
10:01method of um transit. Again, this would
10:05put this on the ballot uh in 2027. So,
10:08this went on the ballot in um 2017.
10:13And it's important that um instead of
10:16just shifting money around for uh going
10:19from light rail to BRT, I think one of
10:21the things that a lot of my colleagues
10:23here said uh in this budget committee,
10:25but just in general, is that people
10:27voted on this tax uh with the language
10:29that was in there for light rail. Um, I
10:32was one of the folks that also voted for
10:33it, uh, because it would been great to
10:36have light rail, but I think what we
10:38notice is just the the the cost of how
10:41much light rail will be. Um and at the
10:44end of the day, since voters did vote on
10:46this tax, um we want to make sure that
10:48voters voice are also part of
10:50potentially seeing opening up the
10:52language so that we can continue to have
10:54a different type of transit, but a in my
10:57opinion a still very massive uh rapid
11:00transit that would help people get from
11:02home to work or from their job to um to
11:06their house. But um we want to make sure
11:08that the people voices at the table. So,
11:10board bill 59 would uh if come out of
11:13committee and vote on the floor would
11:15allow voters to uh vote yes in the
11:18affirmative or no if they would like to
11:21um change the language a little bit. So
11:23again, that um right now if we do not uh
11:26change the language, we're in a kind of
11:28quagmire position in the city of St.
11:30Louis um because we are collecting funds
11:33for transit and the language is very um
11:37restrictive to the north south metro
11:39link um and what this would do is allow
11:43like I said a little bit more
11:44flexibility of what potential um transit
11:48could look like in the city of St.
11:49Louis. I do have some speakers here to
11:52uh also speak on this, but I do want to
11:55just mention um the the cost of pivoting
11:59from uh the light rail to uh potential
12:03pivoting to uh bus rapid transit. So, uh
12:06currently, if we were to do uh the light
12:09rail plan, it would roughly cover about
12:115.6 miles and that would be about 10
12:13stations and it's an estimated cost of
12:16$1.1 billion.
12:18uh if we were to adopt uh not only adopt
12:21this board bill and voters would vote
12:23yes in 2000 or next year in April um it
12:27would expand not just from 5.6 6 milesi,
12:30but it would basically double. Um, we're
12:32talking about a longer stretch of area
12:34where people can be able to get access
12:35to transit. Uh, 11.5 miles. We're
12:39talking about more stations. Um, 23
12:42stations that would be uh accessible for
12:44people. And my computer just died. And I
12:47think roughly it would cost about 20 223
12:51million.
12:55It would be uh more than half of 1.1
12:58billion. I could tell you that.
13:02Thank you. 300 uh potential 360 uh
13:05million. Uh but the point of that is is
13:08that uh pivoting to bus rapid transit uh
13:11allows a lot more um ability to capture
13:14more people to be able to travel across
13:16the city. We're talking about um more
13:19locations where people can be able to be
13:20picked up. And I would say um as we
13:24hopefully would look to expand on BRT um
13:28it's a lot easier to create um safe
13:32stations for people to have bus rapid
13:34transit uh compared to the light rail
13:36where that would be a little bit more of
13:38a massive lift of um installing the
13:41lines, digging through the ground. Um,
13:43so, uh, again, we want to make sure that
13:46we open up the language with this and
13:48allow voters to have an input on, I
13:50think, a plan that, um, may not be light
13:53rail, but is just as, um, flexible, but
13:56just as quick, uh, to be able to get
13:59people, um, throughout the city of St.
14:01Louis. And with that, Mr. Chair, if it's
14:03okay, I do have uh, Mr. Toby from Metro
14:06here that would like to present a
14:09slideshow uh, to the committee.
14:12Absolutely. Uh Mr. Roach, you're welcome
14:15to present at this time.
14:22>> Thank you, Alderman. Really appreciate
14:25the opportunity to come and talk about
14:27this project. So, there's a couple of
14:28concepts I'm going to talk about right
14:30off the bat. It is twice as long and
14:33half as much. So one of the things that
14:36we put together with a an alignment like
14:39this is we go for what essentially is
14:42federal funding CIG funding. Currently
14:45in the capital investment grant Q there
14:48are around 39 projects
14:5133 have shifted to this BRT alternative.
14:55And if I can go to the next slide
14:56please. And the reason for that is very
14:59clear. In 2017 uh 17 when the folks um
15:05uh voted for this uh original Metroink
15:08alignment uh we wanted to look at
15:11expanding transit on a north south basis
15:13and let me just tell you I I would love
15:15to expand Metroink has been very very
15:17successful for us but in looking what
15:20are our alternatives
15:22um sorry I'm waiting for my slide to
15:25advance um we want to look at what are
15:28things that are most efficient Remember,
15:30transit is about efficiency and
15:32certainly we didn't have an idea back in
15:342016 and 17 of what BRT what that BRT
15:39project meant. And in fact, one of the
15:42problems that we had when we were we
15:44were looking at the design of Metroink
15:47alignment is we weren't able to get to
15:49all corners of the city. I had several
15:52um neighborhood groups for instance in
15:54the Dutchtown area that was disappointed
15:56that we weren't going far enough.
15:58Remember you get if you think of that
16:01city neighborhood, it's very dense, very
16:03transit dependent. It it gives us very
16:06high modal splits. So it means that when
16:09we're able to make uh a pivot to green
16:12line, we're able to satisfy
16:15[clears throat] much more of the policy
16:16initiatives of the city. There we go.
16:18Very first slide. And you see this slide
16:21is is talking about that 11.5 miles. we
16:24can make it all the way out to the
16:26corridor all the way out to Goodfellow
16:29making it to the city county border. Uh
16:31that northern section is very key for
16:34us. For instance, as far as driving of
16:36wrership, we have a very high wrership
16:39that is known as a modal split in that
16:41area. And if we are looking indeed at at
16:44rebuilding parts of the city and
16:46supporting that, we want to do it uh
16:49with uh transit that makes sense, that
16:52that is effective, and that uh can
16:55compete for those federal funds. We can
16:57go to the next slide, please.
17:00As Alderman Aldridge uh mentioned, we're
17:03talking about 11.5 miles, 23 stations,
17:07uh ridership that is very robust and
17:10strong, and a large um uh delta as far
17:15as capital costs from 360 million to 590
17:19million. And that's a big delta. And and
17:21you may ask why. Can we go to the next
17:23slide, please? And that is because we
17:26have an opportunity for a full street
17:30solution. Sorry if we can go to the next
17:32slide.
17:35Very good. So let's look at this slide.
17:38A lot of what we have been showing or
17:40what we've been hearing in the public
17:42meetings is that the public didn't
17:44really understand what this product
17:46meant. And what we want to take the
17:48opportunity along with the board of
17:50aldermen and with the leaders uh
17:52president of the board and of course the
17:54mayor is look at these as an opportunity
17:57to rebuild large sections of the city
17:59with the amenities that are very very
18:02important. My team will tell you that
18:04one of the number one questions we get
18:06when we are out in the public in St.
18:08Louis is about trees and I think that's
18:11very relevant because folks want to
18:14understand how do these transit assets
18:17work into neighborhoods? How do they
18:20enhance the neighborhoods? Whether
18:22that's with streetscape, whether that is
18:24with lighting, whether that is with
18:27traffic amenities. And so as we were
18:30moving forward and looking at some uh
18:33these alternatives, BRT really started
18:35to make sense. If we can go to the next
18:37slide.
18:40So I'm sharing with you several street
18:42views of how we can change that. Looking
18:45at a bus only lane. A lot of these
18:48corridors are of course what are known
18:50as overt traffic or overimproved for
18:54what are the traffic loads of these uh
18:56corridors. We're seeing that for
18:58instance here on Natural Bridge. We have
19:00that in Jefferson Avenue. We have an
19:03opportunity here to really re-imagine
19:06sections of the city and think of
19:08putting a transit asset here that
19:11enhances for instance those tree lawns.
19:14You see opportunities for bike trails
19:16and pedestrian access. In other words,
19:19being sure that the fabric of
19:21transportation which includes those
19:23elements including uh pedestrian access
19:27etc have all kind of different
19:29alternatives. Next slide please.
19:35But one of the things that was
19:36definitely clear, for instance, when we
19:39came to the board of alderman in in a
19:41committee meetings is the inexactness or
19:46uh essentially uh the desire to be sure
19:49to go to the public and be sure that we
19:52were delivering a product that the
19:54public was interested in. There's no
19:56question in the board langu in the
19:58language of the original bill, it
20:00mentions Metroink specifically and
20:03Alderman Browning, I think you were one
20:05of the ones who who questioned very hard
20:07us about the exactness of that language
20:10and a pivot. One of the things that were
20:13advanced um by several of your
20:15colleagues and uh I believe uh Alderman
20:18Aldridge as well was we needed a little
20:21bit more exact language as far as the
20:24public was concerned to be sure that we
20:27were being accountable and transparent
20:29about the shift to the BRT product.
20:32Remember that original bill did not
20:34mention BRT. And so I don't want to I
20:39think it's reasonable to assume that
20:41what the leaders thought was yes, we
20:44have strong support of transit, but we
20:46needed to look at and be sure that the
20:48public would be in support of this shift
20:51in mode. So it's very reasonable for us
20:54to do this. I want to um emphasize that
20:57this board bill 59, there are no new
21:00taxes whatsoever. All of this money is
21:02being held by the city at the time.
21:04there is over $100 million of capital
21:08that is reserved for this expansion. It
21:10can only be used for that purpose. Um,
21:14and this board bill makes that very very
21:16clear. I also want to mention if we can
21:19move to the next slide
21:22and I'm throwing a lot of pictures at
21:23you, but one of the things when we went
21:25out in our polling is that it was very
21:27clear that the public did not have a
21:29good understanding of what this product
21:31is. What is BRT? What is bus rapid
21:34transit? Indeed, it provides what is
21:37that kind of very very frequent service
21:40that is half as much as light rail and
21:43something that we can move out. So it'
21:45be very very frequent service with
21:47stations, very similar to trains, but
21:51only using these vehicles with rubber
21:53tires. So we're seeing that kind of very
21:55very dense frequency essentially spine
21:58service that would be um giving us
22:01opportunities to do really enhanced
22:04development along these corridors and
22:06some of several of these corridors are
22:08very ripe for that and we have seen this
22:11shift in other areas of the country. We
22:14have seen this shift in Minneapolis, in
22:16San Jose, and in San Antonio where they
22:20have moved from light rail projects to
22:22BRT projects because of cost and because
22:26of the inflationary pressures. So, I
22:28just wanted to be sure to be very brief
22:30uh Alderman Aldridge and and be
22:33respectful of the committee's uh
22:35questions and be sure that we were being
22:37thorough in this. Thank you for your
22:40time and for the interaction with the
22:42public. And with that, I yield the
22:44floor.
22:47>> If it's okay with you, uh, Alman
22:49Bronner, before we go to questions from
22:50the committee, I have like two more
22:52expert speakers. Um, and then maybe go
22:55to questions.
22:56>> Absolutely. Go ahead and introduce your
22:58speakers.
22:58>> Thank you, Mr. uh, Chairman. Uh, next
23:00speaker I'd like to have come up is the
23:02president of CMT, Miss Kim.
23:13Good morning, chair and committee
23:14members. Thank you for having us here
23:16today as the regional transit advocacy.
23:19>> I'm sorry. Could you uh go ahead and
23:22state your name and who you are up to?
23:25>> Kim Cus, CEO of Citizens for Modern
23:27Transit. Good morning. As the regional
23:30transit advocacy organization, CMT is
23:34here today in support of moving forward
23:36board bill 59. This is not a new tax,
23:40but a tweaking of the language to allow
23:42the city to consider a largescale
23:45transit investment in this corridor.
23:48Some facts to consider, and Tolby
23:50touched on these as well as Alderman
23:52Aldrich. The pivot to BRT from light
23:56rail increases the footprint of this
23:58project from 5 miles to 11 and a half
24:02miles from 11 stations to 23 stations
24:06while opening up access to St. Louis
24:09County at Natural Bridge in Goodfellow.
24:13No largecale transit capital project
24:17would move forward without a significant
24:20federal investment in the amount of
24:23hundreds of millions of dollars in not
24:25only the city of St. Louis but this
24:27region. That would be a win. The 2017
24:31funding could serve as that local match.
24:35Without this funding and language tweak,
24:38there is no local source currently to
24:41move any project forward in this
24:43corridor.
24:44The Green Line BRT project is already in
24:48the project development phase for a
24:50federal capital investment grant. There
24:53are only 39 projects nationwide in
24:57project development.
24:5935 are BRT. only one remains as light
25:04rail. This technology is winning
25:07nationwide because of its lower cost to
25:11deliver premium service similar to light
25:14rail.
25:16CMT and the St. Louis Realators released
25:19a study early this past summer on the
25:22impact of high frequency transit
25:24investment on housing values. The
25:27findings showed that residential
25:29properties near higher frequency transit
25:33routes in the city of St. Louis
25:35experienced significantly stronger
25:39prices price appreciation than those
25:42near less frequent transit. Homes near
25:46the city's most frequent bus routes,
25:49including the Grand Line, saw price
25:51increases of 144%
25:55compared to 67%
25:57over a six-year time frame. We support
26:01moving this bill forward to give city
26:03voters the opportunity to weigh in on
26:06whether their tax dollars can be used to
26:09move transit investment forward in this
26:11corridor. Thank you for your time this
26:13morning.
26:15Thank you.
26:19>> And last, Mr. Chairman, I have Mr.
26:20Charlie from the St. Louis Realities,
26:26>> Mr. Hinderiter. You're recognized.
26:29>> Good morning, chair and members of the
26:30committee. I'm Charlie Hinderer, chief
26:32advocacy officer and director of
26:33commercial services at St. Louis
26:34Realtors. Thank you for the opportunity
26:36to speak in support of board bill 59.
26:39Talby and Kim have explained the transit
26:41investment opportunity. I want to take a
26:43minute to focus on what that opportunity
26:46means for housing, real estate, and the
26:48strength of our neighborhoods. In real
26:50estate, location matters. Part of what
26:52makes a location valuable is what people
26:53can reach from it. Schools, health,
26:56healthcare, jobs, groceries, and other
26:58daily needs. Frequent, reliable transit
27:01expands those connections. That's why
27:03St. Louis Realtors partnered with CMT on
27:07a housing study that was authored by the
27:09Center for Neighborhood Technology that
27:10Kim referenced. You can find a copy of
27:12that report on St. Louis Realtor's
27:13website or on CMT's website. The study
27:16examined nearly 10,000 residential sales
27:18in the city of St. Louis and found that
27:20price appreciation
27:22uh price appreciation for homes was
27:24significantly higher in areas with high
27:26frequency transit. It also reviewed what
27:29BRT did for home values and commercial
27:31property values across the country. In
27:34Eugene, Oregon, for example, residential
27:36sale prices near BRT rose 49% over four
27:40years compared to 25% for properties
27:42outside the BRT area. In Boston, for
27:45commercial property, those prices near
27:48BRT rose 84% compared to 21% outside of
27:51transit areas. The report also
27:53highlights Richmond, Virginia, where the
27:55introduction of BRT and accompanying
27:57transit changes expanded access to
27:59employment. Residents gained access on
28:02average to 2,000 additional jobs within
28:05a 1-hour transit trip. Transit is
28:07critical for economic mobility. For
28:10homeowners, stronger neighborhood demand
28:12can help build equity. For commercial
28:14property owners and businesses, better
28:16connections expand access to workers and
28:18customers. For households, reliable
28:20transit can broaden housing choices and
28:22reduce dependency on cars for every
28:25trip. The details matter. frequent
28:27transit service, safe pedestrian
28:29connections, and stations integrated
28:30into surrounding neighborhoods. We
28:32should pair transit investment with
28:34housing production, home repair, and
28:36preservation of affordable housing so
28:37existing residents can share in the
28:39benefits. Board Bill 59 creates a path
28:41toward an investment that connects
28:43people to opportunity and strengthens
28:45places where they live and work. Thank
28:47you.
28:49>> Thank you.
28:52>> All right. And uh open up for any
28:54questions, Mr. Chairman.
28:56Uh absolutely. So we'll start uh online.
29:05>> Thank you, Vice Chairman. Um thank you
29:09for bringing this legislation forward.
29:10Alderman Aldridge. Um I think my uh key
29:14question is in the board bill language.
29:18It says
29:21the shall the portion of the tax revenue
29:24currently allocated to a north south
29:26metro link be allocated instead for a
29:28north south metro link line a bus rapid
29:31transit line or other mass mass transit
29:34initiatives. How is the city defining
29:37other mass transit initiatives? Um, I
29:41know my constitu constituents feel very
29:43strongly about making sure that we check
29:45in with them before we pivot the
29:47direction of the project and I'm
29:48concerned that that language is so broad
29:50that it would essentially allow the city
29:52to decide upon any mass transit
29:54initiative without checking in with the
29:56voters and getting their approval.
29:58>> Thank you, Alderwoman. Good question. I
30:00have Mr. uh Scott Oggovie here who has
30:03been part of uh these transit
30:04conversations who can kind of help
30:07answer that.
30:12Um hello alder woman. Uh my name is
30:14Scott Oggov. Um I work for the city's
30:16planning and urban design agency. So the
30:20um intent of the language,
30:22>> Mr. Oggov, could you please speak into
30:24the mic? Thank you.
30:29Um, the intent of the language in the
30:31board bill, as you know, of course, the
30:342017 language ended up being too narrow
30:38to deliver on the project that, you
30:41know, both the city and voters wanted.
30:44And the intent of the language is to
30:46make sure that in the future we can
30:49deliver valuable transit improvements
30:52for St. Louis residents and for transit
30:55riders using um this this tax revenue.
30:59Now, of course, the project today that
31:03we are working on um and that we are
31:06advancing as quickly as possible is this
31:08green line bus rapid transit project,
31:10which is a a still a very substantial
31:13transit expansion and a big capital
31:15project. However, you know, someday we
31:19will pay that project off and we will
31:21still have this source of revenue and we
31:24want to make sure that there's enough
31:27flexibility to do the next project with
31:31um with this revenue. Now, we today we
31:35don't know what that next project is.
31:38You know, we could imagine what it could
31:40be. everything from bus service
31:42enhancements on other corridors to metro
31:45link enhancements
31:47um you know to to maybe some ideas that
31:51you know we haven't come up with yet but
31:53regardless of what it is there there
31:56would be multiple public processes in
31:59order to allocate that funding it'll
32:01stay in that transit category very much
32:04in the same way that the existing sales
32:07taxes that fund um metransit operations
32:11always stay in that transit category,
32:13but they are allocated each year by the
32:15board of alderman. There will be a
32:18public process for that funding in the
32:20f. It'll involve the economic
32:23development sales tax board. It'll
32:25involve the board of alderman making
32:27those allocations and it'll involve as
32:30the board of estimate and aortionment.
32:32And if it's a really substantial capital
32:35project, it could potentially involve
32:37East West Gateway approval um as well.
32:41So,
32:41>> hey, I can understand what you're
32:43naming, but my question is, does this
32:45language allow the city to pivot to
32:47other mass transit options without a
32:49public vote? All the entities you named,
32:51ENA and the board of alderman, that's
32:53not what my question is around. My
32:54question is does that language that is
32:57going to the voters mean that it is
32:58possible that the city would be able to
33:00approve another mass transit initiative
33:03without the approval of voters the
33:04electorate?
33:06>> Is is your question specifically about a
33:09big capital project in relationship to
33:12green line bus rapid transit? My
33:15question is, does the other mass transit
33:19language does that allow the scope that
33:21the city is able to do without going
33:23back in front of voters? Does that allow
33:26is that limited to the north south like
33:28corridor? This this metro bus rapid
33:30transit we're talking about or could it
33:32allow for another pivot beyond what
33:34voters are voting on? Because like you
33:36said, well, you know, the last time we
33:38put this on the ballot, it was narrow
33:40and we had to pivot. Um I you know I
33:42would say my constituents don't view the
33:45narrowness of the language as a negative
33:47thing because for them it's like okay
33:48well that means that the city wants to
33:50do a different project. The city has to
33:52come back and ask for our approval as
33:54opposed to you know elected officials or
33:56other entities being able to make their
33:58own decision. They would have to come
33:59back in front of us. And so what
34:01happened is once we wanted to you know
34:03pivot away from um the railway we have
34:06to come back and ask folders around bus
34:08rapid transit because the language was
34:09narrow. This language seems a lot
34:11broader to me and a lot more vague, and
34:13I'm concerned that it would allow for
34:15the city to pivot to another mass
34:17transit project beyond bus rapid transit
34:20without needing to seek the approval of
34:22voters.
34:24>> The only the only project that the city
34:27and the region the only big capital
34:29project that the city and the region are
34:31pursuing right now is green line bus
34:34rapid transit. That is the only thing on
34:38the menu today. Um it's a it's a very
34:42robust and substantial project and it
34:46would be still several years before we
34:48could break ground on that project. Um
34:51getting FDA approval, getting that
34:53federal funding and then it'll be, you
34:56know, several years of paying for that
34:58project. So there's there's not going to
35:00be any revenue.
35:03>> That's not my question. Say what we're
35:04discussing today. My question is, does
35:07the language in this ballot initiative,
35:09does it allow for the city to pivot to
35:12another project, I'm not talking about
35:13today. I understand what we're
35:14discussing today. Does it allow for the
35:17city to pivot to another mass transit
35:19project without seeking voter approval?
35:21I know what we're discussing today. I
35:23know we're discussing BRT. I understand
35:25that it's going to take time to build
35:26this out and get all the initial
35:27funding. That's not my question. My
35:29question is, does the language on this
35:31ballot initiative that we're putting to
35:32voters, if it is passed and approved,
35:35would it mean that the city would have
35:36the possibility to pivot to a in a
35:39different direction for mass transit um
35:42without seeking voter approval?
35:44>> Um, so I don't know if I'm the person
35:46who can definitively answer that
35:48question. I think um Alderman Aldridge,
35:50would you like to
35:53>> Thank you. I mean, I think that the
35:55simple question is yes, the way that the
35:58language in here would probably allow um
36:01for other transit options, but I think
36:03what Scott made very clear is right now
36:05the city is only focused on um BRT. And
36:08even um if this would get passed by the
36:10voters of the city of St. Louis and and
36:13uh the next year ballot, I think like
36:14Scott said, there's just going to be so
36:16much work that has to go into trying to
36:18get BRT still across the finish line. I
36:20think right now in the current fund um
36:22that it's been the sales tax has been
36:24collecting there's probably roughly 118
36:28um uh is that number right 118 million
36:30that's in there. Um so there's still a
36:32lot of work that needs to be done to one
36:34ensure that uh that the capital is is
36:37growing and that other partners are tied
36:39in. But I think in the simple language
36:42um yes it would probably allow uh for
36:45the city to move forward in a different
36:47direction. And I would say also that's
36:48why we as older people um that have
36:52committees such as PIU public
36:53infrastructure once we hear these things
36:55and I know we all work very well with
36:57our planning and agency design um
37:00alderwoman um and if something like that
37:03were to arise hopefully if we still hear
37:05but even the next generation um if it is
37:07a mass transit that the city would want
37:09to move forward in I'm sure that would
37:11not go um not be heard in the news and
37:14an opportunity where um we as leaders
37:17could intervene into that.
37:20>> Understood. Thank you. Um I just I don't
37:25you know I'm very supportive of BRT and
37:27so if we desire to ask the voters to
37:28approve a BRT I'm okay. But I don't know
37:31that I can support language that is as
37:34vague as any other mass transit project
37:37without unless there's going to be like
37:39an addendum that says like that specific
37:41mass transit project will have to be put
37:44in front of voters as well. Um, you
37:46know, just a real time example is
37:48obviously we were talking about railway.
37:50Um, we got to a new administration and
37:53both federally and locally and now we're
37:55pivoting to BRT and we have to come back
37:57and ask the voters. But that was an
37:59important in my opinion was an important
38:00check and balance to make sure that, you
38:02know, a new administration could not
38:04just ask uh for you know could not just
38:07make the uni unilateral decision that we
38:09want to pivot to railway but that we're
38:11all required to come back to voters. So,
38:13you know, I am in support of this and if
38:15we're able to narrow the scope to bus
38:16rapid transit or add language that says,
38:19you know, if we pivot to a mass transit,
38:21a different mass transit project, it
38:23would come back into the voters, I would
38:24be happy to support it. But I don't
38:27right now it's just too broad. And I
38:29know for my residents, it is just not
38:32changing this without going back in
38:34front of voters specifically is a no-go
38:36for them.
38:37>> And I totally hear you. Um, I think why
38:39we're in the quagmire that we in now is
38:42because of trying to be so um detailed
38:46and the reality is transit is constantly
38:49changing and evolving. And you know, I
38:51think the language of why we we worked
38:54with the experts uh in um that does
38:58transit and and work with Metro and work
39:00with the uh to just put that other mass
39:03of transit uh language in there because
39:05we don't know what it's going to be in
39:0710 and 15 years. And I definitely agree
39:09with you that voters voice um should be
39:11at the table. Uh but you know if this
39:14does not uh pass and I know me and
39:16you've had uh quite long conversations
39:19about the support of BRT so that is not
39:21a question. I know you support BRT you
39:23know say this don't pass um in uh in
39:27April then we are stuck with the
39:29language that's of the light rail right
39:31and then we're just stuck with just
39:33collecting funds and then no transit is
39:35happening. Um, so instead of having to
39:37keep coming back and kind of being these
39:39quagmire, I think the point of kind of
39:42adding that other mass transitive
39:44initiatives, which I could tell you now
39:46talking with the mayor's office and
39:47other folks like it is BRT. Um, I think
39:50that's the most efficient method right
39:52now is the most like cost-saving method.
39:54It's uh we've seen other cities do it. I
39:57think Mr. Toby talked about it as well
39:58as other cities just in our own state
40:01like Kansas City has BRT and the
40:03economic income that has come from that
40:05has been a huge boom. Um but there's no
40:08other uh kind of mass u transit
40:12initiatives out there at the moment. Uh
40:14but the challenge is if we continue to
40:16make it very detailed, it's kind of like
40:18a plus and minus, right? if you get too
40:19detailed, we're kind of almost locked in
40:22um and have to keep coming back to
40:24through the board of aldermen and
40:25through voters, which not against um but
40:28it also makes it where we're not sure
40:30how we move funds that we are currently
40:33taxing residents into just sitting in
40:34the account at times like what we
40:36currently are sitting in at the moment.
40:37But I I get where you come from.
40:40>> No, and I understand too that you you
40:41know, obviously there's interest in
40:43having some flexibility and the the
40:45ability to pivot. I just think that
40:46because transit is ever changing and
40:49because this is something that voters
40:50voted on to approve, I personally don't
40:52think that the city should be able to
40:54unilaterally decide to change
40:55directions. Um because I think there's
40:58also, you know, just knowing how the
40:59city works, there's also a possibility
41:00that, you know, the mayor's office or
41:02the executive branch of government might
41:04decide to move in a specific direction.
41:06There's not necessarily any guarantee
41:07that it's even going to come back to the
41:09board of ultimates. even my ability to
41:11advocate for what my constituents are
41:13looking for. And so I do think it's
41:14important to have the ability to pivot,
41:16but I think it's important that we pivot
41:17with our voters and that, you know, if
41:19we stand behind something and we think
41:20it's a good idea, then we should have
41:22the confidence to put it in front of
41:23them and let them, you know, make that
41:25decision. I think opening it too
41:27broadly, especially, you know, to be
41:29honest in this particularly political
41:30moment, I have a lot of residents who
41:32are still upset about the fact that
41:33we're pivoting away from railway and
41:36they look at it as a good thing that we
41:37have to come back and put it back on the
41:39ballot and ask for their permission um
41:41so that we couldn't just make that
41:42decision. But I think because it is a
41:44ever changing industry, you know, I
41:46think there's a way to balance both the
41:47need for us to have flexibility to
41:49implement whatever transit opportunities
41:51come available, but also make sure that
41:53our voters and our residents are part of
41:55that conversation that we do so with
41:56their approval, especially because it is
41:58such massive investment and has such an
42:00impact on our neighborhoods both
42:02economically and and socially. Um, so if
42:04there's any opportunity to talk about an
42:06amendment, um, I'm happy to, you know,
42:08discuss an amendment or mirroring the
42:10scope, but I I just I know like this I
42:13think this as it is is just too broad
42:14and I I can't guarantee to my
42:16constituents that we will come back in
42:17front of them before pivoting in a
42:19different direction.
42:20>> Yes. You know, uh um we can definitely
42:23talk before perfection to figure out uh
42:26if that's uh what that could look like.
42:29>> Thank you.
42:33Alderwoman Velasquez.
42:36>> Thank you, Alderman Browning. I I do
42:38share uh the same similar concerns to
42:41what Alderwoman Sier said. I I do I
42:43support BRT. Um I've been in cities
42:45obviously that you've talked about even
42:47cities abroad where BRT is a major
42:48success. Um, and I and I do think, you
42:52know, we wouldn't be here trying to put
42:53it before the voters if
42:57if changing it wasn't important, but
43:00also if um we didn't need to take it
43:02back. So my my concern too is if it is
43:05too broad, right, and we do have the
43:07flexibility to change it, you know, we
43:10can leave ourselves in a situation like
43:12we are in right now that um we all want
43:15to say this project happens and then
43:17public sentiment changes and then
43:19nothing happens. So, I do think um you
43:23know either we need to I would prefer to
43:26have an amendment probably out today or
43:29you know I don't know how you feel about
43:31um moving the bill, Alderman Aldrich. I
43:33mean I definitely support it. Um but I
43:36do think that that's a really big
43:39um it's a really big gap between what we
43:42want to happen with what could happen if
43:43we keep it overly broad.
43:47Do you have some thought process,
43:48Alderwoman, for an amendment today?
43:52>> Um, well, we
43:54I think figuring out how to narrow it.
43:57[clears throat] Fortunately, both
43:57Alderman Sier and I have the South
43:59Granted meeting, which I will need to um
44:02you know, try and do both at this time
44:04and we talked about that before. Um, so
44:07I can't create specific language in the
44:10next few minutes, but I'd be happy to
44:11talk to you and work, you know, work
44:13with um, folks on the committee who feel
44:15the same way because I I absolutely
44:17agree that BRT is important and uh,
44:20that, you know, we need to uh, have
44:22better transportation for um, our
44:25residents.
44:29>> Do you have any other questions,
44:30Alderwoman?
44:32>> I don't at this time.
44:34>> All right. Thank you. Um,
44:37Alderman Devote is not uh here today, so
44:40I'll jump into my questions. Um,
44:45I'm I'm hearing a little bit of a a lack
44:47of trust right now. And I I can
44:50understand that lack of trust uh because
44:53it does feel and I'm not saying it is,
44:55but it does feel like a little bit of a
44:57bait and switch and that we told people
44:59we were going for a light rail line uh
45:02and then we are moving over to a bus
45:05rapid transit line. Like my colleagues,
45:07I am very much in favor of bus rapid
45:09transit. I've written it in other
45:11cities. It is a superior method of
45:14travel. It is a great way to get around.
45:17It is far cheaper to install, goes far
45:21farther, and it uh serves more people.
45:25Uh I am a big believer in expanding
45:28transit in our city because I think the
45:31most equitable thing we can do for the
45:32people of our city is to make it
45:34optional to own a car. And I think that
45:38this proposal makes a lot of sense. I am
45:41supportive of the proposal. And if it
45:43was on the ballot in April, I would be
45:45yes. Uh, but I'm a little concerned that
45:49the public doesn't have a good
45:52understanding of BRT, and I'm not sure
45:55that I would be in the majority if I was
45:57voting yes uh, in April. So, I was
45:59wondering if you could speak a little to
46:00the campaign that will be associated
46:02with this and uh who will be running
46:05that campaign and what it's going to
46:06look like and how we're going to make
46:08sure we have a majority so that we don't
46:10end up um as you stated, if if this does
46:13not pass, we will have no transit and
46:16that is not in anyone's interest. So, uh
46:18what is that campaign going to look like
46:20for the April 2027 ballot?
46:23>> Yes, I'll speak on it and then maybe
46:25some others can that has been doing some
46:27polling can talk about it. one I would
46:29say um I I I gotta give credit to uh the
46:34um the team that's been going out.
46:35They've been holding um regular meetings
46:39uh around this conversation where you're
46:40talking about public engagement. I think
46:42just at least I can't speak for
46:44everybody's ward um but I I think I've
46:46seen the flyers where they've been north
46:48south um they held two just in my ward
46:51alone at the Polish uh the Polish
46:54heritage uh center um and they have been
46:57in other communities talking about um
47:00what BRT looks like. I think you know
47:03just like um at the board when we pass
47:07ballot initiatives if it's been
47:08proposition V or your proposition
47:11alderman for the department of
47:13transportation I think if uh it's also
47:15going to be a pundant it's going to be
47:18on it's going to be on us as alders also
47:20to get the word out that uh we also
47:24inform our colleagues uh our our
47:26residents about what BRT is um be able
47:31to bring those experts to our town
47:34halls, our neighborhood meetings um for
47:37other folks that may not have been to
47:39those uh general public meetings to also
47:41uh hear from uh the BRT team of what BRT
47:45looks like. So, I think it's going to be
47:47a a a level of us as elected officials
47:51also stepping up as we do with other
47:53ballot initiatives that we have passed
47:55from this board of aldermen and went out
47:57if it was like meu and allwoman de
47:59yellow and we did the whole like sesame
48:01street tour on the the charter amendment
48:03changes going to ward by ward educating
48:06folks what's on the ballot. But I will
48:08let uh I don't know if maybe Charlie
48:11would be the best person to speak about
48:12the ongoing work of uh folks that they
48:15have been engaging with to make sure we
48:17get the word out on this as well.
48:21>> I think it'll be a tag team like we do
48:23at the board. It'll be Charlie and then
48:24Miss Kim also.
48:30>> Good morning again.
48:32So, uh, Citizens for Modern Transit's
48:34board will actually be looking at an
48:37education proposal next week with
48:39regards to bus rapid transit. As many of
48:42you well know, Citizens for Modern
48:44Transit was founded to bring light rail
48:46to St. Louis. So, this has been our
48:48focus for decades, but we know that
48:51times have changed. The environment that
48:53we're operating in has changed and light
48:56rail may not be the choice anymore
48:58across the country. And so we think it's
49:01really important that we take this
49:03opportunity and lay the groundwork not
49:05only in the city but the region itself
49:08on the importance of looking at bus
49:10rapid transit as a new technology m that
49:14could be a significant win for this
49:16region. So the board will actually be
49:18taking that up next week a potential
49:21education campaign on bus rapid transit
49:24and its impacts and the winds that we've
49:26seen across the country.
49:30And alderman at Staintless Realtors, we
49:32share your concerns. Um, we did some
49:34polling and what we found is that
49:36understanding of BRT is low and that
49:38education can increase support, but we
49:41really need to make sure that we're
49:42getting the word out about what BRT is
49:45because people here haven't been able to
49:47visualize it. They don't understand it.
49:49And when they better understand it,
49:50support increases. But I want to make a
49:53warning to the board that and I'm I'm
49:55very glad to hear Alderman Aldridge say
49:56this is that without this board support
49:58of getting the word out to the community
50:00of what this is, this measure may well
50:03fail in April. So I'm very excited to
50:05hear uh Alderman Aldridge uh say that
50:07hopefully some members of this board
50:08will be out doing the good work, too.
50:11>> So I think the the logical next question
50:14is what if it does fail? What what
50:16happens in that situation?
50:24Good question, Alderman. If it does
50:25fail, we will be uh back here trying to
50:29figure out what we do with it, which I
50:31think, you know, kind of a little bit
50:33goes um to I think why the the language
50:36is a little um vague, but if it does
50:38fail, the money will continue to be
50:40collected. Again, I think what folks
50:41said is it's not an additional new tax.
50:44Um, this is something that people voted
50:46on in 17 and as we see that like transit
50:50is evolving and so much things is uh
50:53changing and you never know who's going
50:54to be in the federal government. Some
50:56folks are not transit friendly. You
50:58know, I think we can all uh wish maybe
51:02in a year and a few months that the
51:05federal landscape looks a little
51:07different. Um, but maybe it don't. Um
51:09and maybe we still don't have people who
51:11are friendly when it comes to um just
51:13words like green, you know, and and
51:16transit. So, if it does fail, um we
51:19would still be collecting funds and the
51:22ability to have a different method of
51:25transit would still be in limbo.
51:28>> Thank you for that. Um I'm I'm glad you
51:30mentioned that the federal landscape. I
51:32think it's important part of this
51:33conversation. uh if I've heard people
51:37from the public, I'm not necessarily
51:39saying I agree, but I've heard people uh
51:41from the public talking about, well, we
51:43should just wait a few years. Uh we're
51:45almost guaranteed to get a different
51:47federal administration, which I don't
51:49agree that we're guaranteed, but I think
51:51we, you know, there might be a
51:52possibility that there's a friendlier
51:54incumbent in the future that might be
51:56willing to fund light rail line. Um,
52:02can you speak to the likelihood of that?
52:04And I think this ties into another
52:05question about if this doesn't proceed
52:10and uh if this doesn't succeed passing
52:13the ballot in April. Um, there's been a
52:16significant amount of work that's been
52:18put into designing a BRT line at this
52:21time.
52:22uh we are in a phase of design uh that
52:26will soon move to a phase of engineering
52:28that I think this money needs to be
52:30available for and so there could be not
52:34just significant delays if this doesn't
52:36pass in April but it could really
52:40disrupt the entire uh effort so far to
52:44uh design and build this uh BRT. So,
52:49can can you speak a little to why we
52:52should just not wait for a light rail
52:55line in a possible future uh
52:59administration that would be transit
53:00friendly?
53:01>> Yeah, I would touch on it and maybe I
53:03know uh maybe Mr. Toby or Scott can also
53:06speak on as they've been part of the
53:07design phase. But, you know, I would be
53:10the first to say um you know, I I love
53:12the idea of the light rail line. You
53:14know, um with it running down I with it
53:18running down Natural Bridge, I think in
53:20an area and with this BRT, what I love
53:22about even more BRT is is expanded down
53:25Natural Bridge. But we're talking about
53:27areas that um typically don't have
53:29access to transportation, right? from
53:31Natural Bridge, the light rail line was
53:33supposed to, I think, go down like
53:34Jefferson. I'm lucky enough between the
53:36light rail line and BRT, it runs
53:39through, uh, the 14th ward. Um, but, you
53:42know, uh, with the light rail line, um,
53:44I did support that initiative. Um,
53:47however, I think one of the things that,
53:49uh, Mr. Tolby talked about is just the
53:51the cost of the light rail line. Um, you
53:54know, we're talking 1.1 billion. You
53:56know, I'm sure when we voted on this in
53:582017, you know, precoid, construction
54:01was at a different cost, equipment was
54:03at a different cost. But I think one of
54:05the things that like you mentioned, if
54:07we don't do anything now, then there's
54:09been um conversations about the the
54:13design going out already, conversations
54:15about uh once this get passed in 2000 or
54:19next month, I keep saying 2027, but or
54:22or next year. um folks are already at
54:24the table um and partners are already at
54:27the table ready to start to make uh the
54:30the conversations of getting BRT set up
54:33uh through the engineering process. And
54:35if we uh don't vote this in April and we
54:38halt uh again, we don't know where we
54:42will be in the city of St. Louis of what
54:44transit can be um or what the
54:48opportunities uh for a a massive level
54:51transit is. Um I think what's very clear
54:54is we do not um have the the funding to
54:58do light rail. Um that is just not an
55:01option um because of how expensive it
55:04is, the the tax that comes in. Um it is
55:07collecting some, but we will need a
55:10federal partner to also help out with
55:12the light rail. Um and you know with
55:15having BRT again, it's it's the ability
55:17to be able to touch a lot more people.
55:19But if we were to delay this, uh, it
55:22would really put the city in St. Louis.
55:24And I feel like the word I've been using
55:25in this committee hearing all day has
55:27been like quagmire, but it really would
55:29put us in a pickle of trying to figure
55:31out, uh, you know, how do we move
55:33forward with providing citizens that
55:36need it the most? Um, I know we all
55:39drive cars in here, but I'm telling you
55:40now, there are folks that are right now
55:43out waiting on the bus. Um, and with
55:46this BRT line, you know, they their
55:49their wait time now is a lot longer. The
55:52wait time with BRT would be a lot
55:53quicker. Um, and I know a lot of times
55:56when we're talking about these type of
55:57conversations, we also need to think
55:59about like the people it's going to
56:00impact. So, we're putting people that
56:02would be able to use this BRT line to be
56:04able to get back and forth to work or
56:06get back and forth to a family house.
56:08Uh, kind of in a pickle of not knowing
56:10what will be next. Um, I don't know if
56:13Mr. Scott or Mr. Toby, want to also
56:15touch on a little bit?
56:20>> Thank you. Thank you, Alderman. I
56:21appreciate the question. If if you don't
56:23mind, I'm going to also talk on a
56:25parallel issue about going indeed to the
56:27public and being sure that these are
56:29properly vetted. And really that is in
56:32the idea of flexibility and competition.
56:34After all, we are competing for these
56:36federal funds against a San Jose,
56:39Indianapolis, etc. and advancing a
56:42project like this is very key. But part
56:45of the quality of the competition is I
56:47have to demonstrate to the Federal
56:49Transit Administration that we have
56:51properly vetted and come to the local
56:54elected governing bodies and move this
56:57project forward. You notice we have the
56:592026 LPA, so locally preferred
57:02alternative. Indeed, the very reason why
57:04we are here today is that this
57:06government body asked us to or were to
57:09be detailed and be very cognizant of the
57:13transparency that we owe to the public.
57:15It is embedded within part of the
57:18process. It is why my teams are out
57:20there right now having holding public
57:23meetings and taking those comments in.
57:25We and when we put a quality project
57:28together, it is very very important. And
57:31then with the timing associated with
57:33this, we need to get in the game. Uh we
57:36are seeing other uh cities that are
57:38moving forward and getting federal
57:40projects getting federal projects
57:42advanced and we need to be ready for it
57:44when that opportunity comes. And my job
57:47is to uh advance these projects into
57:50Washington DC and let them compete and
57:54fulfill the obligation that we have to
57:56those voters of 2017 that we get a
57:59project done. We're trying to be
58:01flexible. We're trying to be sure that
58:03we are going out to the public and
58:05asking the questions and we're going to
58:06continue to do that and that is
58:08literally embedded into the competitive
58:10process. Thank you, sir.
58:12>> I appreciate it. If you could just stay
58:13up there, I I have some follow-up
58:14questions. So, you've mentioned the
58:16competitive process and I was uh
58:19fortunate enough to be able to take the
58:22uh BRT tour that was offered a couple
58:24weeks ago. I mentioned that earlier. Um
58:27we heard a lot of great information on
58:29that. One of the things I heard though
58:31that troubled me a little bit is that
58:33this going for a capital improvement
58:35grant uh that this current
58:37administration has only funded a single
58:40capital improvement grant so far. Is
58:42that correct?
58:43>> That is factually correct. So if 33 out
58:46of 39 projects are transitioning or
58:49going for BRT
58:51and only one in the entire country has
58:54been funded so far by this
58:55administration,
58:57this does feel a little bit like a long
59:00shot uh in that even if we pass this
59:03today, if we get it to the ballot, if it
59:05passes at the ballot in April, we're
59:07still in a very very competitive
59:10environment for federal funding for this
59:12project.
59:14We are, that is factually correct.
59:16However, we have been able to garner
59:18significant federal funding. That's my
59:20job constantly. Uh we garnered a $292
59:25million federal grant for the light rail
59:28for the replacement of our of our
59:30vehicles. We have an ongoing and
59:32decadesl long uh relationship with our
59:35partners at Federal Transit
59:36Administration. And we do weather
59:38through changes in administration. It's
59:41a very very key and important critique.
59:44It is factual and that is true. Um and
59:47so we will always advance those ideas.
59:51One of the things that we're trying to
59:52do is be sure that we are shifting the
59:54affordability and the economics
59:56associated with projects like this when
59:59we can show the financial wherewithal
1:00:01for instance that we have the taxing
1:00:04capacity to support a project of this
1:00:06size and scope. That was really a key
1:00:09decision point. As simple as the light
1:00:11rail project is, we I could not look at
1:00:15uh for instance this uh body. I could
1:00:17not look citizens in the eye and say
1:00:20that light rail was affordable under
1:00:22where the tax was. It simply was not.
1:00:26The math did not work, Alderman
1:00:27Browning. It it just didn't. I wish it
1:00:29did. Um but we have to advance and be
1:00:32sure that we are being ethical in our
1:00:34considerations of what are the realistic
1:00:38cost constraints. That is also a
1:00:40calculation that will advance up to our
1:00:42federal partners. We will see changes in
1:00:45administration and we will sh see those
1:00:47shades as it moves through.
1:00:49>> Thank you. I think you're making sense.
1:00:52It it it
1:00:54makes sense to have a transition to BRT.
1:00:57I don't disagree with that at all and I
1:00:59don't think any anyone really disagrees
1:01:01with that after hearing the facts. Um,
1:01:03another thing I heard on that tour is
1:01:05that in Minneapolis when they did BRT
1:01:07the highend of installing that was about
1:01:1050 million per mile whereas light rail
1:01:13would have been 150 to 250 million per
1:01:16mile. There's just no comparison between
1:01:19the cost between those two projects. And
1:01:21we would love to be able to provide that
1:01:24transit for people because when we took
1:01:26that tour and I was looking out the
1:01:28window of the uh the green uh ebus that
1:01:31we were riding, which was very nice,
1:01:33very quiet, very fun to ride. Um I'll
1:01:35I'll add that these BRT buses are going
1:01:38to be just as nice, if not nicer. Uh but
1:01:41when I was looking out the window, I I
1:01:44saw a real need for transit and I heard
1:01:47on the tour uh another important fact
1:01:49that approximately 20% of residents on
1:01:52the natural bridge corridor do not own a
1:01:54car. And I come back to that point I
1:01:56made that the most equitable thing we
1:01:57could do for people is to make
1:02:00>> the mass transit might be there.
1:02:02>> Yeah.
1:02:03>> Sorry. Could you
1:02:04>> And the thing is there's there's no
1:02:06prioritization. Could you uh if you're
1:02:08online, can you mute yourself?
1:02:10>> Thank you. Um
1:02:13>> sorry, we're getting some technical
1:02:15difficult
1:02:32to to be able to do. Uh I want to pivot
1:02:36a little bit to ask you about frequency
1:02:39uh because we've talked about ridership
1:02:41and and the usefulness of this line to
1:02:44people who will be using it. Uh what is
1:02:47the estimated frequency of the BRT line?
1:02:52>> This would be a very what was what is
1:02:54known as a high frequency BRT. That's
1:02:57the rapid part of that. So it would be
1:03:00between 10 and 25 minutes. We even uh
1:03:05and that would have to do with the
1:03:07length of the corridor, what are the
1:03:09ridership estimates, the cost. So we
1:03:12would like to provide essentially what
1:03:15is light rail like service, the density
1:03:18of service in time um and have a
1:03:21corridor that works that way. And then
1:03:24as far as transit is concerned, we would
1:03:26use that as essentially the spine of the
1:03:28corridor and then feed bus lines into
1:03:31these stations that creates a web and
1:03:34interconnectivity that is very key to
1:03:37regions like St. Louis, which is also a
1:03:40very key piece to to remember. One of
1:03:44the biggest corridors that we need some
1:03:46transit help in is that north south
1:03:48corridor. I would remind uh Alderman
1:03:51Browning and the public that our number
1:03:53one bus line right now is the number 70
1:03:55Grand. It is that north south route. We
1:03:58do have uh battery electric uh buses on
1:04:02that round 60footers. It is still our
1:04:04number one ridership. So what that tells
1:04:07us is that there is an embedded need for
1:04:10transit services. And Alderman Browning,
1:04:13if I may, just one very quick statistic
1:04:15really good. Um we have done a recent
1:04:18survey of our existing customers and u
1:04:23nearly 84% of them when they ask where
1:04:26are they taking transit today they say
1:04:28they are going to work. Of those
1:04:31customers 74%
1:04:34report making annual income of under
1:04:37$60,000.
1:04:38So what that tells you is from a public
1:04:41policy standpoint the absolute
1:04:43compelling need to be sure to serve the
1:04:46regular working people of St. Louis. It
1:04:49is very very important that we take that
1:04:52into consideration when you're advancing
1:04:54policy like that and I'm very
1:04:56appreciative of you bringing up that
1:04:57point. Yeah, I think that and that's why
1:05:01I I bring up frequency because I think
1:05:03the ability to serve people um I I have
1:05:07to be honest 15 to 25 minute frequency
1:05:11if it's on theif if it's on the 25
1:05:13minute that's not a useful transit
1:05:16>> if I miss the 25 minute line you know
1:05:19just barely by a minute which has
1:05:20happened to me before when I've taken
1:05:22transit right you see the train pulling
1:05:24bus pulling up but you're you're 40 feet
1:05:26away and you your hands are full. You're
1:05:28not going to run to catch it. Like that
1:05:31happens. Now you're waiting another 25
1:05:34minutes for that wine to show up. Now
1:05:35you're late to work. And so if you're
1:05:38using it to to go to work and really
1:05:42what I've encountered when I ride
1:05:43transit in other cities that I visit,
1:05:46the frequency is huge. The fact that I
1:05:49can go out and wait and it'll be less
1:05:51than 10 minutes before the next bus
1:05:53arrives. You know, that's why people use
1:05:56it. if it's going to be longer, they're
1:05:58going to call a cab or they're going to
1:06:00find another way to to go out and do
1:06:02that that trip. Uh so I think the
1:06:06emphasis on frequency has to be there.
1:06:09Um
1:06:11the wording of this uh proposition that
1:06:14we're going to put to the ballot, we've
1:06:16already discussed it a little bit that
1:06:18there's this wording of uh or other mass
1:06:20transit initiatives.
1:06:22Uh there was a little bit of
1:06:24acknowledgement that if we have enough
1:06:26money to build out the line uh from this
1:06:30tax and of course the CIG uh the capital
1:06:33improvement grant that um once the line
1:06:36is built, this money will then be used
1:06:39from the tax to help the operations of
1:06:42the current line or uh perhaps expand uh
1:06:47that service to maybe create other lines
1:06:50or other types of ways to improve that
1:06:53access. Um, can you speak a little to
1:06:58what you're looking at from what we get
1:07:00from the current economic development
1:07:01tax? Would that be able to help
1:07:04supplement the budget to ensure that
1:07:07that frequency is there that the service
1:07:10is as you know um I think what I heard
1:07:12on the tour was gold standard uh that
1:07:15this would be a gold standard BRT wine.
1:07:18uh that it would include I think we uh
1:07:20said today uh that we're looking at a um
1:07:25let's see what the term was that was
1:07:27used full street solution.
1:07:30>> Yes sir.
1:07:30>> Uh so that wording in that uh that
1:07:35ballot proposal
1:07:37other mass transit initiatives uh and I
1:07:40I'll also note that that it continues to
1:07:43include the line of upgrade the city's
1:07:45infrastructure. So this money can go to
1:07:48a variety of things that would help
1:07:50build out this line, make sure we have
1:07:52not just good stations, but also good
1:07:55access to those stations, including
1:07:57improving the sidewalks and the
1:07:58crossings at those stations. Uh knowing
1:08:01especially because um
1:08:04one of the places you're most likely to
1:08:06get hit by a car right now is in
1:08:08proximity to a bus station. It's mostly
1:08:10because they're located on very busy
1:08:11lines. It's not the bus's fault. It's
1:08:13the the fact that it's on a big road
1:08:15that's hard to cross. So,
1:08:18can you speak a little bit to what
1:08:21bystate and what Metro is looking at for
1:08:25the operating costs of this uh line and
1:08:28whether the economic development tax
1:08:29will be able to provide uh that quality
1:08:33gold level of service
1:08:36within our application for CIG capital
1:08:39investment grant program. uh we will
1:08:43enter uh what is the funding program and
1:08:46and we have an option of going to small
1:08:48starts or uh or or uh stream starts as
1:08:53the legislation is advancing right now
1:08:56to fund these kind of programs and
1:08:59within that application is very detailed
1:09:01um process that we have to prove to the
1:09:04federal government that can run it from
1:09:06an operating standpoint. But we have to
1:09:09show within our financials that the city
1:09:12and indeed metroransit has the financial
1:09:15strength to be sure that the frequency
1:09:18and those issues can be maintained not
1:09:21just for a year but for five 10 and for
1:09:24a long-term uh frequency. A key uh
1:09:28review factor from the FTA staff is to
1:09:32be sure that we are not cannibalizing
1:09:34other transit service in order to afford
1:09:37this service. That is a big no no in the
1:09:40application. You have to be able to
1:09:42prove financially and be sure that you
1:09:45can move forward on that in a very
1:09:49important and measured way that will
1:09:52contribute to the scoring the viability
1:09:54of the strong financial scoring of a
1:09:57project like this. And it is related
1:09:59even to the fundamental fact that I have
1:10:02to come in front of this board and pass
1:10:04my annual operating budget and be sure
1:10:07that we go through those review criteria
1:10:10as far as where our bus lines are going
1:10:12and so on that we are indeed accessible
1:10:14and answerable to the what are the
1:10:16public's wishes. And I appreciate you
1:10:18bringing that up too because I know that
1:10:20Alder one Sonier uh the the alder one
1:10:23from the seventh was asking about if
1:10:27things would have to be brought back in
1:10:28front of voters and while the answer to
1:10:31that was somewhat not really. Uh there
1:10:35is going to be a requirement that they
1:10:38have to come back in front of this body
1:10:40uh in order to authorize additional
1:10:42funding for this BRT project. So this is
1:10:45not the last time we'll see you, Mr.
1:10:46Roach. uh you'll be back here talking to
1:10:48us throughout this process as we release
1:10:51funding for each stage of this project
1:10:53is my understanding and so there will be
1:10:55plenty of opportunities for us to make
1:10:57sure this is happening correctly and
1:10:59that the money is going towards what our
1:11:01voters expect and at the end of the day
1:11:03that is our job as representatives to
1:11:05really bring the concerns of uh the
1:11:09public forward um which is why I'm going
1:11:12to come back to how I open this that
1:11:14there is in my find a distinct lack of
1:11:18trust right now in our transit systems
1:11:21in bystate and metro. I've spoken to
1:11:24residents of my ward who have told me
1:11:25how they struggle now to get where
1:11:27they're going because of bus routes that
1:11:29have been changed to be less frequent or
1:11:31even canceled altogether. Uh we have a
1:11:35single car pilot on the Metroink right
1:11:38now that I'm not joking I think nobody
1:11:41wants. Uh, I think there is a real lack
1:11:45of trust that we are headed in the right
1:11:47direction when it comes to our public
1:11:49transit systems in St. Louis. And in
1:11:52order to pass this at the ballot in
1:11:54April, we need that trust to be built up
1:11:57and for people to see that we're trying
1:11:58to bring them a better product because I
1:12:00do believe that. I do believe that's our
1:12:03goal. And you know, the changing world
1:12:07that we're in requires us to pivot and
1:12:10find better solutions. And BRT is not a
1:12:13new thing, but it is a newly popular
1:12:15thing cities because a lot of cities are
1:12:17finding that it very effectively serves
1:12:19their transit needs. And so we would be
1:12:22competing with our peer cities if we
1:12:24were able to be able to do this. Uh but
1:12:26my main concern is that I want to make
1:12:28sure we are able to do it and that we
1:12:30don't put ourselves in a position where
1:12:33uh this city stands in its own way,
1:12:36which we're very good at doing
1:12:37sometimes. Uh stands in its own way and
1:12:40doesn't pass this in April or and puts
1:12:43us in a quagmire that is going to be
1:12:45difficult to climb out of. Uh so uh I
1:12:48think we have some work to do, but uh I
1:12:51really appreciate just the conversation
1:12:53today. I think it's been a really really
1:12:55educational one and I hope that we can
1:12:57continue to share more details with the
1:12:58public. Uh, of note I want to uh promote
1:13:04uh two open houses that you're you have
1:13:07coming up or would you like to do that?
1:13:08Would you like to share it? Monday,
1:13:11October 19th, uh at Rung for Women, uh
1:13:14that is, uh 2717 Sydney Street, uh 5 to
1:13:197 p.m. there'll be an open house uh on
1:13:21this Green Line BRT. And then Thursday,
1:13:24October 22nd at the Polish Heritage
1:13:27Center at 1413 North 20th Street, again,
1:13:305 to 7 p.m. So, encourage people to come
1:13:33out, learn more about this system. Uh, I
1:13:36really do think that once you get to
1:13:38know BRT, you you'll love it. Uh, I know
1:13:41that I've really enjoyed uh the times
1:13:43that I've ridden it and find it to be
1:13:45superior to regular buses and a good
1:13:49alternative to light rail. Uh, but uh,
1:13:52Monday, October 19th and Thursday,
1:13:54October 22nd, 5 to 7 p.m. Two
1:13:56opportunities to come out and learn more
1:13:58about this. and I know you're going to
1:13:59continue to engage the public over the
1:14:01next several months along with uh
1:14:03Citizens for Modern Transit and the St.
1:14:05Louis Realtors and everybody else. We
1:14:07really want to continue to to do this
1:14:09push. So, uh I'll turn this back over to
1:14:13Alderman Aldridge to uh close if there's
1:14:16no other information that anyone would
1:14:18like to share.
1:14:19>> Uh do we want to do any uh public
1:14:20testimony, Mr. Chair?
1:14:21>> That's a great point, Al. Um I I got so
1:14:25caught up in my questions. Uh I would
1:14:27love to have some uh testimony from the
1:14:29public. So Madame Clerk, is anyone
1:14:30signed up to testify today?
1:14:33>> Yes. Yes, we have
1:14:37four people so far and it looks like
1:14:39some are coming in as I speak.
1:14:42>> All right.
1:14:45>> And those are four that are online and
1:14:47then we have one that's in person.
1:14:49>> Let's start with in person and then
1:14:50we'll go online.
1:14:56and please introduce yourself and uh
1:14:58what ward you're in and uh proceed. You
1:15:00have to
1:15:00>> Thank you. My name is Gwendeland Cox.
1:15:02I'm from W 10. And before I forget, I
1:15:04want to talk about the gentleman that
1:15:06talked about the um the BRT and um real
1:15:10estate, you know, and it it runs down
1:15:13Natural Bridge and um I don't know if he
1:15:15knows 12 schools are subject to be
1:15:17closed on the city's north side. Most of
1:15:19them on the north of Grand uh 12 uh
1:15:23eight of those schools on the city's
1:15:24north side. So, we lost population. We
1:15:27have over 5,000 vacant lots. We haven't
1:15:29had any economic development on the
1:15:30north side in the last 60 years. But if
1:15:33the BRT can bring it more power to it,
1:15:36Aldrich says that he doesn't know where
1:15:38this is going in the next 10 years.
1:15:40Which brings me to some questions that I
1:15:42don't hear. When you have public
1:15:43engagement, you say you got 84% of that,
1:15:4664% of the public engagement wants this.
1:15:49Is it 84% of the 52 people that I saw at
1:15:52the uh Polish Center when you all
1:15:55decided to use this route? Because I
1:15:57think it's we need to start questioning
1:16:00when you talk about public engagement.
1:16:02How many people are really being
1:16:04engaged? I don't think it's a lot. And
1:16:07I'm not talking about what I really want
1:16:08to talk about because I'm looking at the
1:16:10long-term operational costs. I would
1:16:13like to know. I didn't hear anything
1:16:15about the hund00 million dollars that
1:16:17you all occurred since 2017. You know, I
1:16:20wonder is there any justification for
1:16:22this investment? Has there really been a
1:16:25study? Because when I come down north
1:16:27and the natural bridge, I don't see all
1:16:29these people and we don't understand why
1:16:31you would spend so much money when you
1:16:33you know, maybe you can use the money
1:16:35for something else. I see a young man
1:16:37here that's uh little handicapping.
1:16:39Maybe we can use it on uh the uh caller
1:16:43ride. Maybe we can use it. That's can be
1:16:45an option. We can do something like
1:16:47that. But um we just need to have um
1:16:52more engagement and really we need to
1:16:56you know please don't come and give us a
1:16:58presentation and start showing us
1:17:00different uh BRTs and San Francisco like
1:17:03you mentioned the other day and s San
1:17:06Francisco has like 850,000
1:17:08people and a lot of those people
1:17:10somewhat like New York who don't drive.
1:17:13uh a lot and so they do need a BRT and
1:17:16I'm not against it but I just think that
1:17:18the transportation system should give uh
1:17:21us get us from one place to another
1:17:24without taking three and four trans uh
1:17:26uh transfers. I watched the Grand Bus
1:17:30runs every 15 minutes. You talking about
1:17:3220 25, you know, it's 28 bus stops on
1:17:36that route where you all planning to run
1:17:38this thing. So I don't think it's
1:17:40needed. I think we need some more
1:17:42discussion and really find out where we
1:17:45can what we can do to fix the current
1:17:49system. Like you said, Mr. Brownie, we
1:17:52need to get those children on Grand who
1:17:55has to ride the bus connected to the
1:17:59buses that get them on school on time.
1:18:01I've been watching and that Cass bus is
1:18:04not meeting that GR grand bus. those
1:18:06students are being 20 minutes late
1:18:08walking six blocks down to Vashan. And
1:18:11so we need to, you know, make sure that
1:18:14we get people to the art museum and
1:18:17without getting off the bus three and
1:18:19four times to downtown or where they
1:18:21want to go from point A to point B
1:18:23before we start spending money on a BRT.
1:18:26Thank you.
1:18:34>> Thank you. Now, the rest of the speakers
1:18:36are all online. Did you want to swear
1:18:38them in?
1:18:41>> Yes. Thank you. Um, if you are going to
1:18:43be testifying online, if you could
1:18:45please turn your camera on, raise your
1:18:47right hand.
1:18:55Okay, that's everyone. If you could
1:18:57raise your right hand. Do you tell the
1:18:58truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
1:19:00the truth?
1:19:02>> Yes, I do. Yes.
1:19:06>> Thank you all. Uh, Madame Clerk, please
1:19:08proceed.
1:19:09>> First, we have I believe it's Elise
1:19:11Schaefer. Could you state your ward that
1:19:14you're in?
1:19:16>> Good morning. Thank you, Madam Clerk.
1:19:18I'm Elise Schaefer. I'm a resident of
1:19:19the sixth ward and I'm policy manager
1:19:21for Missouri Coalition for the
1:19:22Environment. Uh for the last two years,
1:19:25MCE has been working with community
1:19:26members, city government, and other
1:19:28nonprofits to develop policy
1:19:30recommendations around the topic of
1:19:32extreme urban [clears throat] heat. The
1:19:34number of 100° days in St. Louis is
1:19:36expected to double in my lifetime, and
1:19:39heat's already the deadliest weather
1:19:41event in the country. So, I'm here to
1:19:43urge St. Louis to act swiftly, both to
1:19:45stop making it hotter and to help St.
1:19:47Louis and survive as dangerous
1:19:49temperatures become more frequent.
1:19:51According to the city's most recent
1:19:53sustainability and climate plan,
1:19:55transportation accounts for over 20% of
1:19:58St. Louis's greenhouse gas emissions,
1:20:00which is one of the major causes of the
1:20:02urban heat island effect. While this is
1:20:05largely due to the number of individual
1:20:06cars on the road, any buses running on
1:20:09diesel will also contribute to climate
1:20:11change and to the urban heat island
1:20:13effect. We encourage this committee to
1:20:15consider a requirement that all projects
1:20:17funded by this bill be fossil fuel-f
1:20:19free and that the bus rapid transit line
1:20:21be electric. As written, board bill 59
1:20:24is a great step towards taking cars off
1:20:26the road by improving frequency and
1:20:28reliability of mass transit in the city.
1:20:30I want to share with you some numbers
1:20:32from a survey we conducted last summer
1:20:33of over 300 city residents. 67% of
1:20:37respondents said that St. Louis's public
1:20:39transit system was not convenient. 73%
1:20:42said buses and trains don't run
1:20:44frequently enough. However, 70% said
1:20:47they would use transit more frequently
1:20:49if service was more frequently. And an
1:20:51astounding 78% said they would use
1:20:54transit more often if service was more
1:20:56convenient. The will to use public
1:20:58transit in our city exists. The
1:21:00infrastructure does not. MCE is a result
1:21:04of anything the city can do to decrease
1:21:06carbon emissions, including improving
1:21:07public transportation. We strongly
1:21:09encourage the committee to pass this
1:21:11bill with an amendment to require fossil
1:21:13fuel free sources of energy. Thank you
1:21:16so much for your time um and for
1:21:18considering this bill.
1:21:21>> Thank you.
1:21:22>> Thank you, Miss Schaefer. Next, we have
1:21:23Melinda Long.
1:21:26>> Uh yes. Hi. Good morning. Good morning.
1:21:29Uh the reason why I have some
1:21:32>> Long sorry, could you state what uh ward
1:21:34you live in?
1:21:36>> Oh, yes. The 11th ward. Yes. The reason
1:21:39why I have some concerns regarding this
1:21:41bill and I'm asking this the panel here
1:21:45to not only comply with your guidelines
1:21:48of meeting and conversion with the
1:21:50community but at the same time use this
1:21:52opportunity to you can pull this bill
1:21:55and make some amendments to the bill. I
1:21:58am quite concerned with the fact that it
1:22:00does say uh rapid BRT transit and other
1:22:05mass mass transit initiatives. Mass
1:22:10transit initiative is too vague. It can
1:22:13include railing, a rail system, water
1:22:16system. Don't ask don't ask me how
1:22:18people could be traveling underwater
1:22:20underground. And it even can be include
1:22:23an aerial system like in the days of the
1:22:26Jetsons and we remember we know that
1:22:29because what the citizens what the all
1:22:32the men on the panel had stated a lack
1:22:34of trust. Our lack of trust is not in
1:22:37Metro. No sir, we're not mad at Toby
1:22:40Roach or or any other person who wants
1:22:42to be who wants to improve the transit
1:22:45because that's their job. Our lack of
1:22:48trust and all sincerity is with you the
1:22:51board of altimate. When we have board
1:22:54when we have alderman who vote for
1:22:56things and pass bills and approve things
1:23:00like the data center and other and the
1:23:04and other businesses without really
1:23:06conversing with the residents and doing
1:23:08what people who voted for you to to do.
1:23:13That's who we have no trust in. Now, but
1:23:15going back to the wording of this board
1:23:18bill, Ordinance 59, it should say we're
1:23:22asking Aldridge, who he knows that I
1:23:25personally have a favoritism toward him.
1:23:28He knows I'm asking if you can add the
1:23:32express buses because that is what the
1:23:35city with its population right now can
1:23:38only handle. When you submit another
1:23:41application, which you may try to do to
1:23:44the Federal Transit Administration, they
1:23:46will again, you know, Mr. Roach, they
1:23:49will again and look at the population
1:23:52that we have in this community
1:23:56along with the the time period it has
1:23:58taken already to accumulate this $100
1:24:02million. And how on earth will you be
1:24:06able to support a massive transit
1:24:08system? you will not be able to do that.
1:24:11So, I'm asking
1:24:13for Aldridge because Aldridge, you're is
1:24:16you introduced the bill, you have the
1:24:19author authority to pull it, not ask for
1:24:22an amendment, but just change the
1:24:24wording. You don't have to add an
1:24:25amendment on on the back of it at the
1:24:28end of it, but change that one paragraph
1:24:31in there, that one statement in there to
1:24:33include
1:24:34express buses. And then at the in the
1:24:37future, what will happen more than
1:24:39likely with that when the Federal
1:24:42Transit Administration looks at it and
1:24:45of course maybe Toby Roach doesn't want
1:24:47you to put that in there because the the
1:24:49when the FTA will look at that
1:24:52application, they're going to conclude,
1:24:54oh well that community, they don't have
1:24:56enough to support a BRT. Well, they
1:24:59definitely did not have enough people to
1:25:00support the light rail, but maybe let's
1:25:03consider the express buses. We could
1:25:06fund that, the express buses. And of
1:25:09course, when the fe when the f the
1:25:11federal the trade ad FTA decides, okay,
1:25:14if we fund them for the express buses in
1:25:17year 2026 27, we're not going to come
1:25:20back to any application from St. Louis
1:25:23city for the next two or three decades
1:25:25until
1:25:27they have
1:25:29an increase in population of at least
1:25:32four times as many persons that we have
1:25:35now. But going going back to so a
1:25:39>> long that is your time.
1:25:41>> Thank you. Thank you.
1:25:44>> Thank you.
1:25:46Next we have Mrs. Alexander.
1:25:52Hi, good morning.
1:25:55>> Can you please state your ward?
1:25:58>> Yes,
1:26:00Mr. and Mrs. Alexander and we live in
1:26:03ward 11.
1:26:08>> Thank you. Please proceed.
1:26:10>> Thank you. Good morning, budget and
1:26:13public employees committee. First, we
1:26:16would like to invite you to join us on
1:26:18the first Monday of November, which is
1:26:21November 2nd, 2026,
1:26:26to hear the community's concerns
1:26:28regarding the bus rapid transit at the
1:26:31Jeff Vanderel meeting on Zoom. At this
1:26:34meeting, we would like to also invite
1:26:38Mr. Toby Roach and his team
1:26:41at Bystate Metro and others
1:26:45Next, everyone knows how hard our city
1:26:48communities work to inform the city
1:26:52bystate Metro and even the East West
1:26:54Gateway Council of Governments that the
1:26:57Metroink Green Line Rail, the light
1:27:00rail, was too expensive for $1.1 billion
1:27:03for only 5.6 miles and more so how it is
1:27:08unsafe to run a train in front of our
1:27:11homes.
1:27:12Furthermore, the wrership would be very,
1:27:15very low.
1:27:17But now, the Metro Link light rail train
1:27:19is back in this ballot language to keep
1:27:22the door open to spend our tax dollars
1:27:25on it. Anyway,
1:27:27lastly, to to also inform you that the
1:27:30community's request to add express
1:27:32buses, as Miss Long was stating, we
1:27:36wanted to add that to the language of
1:27:38board bill 59, but it was denied.
1:27:41The community's proposal shows that this
1:27:4311.5
1:27:45bus rapid transit for the cost of $360
1:27:48million to $590 million has 23 stations
1:27:54from Marramac and Jefferson to
1:27:56Goodfellow and Natural Bridge.
1:28:00Stopping at Goodfellow and Natural
1:28:01Bridge does not serve St. Louis region.
1:28:05Looking at the map, 23 stops is not
1:28:08rapid and it will not have the wrership
1:28:11to support it. There are BRT lines in
1:28:14the United States with persistently low
1:28:17ridership. Our community's proposal
1:28:21strengthens current service and adds
1:28:25express buses to move people
1:28:27efficiently.
1:28:29Time and time again, our voices are shut
1:28:31out.
1:28:33To vote on board Bill 59 today would be
1:28:35highly disingenuous because Metro
1:28:38decided to pivot to bus rapid transit
1:28:41without meaningful community input.
1:28:45Without community input is very
1:28:48important. They made the shift first
1:28:51then they tried to backfill it
1:28:53with public support after the case.
1:28:57Public input was only allowed for the
1:29:01route and the designs of the stations
1:29:03and perhaps other things. But we want to
1:29:06know why we the people are always left
1:29:08out of these highle decisions when we
1:29:11are the ones most impacted by all of
1:29:13this. So Alderman Aldridge and committee
1:29:16we are asking you to not vote on this
1:29:18today but allow our community to meet
1:29:21with you to revisit this board bill
1:29:24language. Alderman Aldridge, you know,
1:29:26we have expressed this multiple times
1:29:29how important it is to work directly
1:29:32with the residents and the community who
1:29:34will be most affected. Thank you.
1:29:40>> Thank you. Next, we have Zach B.
1:29:45Did you state your award?
1:29:48>> Yes. I am one of uh Alder Son's
1:29:52constituents in uh seven and so I wanted
1:29:55to just take some time here today first
1:29:58of all thank you guys for taking the
1:29:59time to hear us out because as a common
1:30:01thread is in what you've been hearing um
1:30:04we don't really trust you guys to listen
1:30:05to our opinions
1:30:07um like over the past year you've really
1:30:10kind of shown that you are willing to
1:30:13make decisions without talking to
1:30:14constituents so I appreciate this
1:30:16opportunity to voice that uh first of
1:30:19all I'm going to repeat what uh
1:30:21represent or what Alder Sier said uh
1:30:23this will not be getting a yes vote from
1:30:25me in its current form by no means uh is
1:30:29intentionally vague it seems which kind
1:30:32of leaves the fund open to be pillaged
1:30:35for whatever can be deemed transit which
1:30:38is just not beneficial for everybody or
1:30:41anybody really. Um, I understand the
1:30:43cost concerns, uh, but the best time to
1:30:46build trains in the city of St. Louis
1:30:48was 50 years ago, 70 years ago, 90 years
1:30:51ago, and the second best time to do that
1:30:52is now. It's not an easy investment, but
1:30:56it is a provably better investment than
1:30:58buses. There's a reason why every major
1:31:00city, its spine is built around its rail
1:31:03system and not its bus system. uh every
1:31:06single benefit that you want to tout
1:31:08about bus rapid transit is [snorts] done
1:31:11better and in a greater volume with
1:31:14light rail and that's that's just look
1:31:18around all the cities that you visited
1:31:19like I I lived in Chicago previously
1:31:22before coming here I moved to where I
1:31:24lived because I was going to be on the
1:31:27green line light rail line that was a
1:31:30big impact for me um just coming over to
1:31:35a couple of other points. Um,
1:31:39I think something [snorts] to note,
1:31:41especially when we're talking about how
1:31:43the city is losing population and we're
1:31:45starting to have money problems, is that
1:31:46like buses are not what attract people
1:31:48to move here. But, you know, what does
1:31:50people attract people to move here is
1:31:52light rail. It is one of the things that
1:31:53brings people to every major city in the
1:31:55country. And yes, we are still in a a
1:31:57budding point where we could do more and
1:31:59do better and we are still growing. But
1:32:02a a core function to that could be and
1:32:05should be light rail. We can reach
1:32:07people. It is an affront that a casino
1:32:10in Illinois has better access to
1:32:12downtown by light rail than I do as a
1:32:15resident of this city. That is just
1:32:18something that's unacceptable. Um and in
1:32:21terms of profitability, I'm I'm so
1:32:23sorry. It's really hard to hear you guys
1:32:24complain about money when you hand out
1:32:26tax abatements like candy to all to your
1:32:28land developer friends.
1:32:30It's really hard to hear that and say
1:32:32that you don't have the money while
1:32:34you're writing 20-year tax abatements.
1:32:36And has Green Street paid their taxes
1:32:38yet on the armory? Have they done that?
1:32:42I think there's just there is too much
1:32:44intentional obfuscation and too much
1:32:47focus on short-term wins at long-term
1:32:50sacrifices for this to be any kind of
1:32:53reasonable discussion. This never should
1:32:55have come to the table in the first
1:32:56place, not in its current form. Uh I
1:32:58know for certain I won't be voting for
1:33:00it. Um and I appreciate the opportunity
1:33:03to let y'all know my opinion. Thank you.
1:33:07>> Thank you.
1:33:08>> Thank you. That will be all.
1:33:12With that, Alderman Aldridge, you are
1:33:14recognized to close.
1:33:22And while you get up there, I I want to
1:33:23mention I also forgot to mention there's
1:33:25also going to be a virtual open house on
1:33:27Monday, October 26th. Um, you can
1:33:30pre-register uh on a link that uh is
1:33:33provided on, I'm sure, the BioState
1:33:36website as well as their social media.
1:33:38Um, so there's three opportunities
1:33:40coming up here in the next couple weeks
1:33:42to learn more about BRT. And with that,
1:33:46Alderman Aldridge.
1:33:49>> Thank you, Alderman Browning, for uh
1:33:51stating those uh public uh houses that
1:33:54will be coming up. I think those uh will
1:33:57be important uh for people to be able to
1:33:59show up to also directly hear from the
1:34:02representatives uh that has been working
1:34:04on this BRT language. Uh, I do want to
1:34:06say one thing I love about our
1:34:08committees is I'll take a a note out of
1:34:11Clark Clark Hubbert's words. Committee
1:34:14is where the like the work happens,
1:34:15right? Um, so today I think we heard a
1:34:19lot of uh good information from uh
1:34:22people that have been working on the BRT
1:34:24uh process, even from uh the city as
1:34:27well as residents and even um some of
1:34:29our colleagues uh that may want to see
1:34:32uh some tweaks to uh the language. Um
1:34:35I'm always somebody who's willing to uh
1:34:38work with folks to try to get it across
1:34:40the finish line. Um so I think there's a
1:34:42little bit more work that uh if not work
1:34:45at least conversations. I know before
1:34:47this hearing I did talk with uh all my
1:34:50colleagues about it. I know now there's
1:34:52a concern about the language which
1:34:54definitely willing to um have that
1:34:57conversation. Um, I think at the end of
1:34:59the day, um, you know, it's it's a
1:35:02little tricky of,
1:35:05you know, how detailed and how like not
1:35:07detailed you get with it because I think
1:35:09right now what we see is that, um, the
1:35:11first go round we almost maybe too
1:35:13detailed where now we have to come back
1:35:15and ask voters uh, to shift potentially
1:35:17to BRT or other uh, mass transit. So,
1:35:20uh, I do think it's important with
1:35:22hearing some concerns that we hold the
1:35:24bill today. Uh, get partners, uh, at the
1:35:28table and community at the table and
1:35:30also
1:35:40board um, this goes to the voters. And I
1:35:43want to be very clear, this isn't a bill
1:35:45that's being passed that voters are not
1:35:47weighing in on. Once this bill is
1:35:49passed, the whole point of this
1:35:50legislation is to allow voters to have
1:35:53their input on the change of the
1:35:55language because right now it is very
1:35:57tight where we can't do uh the rail
1:35:59line. So, um, I want to thank all the
1:36:02folks that was here today that spoke on
1:36:03it and all the folks that's been working
1:36:05hard on this piece of legislation and
1:36:07also I want to thank, uh, the community
1:36:08for coming out and the next time we have
1:36:12a hearing on it, uh, like always, we'll
1:36:14make sure that the meeting is several
1:36:15days out. So, if people want to come
1:36:17testify that they can come testify, but
1:36:20today I'll, uh, hold Bill 59 in the
1:36:23budget and public employees committee.
1:36:26>> Thank you, Alderman. uh as I hand the
1:36:29chairmanship back to you, I'll just say
1:36:31that I do encourage people to go to the
1:36:32open houses. There are opportunities for
1:36:34you to talk to these leaders and share
1:36:37your thoughts about it. So whether it's
1:36:39that the buses should be electric, uh
1:36:42which I totally agree with, you know, or
1:36:45uh that you would love to see express
1:36:47buses instead. These are the places to
1:36:49have those conversations and uh we
1:36:51really encourage you to utilize these
1:36:53opportunities. uh we're going out in the
1:36:56public uh to hear from you. So, I plan
1:36:58on attending at least one of these uh
1:37:00because I want to make sure that I'm
1:37:02also hearing from people and uh I look
1:37:04forward to seeing you all there.
1:37:07Thank you, vice chair, for holding it
1:37:09down. Um with that, we will move to the
1:37:12next item. Uh we do not have any
1:37:14resolutions for review as well as no
1:37:16committee discussions.
1:37:18Um uh any written testimony, Madam
1:37:21Clerk? Yes, we have one that's in the
1:37:23drive and it's um in the Google Drive
1:37:25for your review.
1:37:26>> Thank you, Madam Clerk. Uh we any
1:37:28announcements from any committee
1:37:29members?
1:37:31I will uh move that we excuse the
1:37:33alderman from the 5th. And with that,
1:37:35I'll take a motion to
1:37:39second. Moved by the alderman from the
1:37:419th, seconded by the alderman of the
1:37:4314th that we adjourn. All in favor? I.
1:37:45Any opposed?
1:37:47Motion carries.