2026-10-13 - Housing, Urban Development & Zoning Committee

Summary

Based on auto-generated captions; names and numbers may be misheard. Captions run from 06:00 (call to order) to 2:13:40 (adjournment). Stretches with no captioned speech (55:07-56:27 between bills, 2:09:38-2:10:50 a side conversation) are not counted as discussion time.

Tuesday, October 13, 2026, Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee, chaired by Alderwoman Clark-Hubbard.
Four members answered the first roll call (Alderman Conn joined online and Vice Chair Sinyangwe arrived shortly after) and the October 6, 2026 minutes were approved 4-0.
The chair moved the two mayoral appointment items to the top of the agenda out of respect for the volunteers.
The committee approved both sets of appointments, passed two affordable-housing redevelopment bills (BB 47 and BB 57) with do-pass recommendations, and held BB 70 in committee after a long debate over approving a tax abatement before a developer is chosen.
No resolutions were up for review.
Written testimony: four statements, all in support. Adjourned at 2:13:40.

Baden Market Centre Special Business District Appointments

07:54-19:18

Appointees were sworn in and each introduced themselves: Dr. Kimberly Jones (a nonprofit co-founder), Larry Johnson (a business owner), Tamara Keith (founder of an ice cream company headquartered in Baden) and Tiana Broadway (owner of an event space). Each spoke of reviving the district, which has been inactive; the chair noted this was the second time the group had come to reaffirm its commitment.
Two members thanked Broadway for a free senior prom she hosted. A fifth nominee, Teresa Meyers, was not present; the chair asked members to approve her with the others given her earlier testimony and vetting.
Alderwoman Sweitzer moved, Vice Chair Sinyangwe seconded, and the appointments were approved 6-0 by roll call. The chair noted the Baden neighborhood stabilization officer and an SLDC neighborhood development manager were in the room.

Nuisance Property Review Board Appointments

19:22-40:54

Mayoral appointments to the new Nuisance Property Review Board (created by Board Bill 151, sponsored by Alderman Aldrich). Appointees were sworn in. One nominee on the list was not present and was skipped.
Ed Wear, a former city building commissioner with about 50 years in city government, said the board gives neighborhoods input; Aldrich praised his help drafting the legislation. Amber Cole (a retired municipal court employee and police chaplain) stressed enforcement and community engagement. Alonzo Shaw (former police nuisance coordinator on the targeted management assistance program) and Bernard Powderly (who helped manage the problem property database) described their experience; Powderly said there are over 1,600 problem properties and over 400 on the nuisance watch list. Walter Bonner (a neighborhood association leader) and Kelsey Lober (an attorney) also spoke.
Aldrich asked most appointees why they applied. The chair moved, Vice Chair Sinyangwe seconded, and Wear, Cole, Shaw, Powderly, Bonner and Lober were approved with five aye votes by roll call.

Tiffany Scattered Site Redevelopment Tax Abatement (BB 47)

41:00-50:08, 52:50-55:07

Vice Chair Sinyangwe, the sponsor, presented BB 47: a redevelopment plan for 21 scattered apartment buildings in the Tiffany neighborhood with a 15-year tax abatement (90% of the added value for years 1-10, 50% for years 11-15). The developer plans about $15.4 million of rehabilitation on 60 affordable units at 60% of area median income or less (about $257,000 per unit), many with three to five bedrooms, plus relocation paid by the developer.
Funding includes federal low-income housing tax credits covering about 75% of the cost and about $3.5 million in loans. The developer team is Tiffany Developers LLC with Efficacy Consulting and Development LLC, Tag Development LLC and Communities First STL; the developer representative said rents are tied to federal HUD assistance so no resident pays more than 30% of income.
Whitson of SLDC said SLDC strongly supports the project, noting the school district is losing population and needs more families. No members had questions; Alderwoman Sweitzer said she asked hers at the Planning Commission.
Alderman Browning moved the committee substitute (adding the fiscal note); it was adopted 6-0 by roll call. The substitute then received a do-pass recommendation by call for previous roll with no objection.

Amber Stone Scattered Site Redevelopment Tax Abatement (BB 57)

56:47-1:04:03, 1:06:09-1:08:35

Alderman Aldrich presented BB 57, a very similar scattered-site project in the Old North and St. Louis Place area: 68 affordable units reduced to 67 (one converted to an on-site management and resident services space), 15-year abatement on the same 90%/50% schedule, large three- to five-bedroom homes, and a HUD-assisted property with a 30-year affordability agreement. He noted abatements rarely reach North St. Louis.
The developer representative cited deferred maintenance on homes built in the late 1800s and said the abatement keeps the low-rent project viable. Whitson said SLDC supports it and added that developers of low-income housing tax credit projects increasingly want the schedule reversed (about 60-70% abatement for 10 years, then 90% for 5) to help with later maintenance costs.
The committee adopted the committee substitute (fiscal note) with no objection. Public comment is covered under the school consultation item below. Vice Chair Sinyangwe asked to be added as a co-sponsor and praised the developer's focus on minority and women owned business participation. Passed with a do-pass recommendation by call for previous roll with no objection.

School district consultation on tax incentives

50:08-52:50, 1:04:03-1:06:09, 1:26:54-1:31:42

Rickenbaugh (captioned "John Reagan Bogen" and "Aken Boen"; apparently the same SLPS Parent Action Council speaker as on October 20; the group says it does not speak for the district) supported BB 47 for its large family units, citing about 4,000 SLPS students who are unhoused or housing insecure, and praised that its development proposal report was attached as the 2023 ordinance requires, saying most bills lack one.
On BB 57 he said the group was not opposing but that no report appeared to be attached. SLDC said every project with a developer has a developer packet and that it was sent with the bill; Whitson promised it would be posted with the bill on the city website going forward.
On BB 70 he urged a no vote or a hold, arguing that pre-authorizing up to a 90% ten-year abatement is too high for a strong market and takes the decision out of the aldermen's hands. He suggested pre-authorizing about 50% and requiring SLDC to come back for more. He said TIF-related abatements reached about $45 million in the 2025 tax year, and asked whether SLPS had been notified. Browning answered that the abated amount is only a ceiling set by SLDC's need test, that vacant land currently yields almost nothing, and that SLPS would be consulted once a project exists.

Forest Park Southeast Pre-Approved Tax Abatement (BB 70)

1:08:38-1:26:54, 1:31:42-2:09:38, 2:10:50-2:12:48

Alderman Browning presented BB 70 with a slide history of the Forest Park Southeast neighborhood: the highway and interchange rebuilds displaced hundreds of residents, land speculation and neglect by prior owners left two parcels vacant, and a recent two-building proposal of over 300 units had neighborhood support but could not secure financing and the land is for sale. The bill pre-authorizes a redevelopment plan and abatement of up to 90% of added value for 10 years (plus 50% for five more years if affordable units are included) with no developer yet, so there is no development proposal report. Any project would still go through SLDC's need test, scorecards and prevailing wage and minority compliance terms.
Whitson said the community scorecard is written into the redevelopment agreement and incentives can be reduced or pulled for noncompliance. Weatherford of SLDC clarified that the building-permit and completion deadlines attach to the redevelopment agreement, not the plan; the plan itself lasts 25 years. Browning stressed the abatement applies only to improved value, so vacant land keeps paying its current taxes.
Alderman Aldrich supported housing but said he was uneasy approving incentives without knowing the developer, noting this is the second such pre-approval in Browning's ward and that committee practice has been to hear developers (he cited a past hotel project that took three hearings). He asked that any developer return to this committee. Browning said he could support language to that effect if it did not add new demands, argued SLDC already has the expertise, and said predictability is how other cities attract developers; he also noted the Planning Commission voted unanimously in support.
Vice Chair Sinyangwe supported the bill and a possible amendment adding transparency, and suggested using pre-incentives for city-owned receivership properties and for vacant school buildings. She emailed amendment language to members. Browning first moved a committee substitute for an updated fiscal note, then withdrew it without a second after the chair said the change should be an amendment.
The chair held BB 70 in committee so the amendment language and fiscal note can be sorted out; no vote was taken on passage.

Time on topic (from transcript timestamps; approximate, includes public comment and side talk; recesses and stretches with no captioned speech not counted):

Topic	Minutes	Share
Forest Park Southeast Pre-Approved Tax Abatement (BB 70)	58	46%
Nuisance Property Review Board Appointments	22	18%
Tiffany Scattered Site Redevelopment Tax Abatement (BB 47)	11	9%
Baden Market Centre Special Business District Appointments	11	9%
Amber Stone Scattered Site Redevelopment Tax Abatement (BB 57)	10	8%
School district consultation on tax incentives	10	8%
Other business (call to order, minutes, announcements, adjournment)	3	2%

Sources

Video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=GdcHSLnp0Zk

Video

Watch the video

Transcript

These are auto-generated captions; names and numbers may be misheard.

Transcript

06:00We'll call today's housing development

06:03housing urban development and zoning

06:05committee meeting to order. Madame

06:06clerk, please call the role. Alderman

06:08Conn,

06:10>> Alderwoman Schwitzer,

06:12>> present.

06:14>> Vice Chair Sonier,

06:15>> Alderman Browning,

06:17>> present. Alderman Aldridge

06:19>> present.

06:20>> Sher Clark Hubard

06:21>> here. Alman Conn, Vice Chair Sonier, we

06:25have four present. We have a quorum.

06:27>> Thank you. With that, I'll accept a

06:29motion to approve the minutes from

06:30Tuesday, October 6, 2026.

06:33>> So moved. Second.

06:35>> It was moved by Alderman Browning and

06:37seconded by Alderman Aldridge that we

06:40approve the minutes from October 6,

06:432026. Madame clerk, please call the

06:45role. Alderman Conn, Alderwoman

06:48Schwitzer,

06:49>> I.

06:49>> Vice Chair Sonier, Alderman Browning,

06:52>> I.

06:53>> Alderman Aldridge,

06:54>> I.

06:55>> Chair Clark Hubard,

06:56>> I.

06:57>> Alderman Con, Vice Chair Sonier, we have

07:00four eye votes. Thank you. With that,

07:02we've successfully approved the minutes

07:04from Tuesday, October 6, 2026. We're

07:06going to adjust the agenda. Out of

07:09respect for our volunteers time, we are

07:13going to move discussion items number

07:15one and number two up to the top of the

07:17agenda so that we can hear from the

07:18mayoral appointees. Just for

07:21uhformational awareness as we prepare

07:23you all and for people watching by the

07:25time these appointees get to us, they've

07:27already been through a vetting process

07:28through um Miss Sappa and her staff and

07:32neighborhoods and communities. And then

07:35they have this part of the process where

07:36they come and speak with us and

07:39reconfirm their commitment to this

07:41service to the community. And I will

07:43note that even this Baiten district,

07:45this is their second time reaffirming

07:48their commitment to the city of St.

07:50Louis this way. So I want to personally

07:51thank you all for the time uh um and for

07:54the service. And what we'll do is the uh

07:57we'll do the Baiten Market Center

08:00special business district first.

08:03Everyone that's on that district that's

08:05here to testify, speak, can you raise

08:08your right hand so I can swear you all

08:09in at the same time?

08:14And Miss Keith, just for awareness, we

08:17can't you um are you pulled over

08:21or do you have the opportunity to pull

08:23over?

08:25Okay, I will wait. Go ahead and turn

08:27your camera off and then we'll do you

08:29separately so that you have an

08:30opportunity to safely pull over. Thank

08:32you so much.

08:35Okay. Do you all swear to tell the whole

08:38truth and nothing but the truth?

08:40All right. What'll happen is madam clerk

08:42will call you up by name. You can come

08:44up, introduce yourself, briefly speak to

08:47your commitment, your alignment with

08:50this board and this service. And then

08:52we'll go through and see if anyone has

08:53any questions for you. Thank you so

08:55much.

08:57Our first speaker is Kimberly Jones.

09:03Yes.

09:13Good morning. My name is Dr. Kimberly

09:16Jones. I am the co-founder and chief

09:19financial officer for Living with

09:21Purpose. We are a nonprofit organization

09:24loaded located in the Ben um Riverview

09:26community. We have a contract with

09:29department of mental health. So we

09:30service individuals with developmental

09:32disabilities and and we also are a

09:35community organization that focuses on

09:38the substance use disorders, homeless,

09:41um poverty, basically anything that

09:43affects a family household. I have been

09:45in this process you guys since 2021. So

09:48I could not be more um happy to be here.

09:53Um, Ben truly needs this special

09:58business district back up and running.

10:00We have so many amazing residents and

10:02businesses in that community and they

10:05just deserve the things that every other

10:08um community are currently receiving and

10:11we haven't been getting that because we

10:13haven't had this opportunity. So, I'm

10:16grateful to be here um and I just again

10:20thank you guys. Thank you guys so so

10:22much.

10:25>> Thank you, Miss Kim. U before you before

10:26you leave this, we'll make sure if

10:28anybody has any questions, I want to uh

10:30again thank you not just for your

10:31service to here, but your service and

10:33community with Living with Purpose and

10:34that amazing day you all had this

10:37weekend. Does anyone have any questions

10:39for Miss Kim?

10:42Are there any committee members online?

10:48>> I am Tamara Keith.

10:51Okay,

10:53Madame Clerk, are there any um HUD

10:55committee members on

10:56>> We have none.

10:57>> Okay. All right. Thank you so much.

11:05>> The next speaker is Teresa Meyers.

11:12Okay, we'll skip over Miss Meyers.

11:15Tamara

11:16Keith,

11:17>> have you had a chance to pull over, Miss

11:19Keith?

11:26Okay, I'll go to Larry Johnson.

11:48Hello.

11:51>> Go ahead. You can introduce yourself,

11:53speak to your alignment, and why you are

11:55committed to serving on the Baiten

11:57Special Business District.

11:58>> Okay. My name is

11:59>> Ben Market Center Business District.

12:02>> My name is Larry Johnson. Um,

12:06my name is Larry Johnson. Check, check,

12:08check. Mic check. Mic check. Uh, my name

12:11is Larry Johnson. I'm from Diesel

12:13Distributing, the pull-up store. Um, I'm

12:17very passionate about trying to help um

12:23restore the the the the good things in

12:25Baiten and and be a part of the movement

12:28to u bring bring some of the resources

12:30and the connections back. Um, I grew up

12:34not too far from there. So, you know, I'

12:37I've seen it over the years trans

12:39transition in a lot of different ways.

12:41And I'm looking forward to to being a

12:45part of the the the betterment of it, if

12:48that's the word I can try to say, but

12:51um,

12:55>> thank you so much. I see. Does anyone

12:57have any questions? I do see Alderman

12:59Con has joined us online. Does anyone

13:00have any questions?

13:02for Mr. Johnson.

13:06All right. Thank you so much, Mr.

13:08Johnson.

13:10Miss Keith, we'll go ahead and go to you

13:11if you can raise your right hand and

13:13swear to tell the whole truth and

13:14nothing but the truth.

13:16>> I do. Please proceed.

13:20>> Uh Tamara Keith, I'm the uh founder and

13:23CEO of Clementine's Ice Cream based here

13:26in St. Louis. our headquarters and

13:29production facility is right in the

13:31heart of Ben. And so I am very excited

13:34to uh have the the progress of this new

13:38district being hopefully finalized so

13:40that we can move forward because it Ben

13:43really is a great place and it needs all

13:46the help and resources it can get and

13:47I'm really happy and proud to be a part

13:49of it.

13:52>> Thank you so much Miss Keith. Thank you

13:53for taking the time this morning and the

13:55continued time. I know you were one of

13:57the people on the meeting last time over

13:59a year ago. I share that meeting a lot

14:01because of the inspiration that shares

14:03that you all the testimonies that you

14:05all gave. I'm so glad to see you all

14:07back here um this morning still willing

14:09to serve. Does anyone have any questions

14:11for Miss Keith?

14:16All right. Thank you so much.

14:32Toana Broadway

14:36Tayana Broadway

14:40Good morning everyone.

14:45I'm Tyiana Broadway, owner of Broadway's

14:48on Broadway Event Space and Culture

14:50Center. Uh, and we've been in Baiten a

14:54couple years and, uh, the good thing

14:57about Baiten is the businesses have been

15:00coming together to advocate for our

15:02business district, and we're so grateful

15:05to be here today. Broadway's on Broadway

15:08is an event space and we have a special

15:10focus for seniors, faith-based

15:12nonprofits and small business. But we

15:15also already been giving back to the

15:17community by providing space for our

15:20community meetings and we also hosted

15:22our first senior prom last year and

15:26which was free to seniors um in the

15:30Bayen area and surrounding

15:32neighborhoods. So, I am so grateful for

15:34you guys and so grateful to be here and

15:38just like my other business team members

15:40said, we just need to uh move forward

15:44with Ben and um and we hope that we can

15:47do that uh after today. Thank you.

15:51>> Thank you. Does anyone have any

15:53questions for Miss Broadway?

16:02I don't have a question, Miss Broadway.

16:03Just a comment. Um, I did want to let

16:05you know that I actually heard about

16:06that senior prom. I think that a

16:09resident of mine was able to go with a

16:11family member who lives in the area and

16:12I just wanted to make sure on the record

16:14that I thanked you for your work. Um, I

16:15heard it was a great turnout and that

16:17the seniors were really appreciative and

16:19my resident who attended was like, "Oh,

16:20the woman, can you give us a senior

16:22prom?" And I was like, "You know, that's

16:23a little bit outside of my area, but um,

16:25perhaps she would be open to

16:26collaborating." So, I just wanted to

16:27make sure on the record that I thanked

16:28you for your work.

16:30>> Thank you. And it was free. Seniors

16:32didn't have to pay anything.

16:34>> I appreciate that.

16:37>> One more. Miss Broadway.

16:38>> She can continue. Uh I don't think I'm

16:40just going to say, Miss Broadway, you

16:42know, you resident of the 14th ward. I

16:43know you do amazing work in Broadway

16:45area. I won't go remiss that your heart

16:48and your passion for this city is so

16:50big. the you started a block unit over

16:53in your community um just to make the

16:56block nice and has been advocating and

16:58do so much community cleanups and all

17:00different events. So, I know your

17:01business is in Broadway and it's amazing

17:03business if people haven't seen it yet,

17:05but I just want to thank you too uh for

17:07all the work that you do in the 14th and

17:09for the city of St. Louis.

17:11>> Thank you. And I appreciate the work you

17:13do in the 14th ward.

17:15>> Good job.

17:16>> Okay, I'm not going to move yet. I think

17:18that's good unless anybody's online with

17:20any question. Okay. Is Miss Thank you,

17:23Miss Broadway. Is Miss Meyers online?

17:26Okay. So, here's what I'm asking my

17:28committee members here. Miss Meyers

17:30again was one of the people that showed

17:32up in over a year ago um and testified

17:35and spoke to that. Not to mention, I

17:37talked about the vetting that goes in

17:39before they get to us. So, she's been

17:41vetted. uh her we have all had access

17:44for now over a year to her resume and

17:47the work that she done. So I'm asking um

17:49that you all even in her absence still

17:52if you all um approve the mayoral

17:55appointments that we add her as well and

17:57I'll accept the motion.

18:00>> I move to approve the appointments to

18:03the Bayen Market Center Special Business

18:05District um of the of those mentioned on

18:08our agenda.

18:09>> Second.

18:11It was moved by Alderwoman Schweiser,

18:13seconded by Vice Chair Sier that we

18:15approve the mayoral appointments to the

18:17Bayen Market Center Special Business

18:19District. Madame Clerk, please call the

18:21role.

18:22>> Alderman Conn,

18:24>> I.

18:25>> Alderwoman Schwitzer,

18:26>> I.

18:27>> Vice Chair Sonier,

18:29>> I.

18:30>> Alderman Brownie,

18:31>> I.

18:32>> Alderman Aldridge,

18:33>> I.

18:34>> Eric Clark,

18:35>> I.

18:35>> We have six eye votes. With that, we

18:38have successfully approved the mayoral

18:40appointments to the Bayen Market Center

18:42Special Business District. Godspeed and

18:44congratulations, you all. [applause]

18:48Yeah, absolutely. So, so happy. We're so

18:50happy. And I think I would be remiss

18:52without saying just an an additional

18:55speak an additional thing that speaks to

18:57the commitment of the Baiten district is

18:58that we also had in the room today their

19:00NIS for baiting, Mr. Max McGee and their

19:04neighborhood development

19:09transformation manager from SLDC, Miss

19:12Shvet Ways Jones. So again, this is hard

19:14work that's been going on and the

19:16commitment been um remarkable. Thank

19:18you. With that, we will move uh to

19:22discussion item number two, the mayoral

19:24appointments to the nuisance property

19:26review board. Is everyone in the room or

19:29online that's here uh for the Nuisance

19:31Property Review Board? If you can raise

19:33your right hand and swear to tell the

19:34whole truth and nothing but the truth.

19:38I do.

19:41All right. With that, we will move

19:42forward. Madame Clerk, you can start

19:44with the names.

19:46Vanna Shaw.

19:52>> Well, we can move past if she's not in

19:54the room. Let's go to the next one. Ed

19:57Wear.

20:03>> Good morning, committee members.

20:05It's good to see a lot of familiar

20:07faces.

20:09Uh I'm here to apply for the position go

20:12on the board. I did briefly see that I

20:16believe it was Alderman Aldridge

20:19introduced

20:20board bill 151 creating this. I have to

20:24go back and follow up. And

20:26>> Mr. Wearer, could you bring the mic up

20:27to your

20:28>> I'm sorry.

20:31>> Pardon me, ma'am.

20:36>> Now, um this is embarrassing for me. I'm

20:39going to tell the committee members that

20:40I ran down here. Usually when I go to

20:43these uh type of functions, I put in my

20:46hearing aids. So [laughter]

20:50you'll have to speak up for me and I

20:52apologize. Anyway, I know that the the

20:55just of this is to u allow a board to

21:00review any nuisance type of activities.

21:03Uh I am very familiar with all of the

21:06nuisance enforcement. Mr.

21:08>> Can you take the micro

21:09>> if you see how you hear my echo? I can't

21:11hear your echo and I just want to make

21:12sure people online can hear. And once

21:14again, older woman, you were saying

21:16what? Raise the mic up.

21:18>> Yes. Just you see how you can hear my

21:19ego when I'm talking. I just want to

21:20hear you like that to make sure the

21:21folks online can hear you.

21:24>> Am I fine speaking now? Okay.

21:27>> Thank you. Um I'm very familiar with the

21:31enforcement activities of the nuisance

21:33section ordinance of the building

21:35division. as the former uh commissioner.

21:41Uh I know that we have worked with uh

21:44other departments uh jurisdictional

21:46cooperation within the police and health

21:49department on these type of activities.

21:53I think the uh nuisance board is a good

21:55step forward. It gives the neighborhood

21:58associations and the older people little

22:01input. Uh we do want to hear everybody's

22:04side of this particular story.

22:07Uh I see no downfalls in this. Uh

22:11whether I'm selected or not doesn't mean

22:13anything. I just think that the creation

22:16of this board was uh a good positive

22:19step forward. So I just want to make

22:20that statement.

22:25>> Thank you Mr. Wear. Does anyone have any

22:27questions online or in the room for Mr.

22:29Wear? Okay. Adam Aldridge.

22:32>> Thank you, Madam uh Chairwoman, members

22:34of the committee. Just a comment. Um uh

22:36I think Mr. Wear, I know you're uh I

22:39want to put on record the former

22:41building commissioner have worked in the

22:43building commission for years. We won't

22:45say how many years.

22:46>> Uh no. Well, uh 50 years total with the

22:50city government. Uh 45 years in code

22:53enforcement inside. So,

22:55>> and as we wrote this legislation, uh you

22:57was a a big help uh also. and the

23:00institutional knowledge that you have,

23:03you know, I'm sure we'll go out and um

23:06find a new building commissioner, but

23:09working with you on this legislation and

23:10just your institutional knowledge, the

23:12ins and outs, you didn't need to look at

23:14chapters. you knew exactly uh what the

23:16violations was and um I think you make a

23:19great addition uh to this board because

23:22uh what you bring from being a previous

23:24city employee and just knowing uh these

23:27violations that if they rise to the

23:28level of being a nuisance I think is

23:30going to be critical. So I just you

23:32thank you for continuing your service

23:33here in the city of St. Louis with

23:35applying to be on this board.

23:36>> Uh born here raised here long-term

23:39resident and continue to try to serve.

23:42>> Thank you. Any other questions for Mr.

23:44Wear?

23:46>> All right. Thank you.

23:48>> Thank you.

23:48>> Our next speaker is Miss Amber Cole.

24:00Good morning.

24:02>> What What am I doing?

24:05>> Oh,

24:05>> member just speak your name, your

24:06alignment, and your commitment.

24:08>> Oh, on this board.

24:10>> I'm Amber Cole. I'm a resident of the

24:1211th ward. Um Lauris, the elevated 11th

24:16ward. Um I've been very um vocal about

24:23nuisance properties over the years. Um

24:28that I was also uh I'm on the Federation

24:32of Block Unit, Secretary of Citizens of

24:36Oallen Park Neighborhood Association.

24:39I'm currently the chaplain for the St.

24:41Louis Metropolitan Police Department as

24:43well as the chaplain for Missouri

24:46Corrections.

24:47Also had 38 years of uh active service

24:51with the state and the city. Before I

24:55retired last year,

24:57I [clears throat] was working for

24:59municipal court and in that we did

25:03nuisance property as well as dumping and

25:06environmental. I believe people don't

25:09realize that when we do nuisance, we're

25:10looking at also environmental as well as

25:14health and so that interchanges

25:17together. Uh most used to be you used to

25:20target the u guns and and drugs.

25:25However, is dumping is uh uh families

25:29that are not connecting in the community

25:34and which is uh abandoning abandoning um

25:39residents that's been a eyes sore. And

25:42so if we I I was really happy when I

25:45seen this about the nuisance board

25:47because I believe it need number one.

25:51Number two, if you going to do the

25:53nuisance board, I also

25:55ations that it needs to be also

25:59effective policies and procedures need

26:01to be taking place and then enforcement

26:04and engagement from the community. And

26:08so when we do all this to do all this

26:11work and not have enforcement

26:14is is ridiculous. And so I do have a

26:17relationship with U SE and I remember

26:20when he used to do u out in the

26:23community with environment I got a

26:26relationship with it and and they know I

26:29used to call them about cameras and

26:31everything and that's how we turned our

26:34community around my block my two around

26:38is because of that. So, if I'm willing

26:41to serve, that's who I am. I'm a ser.

26:45Any questions?

26:48>> Absolutely. Thank you. Does anyone have

26:50any questions for Miss Cole?

26:52>> Alman Aldrich.

26:53>> Okay. I'm a committee woman for the 11

26:55board.

26:58>> Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,

27:00Miss Cole, for uh being here and just

27:01your commitment to the city. It' be a

27:03question I'll probably ask everybody

27:04because this is a new board. So, this

27:07will be all new appointees and

27:09appointed. Um, I guess you you hit on a

27:12little bit. Um, when you seen this

27:14nuisance board, uh, you know, come

27:17across as one of the boards and

27:18commissions that Claire from the mayor's

27:20office uh, overseas, does amazing job.

27:22What was, I guess, your interest in

27:24wanting to apply to be on this board?

27:27>> Staying involved, active. I believe that

27:30we as a community, we just can't leave

27:33it on government. We in a community has

27:36to have an active voice in that decision

27:39making and to work with one another. I

27:43remember when the uh when it used to

27:46have nuisance court, it used to be the

27:48prosecutors and if you didn't have

27:50enough uh evidence, then it got

27:53everything thrown out and people start

27:55getting upset. Um so that's what I

27:58really want. I just wanted to be

28:00involved. You know, that's who I am. I'm

28:02a servant. I'm in the community. I'm I'm

28:04feet on my feet is on the on the pedal

28:07now trying to move some things forward.

28:11>> Thank you.

28:12>> Yes, sir.

28:13>> Any additional questions for Miss Cole.

28:17>> Thank you.

28:18>> Thank you for your service,

28:21>> Mr. Alonzo Shaw.

28:27>> Good morning. Um, committee members, uh,

28:30I am Alonzo Shaw, a lifelong resident of

28:33the city of St. Louis. Um, and my

28:37passion, uh, comes from a place of

28:40making this city a better place. uh

28:43eliminating uh nuisance behaviors, a

28:46nuisance activity, uh making it a viable

28:49living community for all individuals,

28:52all stakeholders within the community

28:55and where the businesses can prosper as

28:59well, eliminate nuisance issues. Um I

29:02have uh past experience working with the

29:06nuisance program as nuisance coordinator

29:09or the targeted management assistance

29:11program. uh in working in problem

29:13properties with the St. Louis

29:15Metropolitan Police Department for more

29:18than seven years. Um we've eliminated

29:23many nuisance issues working through the

29:26past process that we had in place and my

29:30ultimate goal is to make uh people want

29:34to come to St. Louis, attract more

29:36visitors to come to St. Louis and

29:38individuals to move here to live and

29:40make St. Louis um healthy place to live

29:43and a safe place for everyone involved.

29:47Thank you for uh your consideration.

29:50>> Thank you so much, Mr. Sha.

29:53>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Same question.

29:56You know, um when when you seen this

29:58board um come across the city website,

30:01why was it the nuisance board out of

30:03like the other boards uh that you wanted

30:05to apply for? because this is something

30:07that I've done in the past and I know

30:10the work um from A to Z as far as it

30:14relates to the nuisance process from

30:16days of past. Um and it's something that

30:20I knew I could do and I'm great at

30:22communicating with uh both sides,

30:27all all sides involved. I'm I'm good at

30:29communicating with uh with the residents

30:33uh with the police department. uh have a

30:36long uh level of experience working with

30:40city government

30:42um all the persons uh city divisions

30:47uh stakeholders and the powers that be.

30:50>> Thank you.

30:52>> That's it.

30:54>> That's good. Any additional questions

30:57for Mr. Sha?

31:00>> All right. Thank you, Mr.

31:04Bernard Powderley.

31:07[clears throat]

31:08>> Good morning. Bernie Powderly. Sorry,

31:10I'm getting over cold. U applying for

31:12the public nuisance board. I grew up in

31:14Hyde Park. I live in Princeton Heights.

31:16I've lived in the city my entire life.

31:18I've lived in Lafayette Square, Sulord,

31:21um downtown, everywhere. I'm applying

31:24for this this uh board because I've

31:26actually personally helped post

31:28thousands of throughout the city. I'm

31:30very familiar with most of the city. Um

31:33I understand the CND nuances the

31:35processes of the ordinance itself. Um I

31:38actually helped on a monthly basis of

31:41making sure everything went through the

31:42problem property database in an

31:44efficient timely manner to make sure

31:46everything was uh checked off on all the

31:49checks and balances because if not it

31:50gets kicked out, right? Um currently

31:53there's over 1,600 problem properties

31:55most likely in the city at this point.

31:57There's over 400 on the nuisance u watch

32:00list currently itself. It's a heavy

32:02lift. It's a heavy lift for the the

32:05community itself that has a lot of these

32:06issues. Um it's a heavy lift for the

32:08individuals that actually work um on a

32:10daily basis on these on these issues. Uh

32:13the board is very important because it

32:14brings an extra step to understanding um

32:18the nuances in the processes of the the

32:21nuisance process in general. Um, it

32:23brings transparency and it helps

32:25everyone understand how complicated some

32:27of these are. So, there's never a cookie

32:29cutter approach to a lot of these issues

32:31that we face. Um, on the back end,

32:34people are working over maybe years on

32:36some of these properties to get these

32:38things resolved. um any kind of extra

32:41help in making sure that we are

32:43[clears throat] as transparent and as

32:45possible and making sure that everyone's

32:47treated the same way and the same

32:48approach to that that issue is as

32:51helpful in general. Um so that's why I

32:54am applying to the board.

32:57>> Thank you so much. Um Alderman Aldridge,

33:01did you have your question?

33:01>> He had he must already knew I was going

33:03to ask him.

33:04>> Yeah. Thank you. That's a very unique um

33:07skill set that you're bringing to the

33:09board. Thank you.

33:12Our next speaker is Walter Bonner.

33:17>> Good morning, committee members. I

33:19really enjoyed listening to the other um

33:22potential appointees. I I learn a lot. I

33:24can't say I'm um Oh, okay. Unlike these

33:28other people, I haven't been in St.

33:29Louis my entire life. I've been here

33:31about 15 years. I hail from the great

33:33state of Texas and I lived I was born

33:35and raised in Dallas and my family can't

33:37believe I haven't returned because I'm

33:39retiring. And um I tell them I love St.

33:42Louis. We've got a lot going on in our

33:44city. It's a beautiful city and the

33:46nuisances are minimal, but they cause

33:48the greatest amount of disruption to our

33:51our prosperity and growth. So that's one

33:54of the reasons I wanted to be on the

33:55board. So again, just going back, the

33:57name is Walter Bonner. The alignment is

33:59um I'm want what's best for our city. As

34:02my older lady says, we got to do what

34:04for for the greater good. And getting

34:06nuisance properties out of the community

34:08is for the greater good of those who

34:10want to stay and have a healthy whole

34:12community. And that's what I want to

34:13see. My commitment is I am beginning to

34:17read these ordinances. Uh Rashene

34:19Aldrich, good good ordinance. I'm

34:22digging into not only that ordinance,

34:23but there are a lot of others that are

34:25involved in that. And I think it was

34:27great to have the members you brought

34:29together, the building division, the

34:31health and the police. And one of the

34:34commitments is because on my street, I

34:36had to personally to deal with uh a few

34:38nuisance property. So that's how I come

34:41to the board from my personal

34:42experience.

34:44So, uh, one of my neighbors who's been

34:45there 20 plus years said it took us 20

34:47years to get here. And I think that's

34:49far too long. We should have gotten

34:50there in maybe three or four years, but

34:52we're there. So, I look forward to

34:53serving on the board. Um, I have worked

34:56in my community in various leadership

34:58positions of the neighborhood

34:59association. So, I've got a a view of

35:01the throughout the community. I work

35:02with other leaders in my community and

35:04I'm willing to work with anyone for the

35:06greater good of our community. And I

35:08want to thank my alder lady Shimine

35:11Clark Huard. Um, she knows how we've

35:13worked to eliminate some of the nuisance

35:15properties in our area and that will

35:17continue and we'll do an even better job

35:19with this new board and I look forward

35:20to to serving.

35:26First, I'm going to say you have a a

35:28amazing Alderweapon. Uh she she does

35:31amazing work for the city. Um and even

35:34though you're not from St. Louis, I

35:35think sometimes it's good to have

35:36outside eyes um that has different

35:39experiences of how other cities work.

35:41Not saying that, you know, St. Louis

35:43would be St. Louis, but we always can

35:45take from other cities and learn and um

35:47try to continue to make our city be

35:49better. And I think you did hit on kind

35:51of your experience already of addressing

35:53some of these nuisance property and it

35:55sounds like that's your interest and

35:57already went through the legislation in

35:59and out. And I do also want to thank

36:00John uh from the police department uh

36:03who is a big help uh on this

36:05legislation. He's a a gem in the city

36:08and is always working to try to figure

36:10out how to um make sure these nuisance

36:12properties and smoke shops are being

36:14held accountable in the community. So

36:16thank you for the work that you do.

36:17>> Thank you. Any

36:20other questions?

36:22I do want to publicly thank you. I know

36:25you know the people we always say the

36:27people closest to the problems are

36:28closest to the solutions. He is only

36:31brushing over what he has been through.

36:32And Mr. Bonner, I know the situation,

36:35the lived experiences that you've been

36:36through, you could have packed up and

36:37left a long time ago. Not only did you

36:39not pack up and leave now, your intern

36:42want to stay and putting in position

36:44putting yourself in position to make it

36:46better. So, thank you so much. You know,

36:48I stand 10 toes down with you all and

36:50the work that you all continue to do

36:52over there. Thank you, Mr. Mclofflin and

36:54others that have stood in the gap for us

36:56in so many ways. Our captain McCloskkey

36:58and others that's over there. And of

37:00course, first and foremost, the

37:02neighbors that you and you all continue

37:06to work together collectively um and not

37:09get picked apart, right? Um that we see

37:11in other neighborhoods, how that happens

37:13um to for the greater good that we

37:15talked about. So, thank you. Uh if

37:17there's no anybody online for Mr. B I

37:19mean did Alderman McCull have any?

37:22>> No.

37:22>> Okay. Thank you Mr. B.

37:26>> Our final speaker is Elsie Lober.

37:38Good morning. My name is Kelsey Lober. I

37:41am an attorney at the Bruning Law Firm

37:43here in St. Louis. I'm a transplant to

37:46St. Louis. I'm from Illinois. Came here

37:48for law school. Um fell in love with St.

37:50Louis and decided to stay. I live in the

37:53fifth ward um next to a vacant nuisance

37:57property currently that we're dealing

37:58with. And so that's how I came to the

38:01nuisance board. I was asked by my

38:02alderman to participate because I too

38:05have taken an active role in trying to

38:08remedy this for my street and my

38:09neighbors as well. And I feel like if

38:12I'm going to be a part of the people

38:13that are asking for the change that I

38:15should also contribute to the change. So

38:17that is why I am here. And I think I

38:19bring a a perspective of being an

38:21attorney and also a personal injury

38:22attorney that has compassion but al go

38:24through the ordinances and read and

38:26apply them.

38:29>> Thank you so much

38:32Alish.

38:33>> Yes. And I'm not picking favorites

38:34because all my alder folks uh on this

38:37committee and and at the board are

38:38great, but Alderman Devote has been

38:40impressive since he's got down to this

38:42board. And uh with you being an attorney

38:45uh on the board, uh will I think be a

38:47help on the legal ending? So um when you

38:51seen this position, why I mean I know

38:54you talked about some active activities

38:56already in your ward, but when you seen

38:58this, what made you be like this is what

38:59I want to volunteer and do? Yeah, like I

39:02said, I I'm I'm not a from St. Louis and

39:05so this is not even something that I

39:07grew up experiencing. I'm from a a small

39:09rural town, so this is not even

39:11something I knew was a possibility. I

39:13think when um Alderman Devote brought it

39:15up to me as a possibility, I'm like, I

39:16definitely want to be involved because

39:18this is citywide change. I'm work at a

39:20firm that's downtown. I have investments

39:22downtown in addition to just my ward.

39:24And I think it's something that can

39:26prove benefit for the entire city and

39:28not just local to me, obviously.

39:33Thank you. Thank you so much. Does

39:34anyone else have any questions from

39:37yourself? Okay.

39:39>> All right. Uh with that, I'm going to

39:42separate uh our discussion item number

39:44two motion out and I am going to make

39:46the specific motion uh that we approve

39:51the mayoral's appointments to the

39:52nuisance property review board of Ed

39:56Wear, Amber Cole, Alonszo Shaw, Bonora

40:01Powderly, Walter Bonner, and Kelsey

40:04Lober.

40:05>> Second. It was moved by autowoman Clark

40:08Cubber, seconded by vice chair San

40:11that [clears throat] we approve the

40:12mayoral appointments to the nuisance

40:14property review board of Ed Wear, Amber

40:16Cole, Alonszo Shaw, Bernard Palderly,

40:19Walter Bonner, and Kelsey Lober. Madame

40:22clerk, please call the role.

40:25Alderman Con

40:26>> I.

40:28Alderwoman Schwitzer,

40:33Vice Chair Sonier,

40:35>> I, Alderman Browning,

40:38>> I,

40:39>> Alman Aldridge,

40:40>> I,

40:41>> Chair Clark Hover,

40:42>> I,

40:43>> Alderwoman Switzer, we have five eye

40:46votes. Right, with that, we successfully

40:48approve them these mayoral appointments

40:50to the Nuisance Property Review Board.

40:51Thank you all so much for your

40:53commitment or service and we look

40:54forward to supporting you all as we move

40:57this board forward.

41:00We move forward now in the agenda. We

41:03will recognize alderwoman I'm sorry vice

41:06chair s for board bill 47.

41:37Good morning committee uh chairwoman and

41:40committee. Um this is a scattered site

41:42redevelopment plan. It is pretty

41:45standard for what it is, but I do just

41:47have a brief presentation just to kind

41:48of explain the the gist of it and

41:50summarize the packet that you all have

41:52in front of you. Um, so in summary,

41:54board bill 47 approves a redevelopment

41:57plan for 21 apartment buildings that

41:59will be in the Tiffany neighborhood and

42:02it approves them for a t tax abatement

42:05for 15 years. Uh, the developer plans to

42:08spend about $15.4 million um on the

42:11rehab for 60 affordable units. Um, it

42:14should definitely be noted that the

42:16units are at a 60% AMI or less. These

42:19are 21 scattered parcels that are all

42:22clustered kind of within the blocks of

42:24McCree and Folsam and Blaine in the

42:26Tiffany neighborhood. Um, and you know,

42:28something that I talk a lot about is the

42:30need for not just more affordable

42:31housing, but in particularly for family

42:33affordable housing. We have a lot of

42:35families within the seventh ward and

42:37definitely within the Tiffany

42:38neighborhood. And so something I thought

42:40was definitely important to highlight

42:41was that several of these 21 units are

42:43three, four or five bedroom.

42:46Next slide.

42:48Um they've been identified for

42:50rehabilitation for you know common

42:51issues that we see um as older people

42:54outdated infrastructure inadequate

42:56sanitation a lot of other hazards. Um

42:58it's in pretty bad condition now hasn't

43:00really uh been maintained well at all uh

43:03in quite some time. So this bill is to

43:05help make sure that there's a safer

43:07quality of living and overall community

43:09health. Um each home that each of these

43:1121 parcels that be will be re

43:13rehabilitated will be receiving roofs,

43:16Energy Star windows, replacements of

43:18HVAC units, electric heat pumps, Energy

43:21Star light fixtures, kitchen cabinets

43:23and countertops, uh Energy Star

43:25refrigerator, and some units will also

43:26have ADA accessible showers. Uh as most

43:29of my colleagues know at this point,

43:30I've become a bit of an

43:31environmentalist. And so I'm definitely

43:33taking a look when we have opportunities

43:35to do development, how can we go about

43:37when you especially a large

43:38rehabilitation project like this, how

43:40can you kind of do some energy efficient

43:41improvements within the units? And so

43:43many of these things that are from

43:45Energy Star, specifically the TPO roof,

43:47um they are aimed at, you know, being

43:48more sustainable, but also will likely

43:51reduce costs for the residents that will

43:53live within them. And um tenant re

43:55relocation is also provided and that is

43:57going to be paid for by the de

44:02Um, and just kind of the way that this

44:05incentive is instructed is that for the

44:07first decade of the incentive, 90% of

44:09the taxes on the new value of the rehab

44:11will be abated. Um, meaning that the

44:13owner will pay the other 10. And then

44:15from years 11 to 15, that will drop to

44:1850% of the new value that is abated. And

44:20then from 16 for the duration, they

44:22will, you know, be responsible for

44:24paying the pool property tax of the

44:25abatement. So, I just wanted to noted

44:27that this is a kind of scaled sort of

44:29development project really with the bulk

44:31being in those first uh 10 years because

44:34obviously a $15.44 million reation

44:37project in addition to the just the

44:39relocation cost and all those other

44:40things add up but then slowly walking

44:43towards um paying the full property tax

44:45cost.

44:49Um, and these are just a summary of uh

44:52some key um some key information. I want

44:55to highlight that this is actually a

44:57multi- kind of developmental project.

45:00Um, the potential developer would be

45:02Tiffany Developers LLC, but that they

45:04actually have formed a partnership with

45:06two uh kind of more experienced

45:07affordable housing developers who just

45:10have more experience in that work and

45:11doing community based work in that way.

45:13And so, Efficiency Consulting and

45:15Development LLC um is there and I just

45:18put some information. And I know when I

45:19do my research, these are the things

45:20that I kind of look up for our bills. So

45:22I put them on a presentation in case you

45:23all are curious. Tag Development LLC is

45:26also a part of that partnership and

45:28Communities First STL is a part of that

45:30partnership. And I just put some generic

45:32kind of basic information about those

45:33organizations.

45:38And then just these are just some key

45:40numbers for the project. Again, these

45:41are things that when I look at

45:42legislation for us, I kind of look for

45:44try to find out. So I wanted to put in a

45:46presentation for you all. Um I won't go

45:48through it in bulk. I think the

45:49highlight of it is just like the overall

45:51project is $15.4 million. There are some

45:54other sources. Obviously municipalities

45:56cannot subsidize these types of

45:57affordable housing projects on our own.

45:59And so there is some lit funding that

46:01has been received a federal housing tax

46:03credit that will cover about 75% about

46:06the cost. They also have about $3.5

46:08million in loans. Um and then I even

46:10just kind of gave a breakdown of some of

46:12the hard cost of construction. Those are

46:14hard costs, but we know that those

46:15things will change with the market and

46:17some of the materials that they have to

46:18buy. And then the overall um kind of

46:20value of the abatement and how that will

46:23work. And then just a breakdown of

46:24basically that $15.4 million comes out

46:26to about $257,000

46:29per unit.

46:34And that completes my presentation.

46:37>> I also have Mr. Wilson here. I was just

46:39gonna say that you was reading my mind.

46:42If you had any other speakers this week,

46:44you can bring them up.

46:50>> Good afternoon, Zach Wilson with SLDC.

46:52Uh, Lster is very supportive of the

46:54project because of the amount of

46:56bedrooms per unit. Uh, but we have seen

46:59that the school district is losing

47:00population. They need seats and uh butts

47:03and seats and that's a help funding

47:05source and this would help definitely

47:07help that. So,

47:09happy to answer any questions.

47:12>> Thank you. And I also had the Yafet

47:14Elamine here as well. Um just she is a

47:17developer on the project and has been a

47:19key partner and definitely could have

47:20done this without her. Acknowledge her

47:23work on the record and let her speak to

47:24the committee.

47:26>> Miss Elamine, you can raise your right

47:28hand to tell the whole truth and nothing

47:29but the truth.

47:30>> Yes, I do.

47:31>> Please proceed.

47:32>> Thank you. Thank you, Alderwoman Sier

47:34and uh members of the committee. I'm

47:36Yafid Elamine, president of Efficacy

47:39Constru efficacy development. Um,

47:41pleased to be here to um add any

47:44additional information about the Tiffany

47:47Place development. We are excited about

47:50uh bringing this development before the

47:52committee as it is in the Tiffany

47:55neighborhood represents um a total of 60

47:58units uh affordable units as uh

48:01Alderwoman Sier indicated. Uh these

48:04units are extremely affordable for the

48:06lowincome. They are also supported by

48:10HUD HAP funds. So no resident will spend

48:13more than 30% of their income on these

48:17properties uh to rent them. They are

48:20unusually large in size for affordable

48:23housing, three, four, and five bedrooms.

48:26If you all are familiar, and I know you

48:28are with the Tiffany neighborhood, it

48:30has uh experienced an extreme amount of

48:33development over the last 10 years. Uh

48:36unfortunately, there is not a lot of

48:38affordable housing that still remains in

48:40this community. Um so, we are excited

48:43about being able to preserve this

48:45development. As the alderwoman

48:47mentioned, uh it has suffered from, uh

48:50years of deferred maintenance and was

48:53under MHDC's portfolio. So we were able

48:56to reyndicate the development and get

48:59additional tax credits for its

49:02redevelopment. We also uh added in a

49:05nonprofit partner communities first in

49:08which to address um enriched services

49:11for the residents. So through our

49:13partnership we will not only uh help to

49:16improve their quality of life within the

49:19physical housing we are also addressing

49:22any social mental and emotional needs of

49:24the residents through our partnership

49:26with our nonprofit partner. So it is our

49:29hope to not only enhance the physical

49:32structure but in also to increase the

49:34quality of life for the residents that

49:36remain there. Thank you again.

49:40Thank you so much, Miss Elamine.

49:46>> I can take any questions.

49:48>> Okay. Did you want to see if there's any

49:49public Oh, here to speak. Okay. Is there

49:53anyone in the room or online signed up

49:55to speak for board bill 47?

49:59>> Let me put it out there.

50:05>> Can you raise your right hand? Swear to

50:06tell the whole truth and nothing but the

50:08truth.

50:08>> I do.

50:08>> Thank you. Please proceed. You can state

50:10your name and then please proceed.

50:12>> My name is John Reagan Bogen and I am an

50:14SLPS parent and I am the co-chair of the

50:18SLPS parent action council um housing

50:22and incentives committee. And I think

50:24it's probably important I do uh stress

50:26that we do not speak for SLPS or the

50:30board of education, but uh I uh um very

50:34glad to um convey on behalf of the

50:37parent action council our support for

50:39BB47. Um there's some excellent points

50:42there that our larger units that can

50:45support our families, the three, four,

50:49five bedroom units are critical for

50:50growth. absolutely important that our

50:53lower income and moderate income

50:55families have a place in St. Louis. And

50:57it's no kidding some of these housing

51:00prices that are occurring in some of our

51:02hotter neighborhoods are getting really

51:04prohibitive. Um, so, uh, I also want to

51:09mention that as, as I think probably all

51:11of you know, but maybe more for the

51:12public, um, with SLPS,

51:16um, we have, um, over 4,000 students,

51:21about 25% of the SLPS population is uh,

51:25either unhoused or is face facing um,

51:28severe housing uh, instability and uh,

51:31fall under the federal Mckin Vento Act.

51:35and are served by SLPS's students in

51:38transition office. And so again, we're

51:41very pleased to be here because these

51:42are the types of units that can support

51:45uh these families. And um and I also

51:48want to just mention that we generally

51:50do support SLDC policy of 15 years

51:53abatement, 10 years at 90% uh additional

51:56five years at 50% which I think that

51:58woman uh Sonia had gone over quite well.

52:01And another thing that I just really

52:04appreciate with the bill and it's right

52:06here. Um it it includes a development

52:10proposal report in the board bill as

52:12required for all uh proposals seeking

52:15tax abatement tax incentives and it's

52:18fully compliant with ordinance 76162

52:22that 7162 that that requires that.

52:25Unfortunately, we have experienced since

52:28this that ordinance was passed in 2023,

52:32the majority of bills um either do not

52:35contain a development proposal report at

52:37all or they have some kind of weakness

52:41that doesn't fully comply with it. So,

52:43um for those two reasons, we're just

52:45very excited to to support the bill.

52:48Thank you.

52:50>> Thank you so much.

52:54That that was the only speaker.

52:56>> Okay, we'll go through questions.

52:57Alderman Mcome.

53:04>> No questions, Madam Chair. Thank you.

53:06>> Thank you, Adam Weiser.

53:08>> Thank you so much and thank you all for

53:10being here. I got to ask a lot of my

53:12questions in planning commission and I'm

53:13really excited about this project. So

53:15looking forward to supporting it today.

53:18>> Adam Brownie,

53:20>> also no questions. is uh happy to

53:22support this today and uh looking

53:24forward to seeing these units brought

53:25back online and to see families moving

53:28in.

53:29>> Alma Aldrich,

53:30>> no questions. Thanks, Madam Chair.

53:32>> And I don't have any questions either. I

53:34was excited to hear about it and

53:36planning commission excited about uh

53:38again all the work that you've done and

53:40the developers have done um and to see

53:43these units come back on knowing clearly

53:45the the need for them. So thank you for

53:47your work on Miss Aldwoman Sier. Uh,

53:50with that, I will accept a motion for

53:53board bill 47.

53:54>> I need to um adopt a committee

53:56substitute that has the fiscal note

53:57attached. Um, so if someone wants to

54:00make that move,

54:01>> I'd move that we adopt uh board bill 47

54:05committee substitute.

54:08>> It was moved by Alderman Browning,

54:10seconded by Alderwoman Schlicer that we

54:13adopt the committee substitute that

54:15includes the fiscal note. Madame clerk,

54:18please call the role.

54:22Alderman Conn,

54:23>> I.

54:25>> Alderwoman Switzer,

54:26>> I.

54:27>> Vice Chair Sonier,

54:29>> I.

54:30>> Alderman Browning,

54:31>> I.

54:32>> Alderman Aldridge,

54:33>> I.

54:34>> Chair Clark Hubard,

54:35>> I.

54:36>> We have six eye votes.

54:38>> All right. With that, we successfully

54:39adopted board bill 47 committee sub. And

54:42now I accept a motion on board bill 47,

54:46committee sub. I move that we uh pass

54:49board bill 47 committee substitute out

54:51of committee with due pass

54:52recommendation

54:53>> second previous role.

54:54>> It was moved by alderman browning and

54:57seconded by alder con that we move board

55:00bill 47 committee sub with a due pass

55:02recommendation with a call for previous

55:04role with no objection. Congratulations.

55:07Congratulations. Thank you.

56:27>> [clears throat]

56:35>> Okay.

56:40So, we'll now uh let's see. Do you think

56:45Yep, absolutely.

56:47As we prepare for the next bill, let's

56:50go ahead and

56:55auto you recognized on board bill 57.

57:24Thank you, madam.

57:26Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and members

57:27of the committee. What I should have

57:29done is just had the alderwoman of seven

57:30make me a PowerPoint also. Um because

57:33it's truly uh very similar projects that

57:36is happening um just one happening on in

57:39South St. Louis and the Tiffany area,

57:40but this one for B bill 57 is very

57:44similar project that's happening in the

57:46old north um as well as in the St. Louis

57:48play scatter sites over uh 68 affordable

57:52units um very similar tax abatement 15

57:55years uh 10% at 90 then the 5-year um at

57:5850%. Uh this would be in an area that

58:01I'm very proud of that uh you know

58:03typically when we see a lot of tax

58:04evatements happen in St. Louis. Um, you

58:07know, we do not see those tax abatement

58:09go in North St. Louis. Um, so to be able

58:11to have this opportunity, Amber Stone is

58:15the project, but the key developer, it's

58:17also Miss Yaff, who I'll have her come

58:19up and speak on it, has years and years

58:22of experience of doing these type of

58:24projects. Um, being able to bring

58:26affordable housing to old North St.

58:27Louis and St. Louis place that has so

58:29much history and culture to it. Um, it's

58:31a lot of positive things happening. This

58:33is very close to the NGA. So, um,

58:36outside of other work that we are doing

58:38to try to get parcels out of the hands

58:40of folks so that we can bring

58:41development, this is an opportunity to

58:43already kind of start, uh, or continue

58:46uh, the chapter of bringing development

58:48in the Old North and St. Louis place uh,

58:50area. So, with that, I'll have Miss uh,

58:52Yaf Elamine come up and talk about uh,

58:54the project a

58:57>> Thank you, Alderman uh, AI. Again, uh,

59:00Yafed Elamine. Uh, as the alderman

59:03mentioned, uh, these projects are quite

59:06similar, however, very different because

59:08they are in two starkly different

59:11neighborhoods. Uh, they are both um

59:15scattered sites. However, the one in Old

59:17North is scattered across uh

59:20Florisonent, which creates um

59:23interesting opportunities to better

59:26connect with residents, but also to help

59:29um lessen the vacancy in this particular

59:34area. Uh as he indicated, um it

59:37initially was 68. We've actually taken

59:40one offline uh to ensure that we have

59:43management on site and a space for

59:46residents to meet and our nonprofit

59:48partner to uh meet with residents

59:51because uh Old North is um a very what's

59:56the word I like to use? um uh a a

1:00:00community that challenges us in uh

1:00:04representing its diversity amongst um

1:00:08cultures, among races, amongst um

1:00:12economic status. We felt it was

1:00:15extremely important to ensure that uh

1:00:17management was there on site and all of

1:00:20the resources were there on site. Um,

1:00:22again, this development has extremely

1:00:26large three, four, five bedroomedroom

1:00:29units, which again is unheard of now

1:00:33within the uh affordable housing space.

1:00:36It is also a HUD HAP property. The prior

1:00:40owner also um was uh not local and these

1:00:45area these homes also suffered from

1:00:48extreme uh deferred maintenance because

1:00:51they are so large and many of them built

1:00:54in the late 1800s. It has um contributed

1:00:59to extre increased construction cost um

1:01:02as we have tried to ensure that we are

1:01:06bringing them back online and rehabbing

1:01:08them with energy efficient units and um

1:01:12uh units that are reflective of um

1:01:16supporting

1:01:18ensuring that we uh try to remain green

1:01:20and having the great products for this

1:01:23redevelopment. We again are asking for

1:01:25the tax abatement as we have a nonprofit

1:01:28partner. this development because it's

1:01:30severely low income, does not have um

1:01:35high rent, so very low operational

1:01:37capital, which uh the tax abatement

1:01:40would continue to allow for us to ensure

1:01:43that the development stays um well

1:01:47maintained throughout the compliance

1:01:49period that MHDC has appropriated uh for

1:01:52a minimum of 15 years, but a 30-year

1:01:56lura on the project. So with that, uh,

1:01:58Alderman, we thank you for continuing to

1:02:01support. You've done a lion share of

1:02:03some of the properties that were around

1:02:05that that was, uh, derelct as our equity

1:02:08investors wanted to see that property

1:02:10move. You move high and low to make sure

1:02:13that you got those other derelct

1:02:15properties down so that this project

1:02:17could exist. Thank you so much.

1:02:21>> Thank you. Uh, we'll have uh, Zach from

1:02:23SLDC see if he has any questions.

1:02:30Good afternoon, Zach Wilson, SLDC.

1:02:32Again, S Lur is very supportive of this

1:02:35project. Similar to the last one, large

1:02:37units, uh, good, hopefully safe, uh,

1:02:40quality housing for 15 years on, beyond.

1:02:43Uh, for further information for future

1:02:47projects for LITC, we've been hearing a

1:02:49lot more of the developers of these type

1:02:51of projects would like to reverse the

1:02:54incentives. So 10 at 60 or 70% then on

1:02:59the back end five at 90. They would like

1:03:01that request made because as uh

1:03:05maintenance costs increase as products

1:03:07age out uh they need savings on the back

1:03:10end versus the front end. So just kind

1:03:13of uh feeding you guys that for right

1:03:16now so you are aware of that when you

1:03:18see that come forward in future

1:03:20projects. Thank you.

1:03:23>> Thank you.

1:03:25Uh before we move to see if we have any

1:03:28public comment, do you want to go ahead

1:03:29and

1:03:31>> Yes. Uh thank you madam chairwoman. I'd

1:03:33like to adopt the committee substitute

1:03:35which is also the fiscal note uh for

1:03:37board bill 57.

1:03:38>> So moved.

1:03:39>> Second.

1:03:39>> It was moved by vice chair and seconded

1:03:42by alder

1:03:43>> previous ro with the call for previous

1:03:45role that we adopt committee substitute

1:03:48for board field 57.

1:03:52No objections and we will move forward

1:03:54now with board bill 57 committee sub and

1:03:57call for public comment.

1:04:03>> Good morning again,

1:04:06Chair Clark and members of the

1:04:08committee. I uh just wanted to um

1:04:11mention again that uh this is the type

1:04:14of project that we like to support. Um I

1:04:16want to make it clear we're not opposing

1:04:18this bill. Um however uh it does not

1:04:20appear that there is developer proposal

1:04:23report attached to this that should be

1:04:25required. Um this has been a frustrating

1:04:29um occurrence um from SLDC.

1:04:40Okay. Uh apparently one has been made.

1:04:42Uh it is not attached with the bill or

1:04:45it was not posted on the bill. So this

1:04:47is the first that we're aware of. Um

1:04:49with that noted then

1:04:52I uh again we were just going to make

1:04:54anformational um uh comment on this. Uh

1:04:58so uh again hopefully this is not going

1:05:00to be something we'll have to come back

1:05:02for. um in that each bill board bill

1:05:07that uh seeks a tax incentive has the

1:05:10development proposal report attached to

1:05:13the bill and is available to the public

1:05:15before the hearing. Thank you.

1:05:19>> Thank you so much. Is there any

1:05:21additional public comment for board bill

1:05:2357 committee sub?

1:05:26>> We have none.

1:05:27>> All right, Mr. Wilson, you got up. Did

1:05:30you have anything you wanted to add? Um,

1:05:33every project that has a developer tied

1:05:35to it will receive a developer part. Uh,

1:05:38we will make sure moving forward that

1:05:40it's attached to the board bill on the

1:05:42city's website, but it is Oh, sorry. Uh,

1:05:47all projects with the developer will

1:05:48have a developer packet with it tied to

1:05:51it. Uh, we send that over with the board

1:05:54bill. Uh so we'll make sure from here on

1:05:57out it's tied on the city's website with

1:05:59the board bill, but uh that was included

1:06:02with the board bill. So

1:06:07>> thank you so much.

1:06:09Then we'll move to question.

1:06:17>> No questions.

1:06:19>> Alderman Brownie.

1:06:22>> Uh no questions. Just happy to support

1:06:24this today. Alderman, I really

1:06:26appreciate the focus on uh redeveloping

1:06:28these areas and bringing new life and

1:06:31understand that it's really difficult

1:06:32sometimes to make the numbers work in

1:06:34these spots and so that's why these

1:06:36tools are necessary and I'm happy to

1:06:38make sure this happens. I'm looking

1:06:39forward to seeing the results.

1:06:43>> Vice Chair say

1:06:46I don't have any questions. I would like

1:06:47to request to be added as co-sponsor and

1:06:50just I know when I introduced her I said

1:06:52Yafa Elamine the great um and projects

1:06:55like this are reasons why so I just want

1:06:57to commend her um you know for her work

1:06:59on these two projects and even the

1:07:01intentionality of doing a project both

1:07:03in north and south I think is an

1:07:04excellent approach and it's hopefully a

1:07:06good reminder for me and my colleagues

1:07:07of why we need to keep our eyes on MWBE

1:07:10to make sure that developers such as

1:07:11yourself who have those type of

1:07:13intentional focuses continue to get

1:07:14opportunity to develop our community.

1:07:16Thank you.

1:07:19>> Absolutely. And I don't have any

1:07:21additional questions. So with that,

1:07:22you're welcome to close.

1:07:24>> Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of

1:07:25the committee. Uh I want to thank SLDC

1:07:28for uh working with uh the team to get

1:07:30this across finish line, but echo

1:07:32everything that the woman from the seven

1:07:34said. A huge thank you to Yafid Alamine

1:07:36and her team. Um you know, she does she

1:07:39has history of doing work like this. I

1:07:41think one of the things she mentioned

1:07:43that I think is really going to be uh

1:07:45amazing for this area is the size of the

1:07:47bedroom from you know four to five

1:07:50bedrooms like she said it's hard to find

1:07:52those uh here in the city of St. Louis

1:07:53especially at affordable rates. So I

1:07:55just appreciate her commitment um as

1:07:58somebody who is MWBE MWBE certified and

1:08:01just been doing amazing work in our

1:08:03city. So with that I'll ask for do pass

1:08:05recommendation on board bill 57

1:08:07committee substitute. I make a motion

1:08:10that we pass board bill with the due

1:08:12pass recommendation.

1:08:13>> Committee substitute

1:08:14>> committee that we pass board bill 47

1:08:16committee substitute uh with the due

1:08:18pass recommendation.

1:08:19>> Second

1:08:21>> previous role. It was moved by vice

1:08:24chair s and seconded by alderman

1:08:26browning that we board bill 57 committee

1:08:29sub with the due pass recommendation

1:08:31with a call for previous row with no

1:08:33objection. Congratulations.

1:08:35Congratulations.

1:08:38We will now move and recognize Alderman

1:08:41Browning on board Bill 70.

1:08:50Thank you. And I have a presentation for

1:08:52this. Wait for that to get up on the

1:08:55screen.

1:09:00This mic stand is very

1:09:02>> What number is that mic?

1:09:04>> What number?

1:09:04>> Board bill.

1:09:05>> No, your mic. What number?

1:09:06>> Oh, it is 16.

1:09:10[snorts]

1:09:22Are you turning it up?

1:09:29Okay. Can everybody hear? Great.

1:09:35Okay. Well, thank you uh committee.

1:09:37Today, I'd like to share um a quick

1:09:39presentation. Uh it's a story about a

1:09:42neighborhood uh and what it has gone

1:09:44through and why I'm asking to

1:09:46incentivize the construction of new

1:09:47housing on the two pieces of vacant land

1:09:50that are the subject of Board Bill 70.

1:09:53To understand that history, uh, we need

1:09:55to understand how the construction of

1:09:57Highway 6440 ate away at the Forest Park

1:10:00Southeast neighborhood, uh, displacing

1:10:02people and destroying homes. Next slide,

1:10:05please.

1:10:10In 1933,

1:10:12planning began for the creation of the

1:10:15nation's first modern non-stop street

1:10:18through a congested city area. It touted

1:10:21being able to go from the suburbs to the

1:10:23city in six minutes. The original plan

1:10:25was to bring it down Oakland Avenue,

1:10:27skirting the outside edge of the park,

1:10:30but strong resistance from neighbors on

1:10:32that side of the park led instead to the

1:10:34annexation of 22 acres of Forest Park.

1:10:37The only, and that's not a known fact,

1:10:39the highway actually sits on land that

1:10:41used to Forest Park. Uh the only land or

1:10:44the only neighborhood that ended up

1:10:45being impacted by this highway uh is

1:10:49what is to today known as Forest Park

1:10:51Southeast where 135 parcels were needed

1:10:55for the highway rightway that resulted

1:10:57in the displacement of over 600 people

1:11:00uh and isolated the neighborhood from

1:11:02the central west end to its north. Next

1:11:04slide please.

1:11:07Uh this picture shows the Forest Park

1:11:09Southeast neighborhood looking east from

1:11:11above the park. You can see two

1:11:13buildings that are highlighted that

1:11:15still exist today. To the right of the

1:11:17Lambskin Temple is one of the pieces of

1:11:19land that is the subject of this bill.

1:11:21And uh I really want to draw your

1:11:23attention to the left side of the

1:11:25picture where you can beginning of the

1:11:26demolition neighborhood.

1:11:30Next slide, please.

1:11:33Here's

1:11:35another view of the construction where

1:11:37you can see how it divided the

1:11:38neighborhoods and destroyed what used to

1:11:40be West Papen, a residential street full

1:11:42of homes.

1:11:46Next slide.

1:11:49When the expressway was complete, uh,

1:11:52cars were able to move through freely,

1:11:53but the destruction of the neighborhood

1:11:55was only beginning. Next slide.

1:12:00So this is from an insurance map uh from

1:12:021951 showing the pathway that the

1:12:05expressway took through the

1:12:06neighborhood. You can see very clearly

1:12:08there that it necessitated the

1:12:10demolition of all the homes that were in

1:12:12its path.

1:12:14Next slide.

1:12:17Congestion increased as uh white flight

1:12:21happened and moved to the suburbs and

1:12:23downtown continued to be where all the

1:12:25jobs were. So people were driving in and

1:12:28uh the highway needed to be bigger. Uh

1:12:30President Eisenhower signed the Federal

1:12:33Aid Highway Act in 1956 with an original

1:12:36authorization of $25 billion which would

1:12:39be the equivalent of over $200 billion

1:12:42to uh they constructed 41,000 miles of

1:12:46the interstate highway system over a

1:12:4710-year period. It was the largest

1:12:50public works project in American history

1:12:52at that time. Next slide.

1:12:57And so with federal dollars in hand, St.

1:12:59Louis looked to redesign the Oakland

1:13:02Expressway, linking it with the suburban

1:13:04Daniel Boone Expressway and widening the

1:13:06highway to accommodate more demand in

1:13:07the suburbs. It was at this time the

1:13:09city also undertook the redesign of

1:13:11Kings Highway. You can see somewhat from

1:13:13the picture that Kings Highway used to

1:13:14take two 90 degree turns uh where it met

1:13:18the hospital and then turned to go

1:13:20around it. Uh this introduced a curving

1:13:23Kings Highway uh but it also included

1:13:26the installation of a cloverleaf

1:13:28interchange which were popular at the

1:13:30time. And the next slide please.

1:13:35So

1:13:39the increased footprint of that clover

1:13:41leaf meant that MDOT would need more

1:13:43land for their rightway. That meant the

1:13:45further destruction of 65 more buildings

1:13:47in Forest Park Southeast.

1:13:50Next slide.

1:13:53So, fast forward to the 2000s and uh

1:13:57MODOT would seek to redo what was now

1:13:596440 and replace the Cloverleaf

1:14:01interchange with a single point

1:14:03interchange. Uh leaving some leftover

1:14:05land and by 2009, uh that land can be

1:14:09seen on the lower right of the picture.

1:14:12Uh it used to be people's homes, then it

1:14:15became a highway ramp and now it sits

1:14:17empty. Next slide, please.

1:14:21So, here's a side by side of that

1:14:23progress. Uh, you can see the original

1:14:25Kings Highway taking its path straight.

1:14:28Uh, then the introduction of the curve

1:14:30and the Cloverleaf interchange. And then

1:14:33finally, what it looks like today, the

1:14:35uh the single point interchange taking

1:14:38up a lot less space, but uh also leaving

1:14:41some vacant land left over. Some went

1:14:43back to the Forest Park. uh some became

1:14:46part of Hudland Park uh to the north and

1:14:48then the land to the southeast uh was

1:14:52given back to the neighborhood but MDOT

1:14:54still owned it. Next slide please.

1:14:58So that's the story of the land to the

1:15:00north. Uh now I'd love to discuss uh the

1:15:04land to the south in this uh board bill.

1:15:09Uh

1:15:10the western edge of the neighborhood uh

1:15:13has not only been the victim of highway

1:15:14expansion, but it has also been the

1:15:16subject of land speculation, demolition

1:15:18by neglect, and a land assembly strategy

1:15:21that has handcuffed progress in the

1:15:23area.

1:15:25Here in this slide, you can see uh and I

1:15:27I wouldn't focus on the company names

1:15:29too much. These companies don't exist

1:15:31anymore, but I went back to this time

1:15:33period so you can see how long this has

1:15:34been happening. Uh next slide, please.

1:15:40So you can see that companies like KH

1:15:43Ventures uh own several properties. They

1:15:47initially intended to rehab some of

1:15:49these homes, but uh they ran straight

1:15:51into the the 2008 financial crisis and

1:15:56uh previous plans to rehab were

1:15:58abandoned. It was also around this time

1:16:00that the Drury Corporation, known for

1:16:02their hotels uh near highways, were

1:16:06starting to come into the picture. They

1:16:07purchased the church that was located at

1:16:09Gibson and Kings Highway uh and over

1:16:13time started to acquire more properties

1:16:16uh on the nearby streets. Uh they fully

1:16:19intended to demolish these properties

1:16:21and I'll show you the plan for that in a

1:16:24little while. Next slide, please. So

1:16:26between 2012 and 2015, Drury acquired

1:16:31both the portfolio of KH Ventures and

1:16:34purchased additional homes on the 4500

1:16:36blocks of Gibson, Arco, and Shodto uh

1:16:39avenues as well as Oakland Avenue. Next

1:16:42slide, please.

1:16:45They would buy more properties on Shodto

1:16:47and other streets in the following

1:16:48years. uh they fixed a few up and rented

1:16:50them out, but they also uh pursued a

1:16:53policy of demolition by neglect uh with

1:16:56dozens of the homes in this area.

1:16:59Next slide. Uh it's also worth noting

1:17:02that uh in 2018, Washington University

1:17:05bought the land that had formerly

1:17:06belonged to MODOT. Uh and that's why you

1:17:09see them into the picture there. Uh

1:17:13Drury's acquisitions, if we could just

1:17:14stay back on that real quick. Um

1:17:18Drew's acquisitions hit their peak in

1:17:202020 uh when the pandemic started which

1:17:23hit the hotel business really hard and

1:17:25they abandoned their plans for uh their

1:17:28hotel and there was also quite a bit of

1:17:31neighborhood push back around that time

1:17:32over the condition of many of the

1:17:34properties that they were holding. They

1:17:36sold almost their entire portfolio. Uh

1:17:39dozens of buildings were put back into

1:17:41the hands of people who would rehab them

1:17:43and turn them back into homes. Uh but

1:17:46they sold the dilapitated houses that

1:17:48faced King's Highway

1:17:51and Arco to Walks Living.

1:17:54Uh the neighborhood did not support

1:17:56Walks Living's plan and when they ran

1:17:57into legal trouble, they sold the

1:18:00properties to North Point Development, a

1:18:02Kansas City developer, which you can see

1:18:03at the very end of that slide in the

1:18:06current slide. Uh next slide, please.

1:18:12So now you know uh the history. Let's

1:18:14look at some of the previous proposals.

1:18:16And if we as we hover on this slide real

1:18:18quick, I just want you to notice all the

1:18:19buildings that exist in picture. And if

1:18:23you look at what it looks like today,

1:18:25there are so many buildings on the

1:18:27western side of the neighborhood just no

1:18:29longer exist because of the destruction

1:18:30of the highways. This really destructive

1:18:33land speculation that was occurring. Uh

1:18:35so next slide, please.

1:18:42So this is what Drury is working

1:18:43towards. It was a two tower proposal. In

1:18:47the corner there you can see another

1:18:48proposal they shared with the

1:18:49neighborhood. But they stated that the

1:18:51two towers were their preferred proposal

1:18:54and it would necessitate the demolition

1:18:56of about half of the block 4,500 blocks

1:18:58of the Forest Park Southeast

1:19:00neighborhood.

1:19:02Next slide please. Before then, KH

1:19:05Ventures had a similarly destructive

1:19:07plan. uh suburban style development that

1:19:10would include a gas station and a

1:19:12Walgreens or

1:19:15next slide.

1:19:17So Drury's demolition by neglect

1:19:20strategy did not go unnoticed. It was

1:19:22written about at the time uh and that is

1:19:25a picture of 4559

1:19:27Oakland uh which was a six family

1:19:29building that uh collapsed so badly that

1:19:33it had to be uh emergency demoed. Uh and

1:19:37that is around what the time that a

1:19:39bunch of neighbors including myself got

1:19:41together and started pushing back

1:19:42against jury uh saying, "Hey, you know,

1:19:44you're you're destroying our

1:19:46neighborhood by not maintaining it." And

1:19:47I myself was told by a representative,

1:19:50"Well, why would we invest in things

1:19:52that we plan to demolish?" Which was

1:19:54especially hurtful to me, but it was

1:19:56even more hurtful to a resident in the

1:19:58room who said, "Hey, I live in one of

1:19:59those right now." So, it is uh it cannot

1:20:03be understated the harm that was done by

1:20:04this this strategy. But thankfully when

1:20:08they exited the picture, several more

1:20:10buildings were saved and we only ended

1:20:11up losing 4559 Oakland and the homes

1:20:14facing Kings Highway, which I'll get to

1:20:16in a bit. Uh next slide, please. So,

1:20:19here are some before and after pictures

1:20:20of the homes facing Kings Highway. A lot

1:20:24of people in in St. Louis are familiar

1:20:25with these homes. Uh they are very very

1:20:28prominent uh as you drive down Kings

1:20:30Highway. Uh

1:20:32the demo by neglect strategy pursued by

1:20:35both Drury and Lux Living when they

1:20:38owned these buildings uh really sealed

1:20:41the fate of them and they ended up being

1:20:45uh demolished in 2024. Next slide.

1:20:49So here's just some more pictures.

1:20:51Again, you can see what they looked like

1:20:53many years ago. When I first moved in

1:20:55the neighborhood in 2012, only one of

1:20:58these properties had a resident in them.

1:21:00Uh, and the rest were vacant, and it

1:21:02went vacant the next year. And so, most

1:21:04of these properties were vacant for at

1:21:06least 15 years before they finally came

1:21:08down. Next slide.

1:21:13So, most of St. Louis was glad to see

1:21:15these torn down, but replacing the lost

1:21:17housing with a new building has proven

1:21:19difficult so far.

1:21:21Next slide.

1:21:26>> So this was Lux Living's proposal where

1:21:29the objections in the neighborhood

1:21:30weren't necessarily about the buildings

1:21:32and the project itself, but had more

1:21:34developers than Next slide.

1:21:38And this is why so

1:21:41we're grateful to have the properties

1:21:43now in in better hands. Uh the current

1:21:46developer has maintained the vacant land

1:21:49well but is not planning to build on it

1:21:51after they weren't able to make the

1:21:53numbers work. Uh which brings us to

1:21:55today. Next slide.

1:21:58So the latest proposal was for two

1:22:01buildings totaling over 300 units

1:22:03between these two parcels. Uh both of

1:22:06which are now vacant land. Uh this

1:22:08project however was unable to pencil and

1:22:11so the land is currently for sale.

1:22:15Next slide. Uh it's important to state

1:22:18that the neighborhood was in support of

1:22:20that proposal. Uh it had neighborhood

1:22:24support after they held three very

1:22:26interactive engagement meetings with the

1:22:28neighborhood over three months. Uh they

1:22:30alleviated concerns, changed the

1:22:32building design to better accommodate

1:22:35concerns over traffic and parking. Uh

1:22:37but unfortunately uh hit a roadblock

1:22:40when it came to to the financing.

1:22:42Next slide.

1:22:45So, I'll end this presentation by just

1:22:47talking real quick about housing in the

1:22:48neighborhood. Uh, we currently have

1:22:52fewer housing units uh in St. Louis than

1:22:55we used to. We know that the

1:22:57neighborhood needs more housing. We als

1:22:59and and lost a lot of housing due to

1:23:01these strategies, but uh we also know

1:23:03that St. Louis city needs more housing.

1:23:05Next slide.

1:23:07So there you can see the number of units

1:23:09that were available in 1990 compared

1:23:12with the number of units that were

1:23:13available in 2020. And I can guarantee

1:23:15that the available units today are even

1:23:18fewer. Uh so St. Louis continues to lose

1:23:21housing uh and we continue to demolish

1:23:23housing faster than we are building it,

1:23:25which really ne necessitates us to get

1:23:27serious about building more housing,

1:23:29especially on land that is uh vacant.

1:23:34Next slide, please. And this is a graph

1:23:37showing new residential construction

1:23:38that it is still has not bounced back

1:23:40from pre208 financial crisis levels. Uh

1:23:44so again talking about the need to make

1:23:46the numbers work so that we can build

1:23:48more housing in our city and attract new

1:23:50residents.

1:23:52And next slide. So the key takeaways

1:23:55that I want to leave you with today are

1:23:56that the highway demolished over 200

1:24:00homes and displaced nearly a thousand

1:24:01residents in the Forest Park southeast.

1:24:04These two sites have seen speculation,

1:24:07neglect, and abuse by previous actors,

1:24:09and that's made it very difficult to

1:24:11develop to this day. After extensive

1:24:13community engagement, we did have a

1:24:15proposal that the neighborhood supported

1:24:17uh that put housing in these locations.

1:24:19That's a plan I strongly support as

1:24:21well. Uh and lastly, when we don't build

1:24:24new housing, when we don't increase that

1:24:26supply, it makes the current supply of

1:24:28housing uh people that want to move into

1:24:31these neighborhoods, but there aren't

1:24:32places available drive up the price. And

1:24:34if we don't have units to meet that

1:24:36demand, uh then we continue to to

1:24:39exacerbate the unaffordability of our

1:24:41city. And so adding units would

1:24:44absolutely help uh this neighborhood

1:24:46keep housing prices stable, but also add

1:24:49residents to our city in a way that will

1:24:51benefit the entire city. Uh so that's my

1:24:54presentation. I'm happy to uh have SLDC

1:24:58go up and answer any questions, but I'll

1:25:00end on this note too and say there is no

1:25:02developer proposal report for this

1:25:04because there is no developer. The way

1:25:06we're doing this bill is a way that we

1:25:08did a previous package last year with

1:25:09the club and the end which is a kind of

1:25:13pre-proposal to say that we're going to

1:25:15offer incentives up to a certain amount.

1:25:17It's not a guaranteed offer. Uh it is up

1:25:20to a certain amount. So they will still

1:25:22go through the entire SLDC process, have

1:25:25that essential but four test applied to

1:25:27make sure that incentives are necessary

1:25:29to make this happen. uh and then get a

1:25:32scorecard at that time to make sure that

1:25:34we are really eligible for the level

1:25:36that we're offering. Uh but without a

1:25:39development proposal report, we can't

1:25:41say exactly what the numbers are going

1:25:43to look like, but I can say that uh when

1:25:46we do have a proposal in hand, they'll

1:25:49get to crunching the numbers to make

1:25:50sure that uh incentives are at the

1:25:53appropriate level to be able to make

1:25:55this uh project happen and fill this

1:25:58vacant land with housing once again. So,

1:26:00I'm happy to take any questions or uh

1:26:02hear from the public at this time.

1:26:05>> I think we'll go ahead and see if Mr.

1:26:07Wilson had any comments and then

1:26:10go to public comment.

1:26:16>> Thank you. I'd like to point out not

1:26:18only you have to pass the physical uh

1:26:20scorecard, there's a community scorecard

1:26:22that's built in with the application

1:26:24process. every point you score goes in

1:26:27the redevelopment agreement that you

1:26:28have to meet those uh requirements. If

1:26:31they don't remain those requirements,

1:26:32the incentives can be pulled or reduced

1:26:35at a later date or it may even activate

1:26:38it. The project will also have to see

1:26:40meet prevailing wage and minority

1:26:42compliance standards. So all those

1:26:44things are built into the kind of the

1:26:46boiler plate of all redevelopment greens

1:26:49at SLDC and LSR. Happy to answer any

1:26:52questions.

1:26:54>> Perfect. Thank you for that additional

1:26:56context.

1:27:02>> We have one speaker and Mr.

1:27:08>> Welcome back,

1:27:10>> Mr. Aken Boen. Good to see you all

1:27:12again. Uh

1:27:16I want to uh uh again mention that I'm

1:27:20speaking on behalf of the SLPS parent

1:27:23action council. Um and this is not an

1:27:27official

1:27:29there or it's not representing SLP

1:27:31itself. Um a couple things I wanted to

1:27:34go over here. Uh uh I want to make very

1:27:38clear that uh this is pre-authorizing up

1:27:41to 90% 10-year tax abatement. So this is

1:27:44a near 100% tax abatement for a decade.

1:27:49And when you think about our little

1:27:50ones, for example, let's say a uh child

1:27:55enters preschool or kindergarten

1:27:59at the time that this abatement is

1:28:01activated, they wouldn't see a full

1:28:03benefit. um until they were in about

1:28:08high school. And that's a long time. I

1:28:12uh our our members thought that this was

1:28:15far too high of a tax abatement level to

1:28:20have the board of alderman pre-authorize

1:28:23because it won't go back to you or

1:28:25potentially it could but uh that would

1:28:27be not required. Um, basically SLDC and

1:28:31LCD would select a developer and award

1:28:35what it what it thinks is an appropriate

1:28:37amount and

1:28:4090% is far too high for what really is a

1:28:44strong neighborhood uh market. I want to

1:28:47mention here uh and I want to also uh

1:28:51thanks uh Alderman Brownie for

1:28:53mentioning some of the history. Lux

1:28:55Living had proposed uh their market rate

1:28:58uh uh development without any tax

1:29:01incentives at all. Um but for other

1:29:04reasons it stalled.

1:29:06Uh the Monarch proposal, the rents for

1:29:10that

1:29:12studios were $1,700,

1:29:15$2,200 for one bedrooms and $2,700 for

1:29:19two bedrooms. This is far higher than

1:29:23what the uh average St. Louis regional

1:29:29resident household can afford. Uh and

1:29:32especially for what the uh average

1:29:36median St. Louis city household can

1:29:39afford. In fact, actually for a

1:29:40two-bedroom, that would be about double

1:29:43the uh median household income of what

1:29:45um uh we have here in the city of St.

1:29:48Louis. So that we felt that that was far

1:29:50too high. Um you know again maybe

1:29:53something like 50%

1:29:55uh for pre-authorizing but anything

1:29:57above that would have to come back

1:29:59before you and go through the normal

1:30:01process. Uh I'm not sure if if uh SLPS

1:30:05was um notified at all about this

1:30:08proposal. I think it would make sense to

1:30:10have discussions for them with them of

1:30:12what might be available. Um and then

1:30:15another concern here that we have is as

1:30:16as Alderman Brownie mentioned this does

1:30:19seem to be becoming a normal practice

1:30:22now of again um kind of taking it out of

1:30:25your hands and and saying okay yeah

1:30:26let's preapprove a certain level of of

1:30:29abatement and then SLDC will will take

1:30:32it from there and again some of these

1:30:34are very marquee high-profile sites that

1:30:37could have a very high impact on SLPS's

1:30:41budget um tax abatements in tiff for the

1:30:452025

1:30:46tax uh year uh rose up to $45 million

1:30:50this past year. And this these types of

1:30:54things that gets to that point. That's a

1:30:56significant amount. Um so we just wanted

1:30:59to um reiterate again our our support

1:31:01for affordable housing and we so DC and

1:31:04LCR can really hone in on that and try

1:31:06to prioritize that. And then um again,

1:31:10so we we hope that you uh uh vote no

1:31:13today on this or at least hold the bill

1:31:16um until there can be some further

1:31:18discussions about what maybe again may

1:31:20be a more comfortable uh pre-authorized

1:31:23tax abatement again that might be could

1:31:26be like 50% and then you know but if

1:31:29anything would be requested before that

1:31:31then SLDC and LCR would have to come

1:31:34back before you for specific

1:31:36authorization.

1:31:37Thank you.

1:31:42>> That was the only speaker.

1:31:43>> Okay.

1:31:46>> Did you have any follow-up comments to

1:31:48that or you want to go to question?

1:31:50>> Yeah. Um I I do want to address some. So

1:31:5390% [snorts]

1:31:54is uh standard. It's up to 90%. So

1:31:58again, it doesn't necessarily mean it

1:31:59will be 90% but what the numbers

1:32:01require. Um it's always going to be a

1:32:04case of determining what a project

1:32:06requires in order to happen. Uh because

1:32:08the land is vacant right now. We're

1:32:10getting almost no taxes from it uh as it

1:32:13currently exists. uh if there is

1:32:15improved value even 10% of that improved

1:32:18value will be an immediate benefit to

1:32:21both the city and the uh I would never

1:32:24bring a tax abatement forward that

1:32:26wasn't of immediate benefit to our I am

1:32:28a big supporter of our public schools

1:32:30and believe that we need to be um seeing

1:32:33taxes go to them but uh when we cannot

1:32:36get something built they get less money

1:32:40because uh the land remains vacant um

1:32:43this land has been vacant as I mentioned

1:32:45for 15 plus years much of it longer than

1:32:49that. Um we didn't get any taxes from it

1:32:52when MDOT owned it and we did not uh we

1:32:55did not get many taxes when the

1:32:57buildings fell empty. Um it is true that

1:33:00the previous developer proposed a

1:33:02building without tax abatement. I've

1:33:04spoken to many developers who say they

1:33:06have no idea how that would have

1:33:08happened uh unless they completely

1:33:10cheaped out on building which that

1:33:13developer is known for. So that's why

1:33:15the neighborhood did not support that

1:33:16proposal. Uh what we really would love

1:33:19to see here is two quality buildings so

1:33:22that we can have really necessary

1:33:25housing added. Uh we we are sure that

1:33:28this would be a benefit to the city uh

1:33:31in that there's a lot to be desired

1:33:34about this location. Um it's close to a

1:33:37major job center to the point where you

1:33:38don't have to own a car to live here. U

1:33:41the uh the way the incentives are

1:33:43structured is that it offers a certain

1:33:45level for market rate and a certain

1:33:46level more for affordable units. So uh

1:33:50appropriately incentivizing each level,

1:33:52making sure that we're getting what we

1:33:54are looking for. Um and uh I would say

1:33:57that uh when we get the numbers for our

1:34:00project proposal uh we will certainly be

1:34:03checking in with the schools and

1:34:04everybody else uh because we I I know I

1:34:08believe that this is absolutely going to

1:34:09be a benefit to the city and our school

1:34:12system uh and turning vacancy as we like

1:34:15to say turning vacancy into vibrancy. Uh

1:34:19empty land doesn't really benefit

1:34:20anybody. Uh but this has been empty for

1:34:23a very long time and I'd love to not see

1:34:25it empty any longer needs to be.

1:34:32>> All right, with that we'll move to

1:34:33questions. Autumn McCome,

1:34:41>> no questions.

1:34:46Alderman Aldridge.

1:34:48>> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the

1:34:49committee. First off, again, I feel

1:34:51outdone with the presentations today.

1:34:53And Alman Browning, I do want to thank

1:34:55you for just taking us back in time in

1:34:59history of kind of how um this area

1:35:02became, you know, what it was from the

1:35:05the uh Clover intersections. And I don't

1:35:08remember the designs happening in 2002

1:35:10cuz I was in second grade of when they

1:35:12went from the clover to kind of the I

1:35:15guess the horseshoe or what you called

1:35:16it. And you know these I think this is a

1:35:19really prime location

1:35:22uh for development that would be um not

1:35:26just beneficial I think to the city but

1:35:28beneficial to uh folks that drive um

1:35:31throughout our city as you're getting

1:35:33off. you know, Kings Highway is a very

1:35:34busy um intersection where people get on

1:35:38and get off on. And then, you know, I'

1:35:40i've seen the u these buildings sit

1:35:43vacant uh at least in the time that I

1:35:45can remember, I think when maybe it was

1:35:47Lux there and the union was out

1:35:49protesting, but just seeing uh how the

1:35:51vacancy has been sitting for a very long

1:35:53time. And um I think like you said, if

1:35:55there's no taxes going into it, not only

1:35:57does not benefit city, it does not

1:35:59benefit our school district. And I

1:36:00totally agree uh with that. However, I

1:36:03will say I'm just a little hesitant and

1:36:05I want to be consistent. Um, you know, I

1:36:08think you know best for your

1:36:09neighborhood and I'm not trying to uh

1:36:11get in between you and your community

1:36:13when we did the other development

1:36:15project. Um, you know, I spoke on it and

1:36:18speak on it again when it was the the

1:36:19nonforprofit building of my fear of

1:36:23doing it this way where we approve

1:36:25incentive without having a developer.

1:36:27Um, while it still go through SLDC

1:36:29hands, it still go through the butt for

1:36:31test. it still go through LCA. We as a

1:36:34board of alderman then does not have the

1:36:35ability to um hear from the developer

1:36:38and I know it is in your award but like

1:36:40today we've seen you know both of the

1:36:42developers uh or one developer while you

1:36:45know Tiffany and uh Amber Stone is in my

1:36:48war in the seventh award. It's always

1:36:49good to and I mean we've done that with

1:36:52um OYO hotel where we had three hearings

1:36:55because we wasn't sure how the developer

1:36:57was going to be with labor, how he was

1:36:59uh he's going to be friendly labor and I

1:37:01do appreciate all the committee

1:37:02eventually getting to a place where we

1:37:03was able to work that out. But that is

1:37:06my concern of you know I the I I spoke

1:37:10up I think hesitantly of supporting the

1:37:13nonfor-profit one which I think is a lot

1:37:16harder especially for non forprofits to

1:37:18try to find somebody who would you know

1:37:20want to come in and get them out but to

1:37:22just put a um up to 90% and I I think

1:37:25you made it very clear it's up to 90%.

1:37:27So it doesn't ne mean 90%. But it could

1:37:30mean 90%. And when I think of you know

1:37:32tax abatements in areas up to 90%. I

1:37:35will say while we do need more housing

1:37:37this is a stretch of an area that has

1:37:39seen and seeing a lot of development. If

1:37:41you go further down South Kings Highway

1:37:43you see these big massive buildings

1:37:46being built right now at Lindle and

1:37:48Kings Highway. So development is

1:37:50happening. Housing is coming to the

1:37:52area. Um, but not being able to, um, and

1:37:58I get what you're trying to do. I think

1:37:59you're trying to incentivize a land to

1:38:01lure in a developer. Um,

1:38:06it's just a new uh, model that this is a

1:38:10kind of second project in your ward that

1:38:11we are doing this for. Historically, I

1:38:14think every pretty much development

1:38:15that's come through the board, we had a

1:38:17developer packet to know who the

1:38:18developer was, their history um of that

1:38:21development because at the end of the

1:38:23day, while it isn't your ward, we're

1:38:25being asked to vote on something that

1:38:26will have an impact to the city as a

1:38:29whole. And that's my kind of um

1:38:33hesitation of wanting to vote this today

1:38:35because of the lack of the unknown. I

1:38:38have full faith in you and and your

1:38:40community. Um, but it would be even if

1:38:43like maybe there's an amendment added

1:38:44that you know if a developer were to

1:38:47come then it would have to come back in

1:38:49front of the future HUDs committee like

1:38:51I would be a lot more supportive of that

1:38:53just to make sure that we are part of

1:38:55the process as we are part of 98% of the

1:38:58development bills that come um through

1:39:00and you did that was a statement and I'm

1:39:02sure you probably respond but my

1:39:04question is you did mention there will

1:39:05be some amount of affordable housing

1:39:09>> the way the uh incentive structure is uh

1:39:15the way it's structured is that uh it'll

1:39:17offer 10 years at 90% and if there is

1:39:20affordable housing five years at 50%.

1:39:23>> So the developer could come in and say

1:39:25we're not going to do any affordable

1:39:26housing so they wouldn't get the five

1:39:28years they uh they would just get the

1:39:3090%. And I guess how much would like I'm

1:39:33not sure if you know like the average

1:39:35price of like affordable housing right

1:39:37there in that area would cost. Yeah,

1:39:39there's

1:39:39>> I mean not affordable housing market

1:39:41rate.

1:39:42>> Well, so market rate by definition is

1:39:44what most people pay. Uh so the market

1:39:46sets it depending on you know what uh

1:39:50what that is at the time. Uh but right

1:39:53now in that neighborhood and I I wish we

1:39:57had time where I could take you all for

1:39:58a walk on streets around that out the

1:40:01homes that were saved from demolition uh

1:40:04many of which are now affordable uh

1:40:07units. There's actually a a huge number

1:40:09of affordable units in those blocks all

1:40:12around those neighborhoods. Uh we don't

1:40:14put a big sign on them saying they're

1:40:15affordable. They look like normal homes,

1:40:17but they are uh owned by companies that

1:40:21uh offer subsidized rents and uh many of

1:40:24my neighbors are uh have been benefited

1:40:27by that. And um you know, I could I'd

1:40:29love to walk you around and introduce to

1:40:31them. They're often out sitting on the

1:40:34it's it's just a great community. U and

1:40:37that's why we're trying to um we're

1:40:41trying to get something going here in

1:40:42that uh as you saw from the speculation

1:40:45and uh demo by negluct strategies uh

1:40:48this land has been handcuffed for a

1:40:50while. Uh but even then when it's been

1:40:53up for sale the only proposals we've

1:40:55been getting so far because of the

1:40:56condition market right now it is super

1:40:58expensive to build uh it is super hard

1:41:01to get things going. Uh but uh the

1:41:04proposals that we've gotten have been

1:41:05for a car wash and a fast food

1:41:09restaurant. Neither of which would be

1:41:10allowed by the zoning there. Uh but also

1:41:13would not be supported by the

1:41:15neighborhood because it's a it's a

1:41:17pretty difficult site to develop on the

1:41:19end there. Um and then the other

1:41:21northern site is even more difficult to

1:41:23access. And so it's just a really

1:41:25difficult spot, but it's land we got

1:41:27back after the destruction of the

1:41:29highways and these, you know, uh,

1:41:32developers that came in before and

1:41:33pursued this really negative strategy.

1:41:36Um, the last thing I'll say is on Lindle

1:41:38and Kings Highway, it's a beautiful

1:41:39tower that's being built right now. It

1:41:41took years to get that started and it's

1:41:44being financed by a private uh,

1:41:47developer who has deep pockets and it's

1:41:50a legacy building in many ways. We're

1:41:52very excited to see it happening, but by

1:41:54no means does it mean we have a healthy

1:41:56housing market right now in the area.

1:41:57Most projects that have gone through

1:41:59have been cancelled uh because of the

1:42:02rising costs. And so what we're doing

1:42:04with this package in the pre-approval

1:42:08is actually the way that a lot of cities

1:42:09do it across the country. And the reason

1:42:12for that is that when we put a developer

1:42:14through the process of having to first

1:42:18acquire the property, then go through

1:42:20all the steps with the city, and it's

1:42:23just uncertainty after uncertainty after

1:42:25uncertainty, and it can take, you know,

1:42:27a year or longer to go through that

1:42:29process, the whole time they're they're

1:42:31holding that property trying to get

1:42:33something going there. Uh, and it will

1:42:36often uh kill the project. And that's

1:42:38what happened with the last developer is

1:42:40that the process got drawn out and the

1:42:42numbers didn't pencil anymore. So by

1:42:44offering a preapproval in a way of

1:42:48saying, hey, this is what you will be

1:42:49eligible for, we're creating a

1:42:51predictable path, which is a lot of what

1:42:53our SLDC process is meant to do is to

1:42:56create that predictable path for

1:42:57developers. if you're investing, you

1:43:00know, tens of millions or hundreds of

1:43:02millions of dollars to build these

1:43:04buildings and it's expensive to build

1:43:05these sides of buildings, but they also

1:43:07produce hundreds of housing units. Uh,

1:43:10so like we're not going to make up, as

1:43:12much as I love the development bills

1:43:14that you and other one just did, we're

1:43:17not going to get back the housing we

1:43:18need in the city with, you know, 10

1:43:20units here, 60 units there. We need

1:43:23thousands upon thousands of units. And

1:43:26in areas like this where density makes a

1:43:28lot of sense, we want large buildings

1:43:31built because that's what the code calls

1:43:33for, but also that is what will most

1:43:36benefit the city. Speaking of

1:43:37environmentalism, the most

1:43:39environmentally friendly thing we can do

1:43:41in this city is build more density and

1:43:43build car optional places to live. So,

1:43:46uh, this is some a place where we're

1:43:47trying to get a good positive

1:43:49development going and offering that

1:43:51predictability so that a developer can

1:43:53feel like they can buy that property and

1:43:55build that housing. Uh, and we can get

1:43:59what we're looking for here, which is

1:44:00multifamily housing. And the reason I'm

1:44:03so, and I think you could tell from the

1:44:05presentation I just gave you, the reason

1:44:06I am so set on this needs to be housing

1:44:09is because it used to be housing and

1:44:12that was taken away from us. and some of

1:44:14the worst urban renewal policies that

1:44:18just hurt so much of our city. I know

1:44:21you represent downtown and there's talk

1:44:24now of capping the highway uh in an

1:44:26attempt to reconnect it with the river

1:44:28uh reconnect downtown with the river and

1:44:30so I I cannot emphasize the destruction

1:44:33that the highways did to our cities. Um

1:44:36but Forest Parks Southeast was the first

1:44:38victim in St. Louis uh when they put in

1:44:41that expressway and then it just kept

1:44:43getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Uh

1:44:46so I I'm appreciative that MDOT is a lot

1:44:49more sensitive to those things now and

1:44:51we're not doing that kind of thing

1:44:52anymore. Uh but you know I I feel like

1:44:55this this we've made so much progress in

1:44:59that we've gotten those dilapitated

1:45:00homes down. Uh we've gotten that land

1:45:03back from MDOT, but we're not done until

1:45:07there's housing there that people can

1:45:09live in and be a part of the community.

1:45:12>> Gotcha. And um yeah, I don't disagree. I

1:45:16think we need to build as much housing

1:45:18uh as possible. With the other project

1:45:20that you did where we did that tax

1:45:22abatement uh for the nonforprofit, has

1:45:24anybody signed up or has have you guys

1:45:27found a future developer for that area

1:45:29yet? There's some kicking of the tires

1:45:31that is going on. Um there's not it has

1:45:34not sold yet. It's going to take some

1:45:36time. That's just it's a difficult

1:45:38environment. Um but again, the only

1:45:41proposals we've gotten uh there have

1:45:44been for a drive-through restaurant. Um

1:45:46and as much as I'd like a Chick-fil-A in

1:45:48the ward, I'm joking. I don't actually

1:45:51uh but uh I I don't think it's an

1:45:53appropriate use for these pe places

1:45:55where it's proximity to jobs, proximity

1:45:58to transit. Uh you know, this is the

1:46:01kind of place where we need to be

1:46:02creating homes for people uh because

1:46:04people that live in these homes will

1:46:06benefit from the walkability, the access

1:46:08to that employment uh and that

1:46:10opportunity. And so that's the goal uh

1:46:13with this as well is we want to, you

1:46:15know, build quality buildings that

1:46:17people can build their lives in. Is

1:46:18there a timeline I guess for if we were

1:46:20to approve this how long this abatement

1:46:22would just be on the land? Is it like if

1:46:24nobody come and develop it in 15 years

1:46:26and the baitment goes away or

1:46:28>> so obviously um the uh process will be

1:46:32sensitive to the market conditions at

1:46:34the time as they go through the process.

1:46:36SLDC will be looking at the numbers, but

1:46:38there's also a uh requirement for them

1:46:41to uh acquire a building permit within a

1:46:44year and uh get underway within two

1:46:47years.

1:46:48>> So, if nobody comes within a year, this

1:46:50abatement doesn't exist.

1:46:52>> We'd have to extend the uh the timeline

1:46:54on it, too. Yeah,

1:46:56>> that sounds about right.

1:47:01>> We we could put that language in the

1:47:03board bill.

1:47:03>> So, it's not in the board bill. I don't

1:47:05think at this time it's not

1:47:08the the redevelopment agreement says at

1:47:10the Hold on.

1:47:17>> Make sure you state your name and your

1:47:19title.

1:47:20>> Paul Weatherford, uh, real estate

1:47:22financial analysts, SLDC.

1:47:25um the the language about uh having to

1:47:30apply for a permit within a year and and

1:47:32have substantial completion um of a

1:47:35project within I believe it's 48 months

1:47:37is tied to the um signing of the

1:47:40redevelopment agreement not the adoption

1:47:42of the redevelopment plan.

1:47:43>> So that's signing of the redevelopment

1:47:44agreement. So if you don't have a

1:47:46redeveloper,

1:47:48then what I'm saying is no redeveloper,

1:47:51no development agreement. This abatement

1:47:53would be on this property for 10, 20, 30

1:47:56years. Correct.

1:47:57>> Uh the

1:48:01Yes, it's the abatement's not approved

1:48:03yet, but the

1:48:04>> the land the land will be abated with no

1:48:07timeline, but if there's a developer,

1:48:09then the timeline kicks in.

1:48:11>> Correct. And that's the same process for

1:48:13all uh abatements, chapter 99's red

1:48:16plans.

1:48:18>> It's important to note this isn't

1:48:19abating the land. The the way abatements

1:48:21work is it abates the improved value on

1:48:24the land. So it's only when someone

1:48:26builds something that they would benefit

1:48:28from the abatement. The land will

1:48:30continue paying the baseline of taxes.

1:48:33So if it takes 10 years for a project to

1:48:35get going, it'll just continue to pay

1:48:36those taxes on that. It won't abate 90%

1:48:39of empty land. And I I'm glad you

1:48:41clarified that it won't abate the land,

1:48:43but there will be a package for the

1:48:45land.

1:48:47>> That's a better way to

1:48:48>> that has no timeline.

1:48:49>> It it would start when the development

1:48:52starts,

1:48:53>> but wouldn't have a timeline.

1:48:55That package would be over that land for

1:48:59until a developer come and that's

1:49:01unseeable at the moment.

1:49:03>> Yeah. I mean, our goal here is to get

1:49:04something going sooner than later

1:49:06because the land's been vacant for

1:49:07decades. you know, we'd love to see it

1:49:09occupied this decade, but um that's, you

1:49:13know, I think that moving this to a

1:49:16place where there is that carrot, so to

1:49:18speak, dangling above the land to say,

1:49:20hey, if you develop here, here's might

1:49:22be eligible for and then SLDC will go

1:49:25through the process. So, say 10 years

1:49:26from now, say this does take forever and

1:49:2910 years from now, finally a developer

1:49:31comes along, there's a plan, it's moving

1:49:33forward, and the market is just much

1:49:35better. uh you know the numbers have

1:49:37gone down, construction costs have gone

1:49:39down, uh the market in St. Louis is

1:49:42looking really healthy and it doesn't

1:49:44really need a payment to get going. SLDC

1:49:47would apply that but for test and say

1:49:49well you don't really need the

1:49:51incentives to make these numbers work

1:49:52and so they would be not offered the

1:49:54incentives.

1:49:55>> I guess my thing is just that like you

1:49:57say that carry that dangles. I wish that

1:50:00and and maybe I should have got on top

1:50:03of it and good for you for being like

1:50:05proactive and smart, but you know if if

1:50:07that opportunity I think if most areas

1:50:10kind of had that carrot over their the

1:50:12land that it probably could bring a lot

1:50:14more development maybe that's how we

1:50:15need to look into it. Um, but it is a

1:50:18unique, like I say, it's the second time

1:50:19where we've done this for, uh, within

1:50:22your area. And, um, I guess my main

1:50:25concern that, you know, I would love to

1:50:28like have a conversation with you about

1:50:29if if I would just feel more comfortable

1:50:33to care over the land. Um, to bring in a

1:50:37potential developer. Um but it would be

1:50:39I think important and as if we do it to

1:50:42every other ward and every other

1:50:44developer where we come in and we

1:50:46scrutinize them and say you know let us

1:50:49know what is your past history of

1:50:51development. I think we shouldn't start

1:50:53making exceptions. Um unless that's how

1:50:55like the the playing field's going to

1:50:57be. So I would feel more comfortable if

1:50:59I guess if you is comfortable in SLDC be

1:51:02comfortable of once a developer is

1:51:04identified um I don't know if that's put

1:51:06in the board bill then uh they still go

1:51:09through the same process but they still

1:51:10would need to come back in front of the

1:51:11HUDs committee for the general public to

1:51:14um know who that future developer is

1:51:17because we do that for every other

1:51:19development like throughout the city.

1:51:22>> Well yeah I'd say we don't do it for

1:51:24every development city. We just do it

1:51:25for developments that are asking for

1:51:27incentives.

1:51:27>> Correct. Correct.

1:51:28>> And

1:51:29>> which affects our school districts and

1:51:31many other things.

1:51:32>> Absolutely. But you know, as we

1:51:34discussed, anything that gets built here

1:51:36would be benefiting our school districts

1:51:38even if abaded 99%, but we're not

1:51:40abating it 99%. Um, so there's an

1:51:42immediate benefit to the school

1:51:44districts if something gets built here.

1:51:46But with the vacancy that's occurred

1:51:48over the last several decades, the

1:51:50schools have lost out as well. If there

1:51:52had been a building here full of people,

1:51:55you know, paying their income tax,

1:51:57paying, you know, all their different

1:51:59taxes, going out to our local stores and

1:52:01shops and shopping there, being part of

1:52:03our city, then this would already have

1:52:06been paying huge dividends for the

1:52:07school district. Um,

1:52:09>> I guess would

1:52:10>> I'm not I I'm I could go either way on

1:52:12on it coming back to the board, but I'd

1:52:14say that I don't feel like coming back

1:52:17to the board of alderman offers any

1:52:18additional expertise isn't already

1:52:20present in SLDC. And uh I think that

1:52:24when we scrutinize developments to the

1:52:27level of um each individual alder has to

1:52:30do their own investigation, that's the

1:52:32level of uncertainty that really kills

1:52:35development in the city. that you have

1:52:36done it for other development bills.

1:52:38>> I've done it for one deal so far as kind

1:52:41of experiment to try to see if we can

1:52:43>> No, I'm talking about when development

1:52:44has come in front of this committee. You

1:52:45have asked developers that's scrutin I

1:52:48mean you you say the expertise should be

1:52:50an SODC agree but the practice and we've

1:52:53all done it when a developer has come in

1:52:55front to do development. We've asked

1:52:57some questions on their taxes and and

1:53:00all type of stuff making sure they pay

1:53:01taxes like

1:53:02>> Yeah. Yeah. And that's a that's a

1:53:03statutory requirement that they have to

1:53:05pay their taxes to all the ones.

1:53:07>> What I'm saying is that you say we

1:53:08shouldn't do it, but

1:53:10>> you have been guilty of it. I've been

1:53:11guilty of it. The older woman of seven

1:53:12like when developers that want

1:53:15incentives come in front of us, we've

1:53:17all have questioned them developers and

1:53:20what's different now?

1:53:22>> I think that the difference is that this

1:53:24land is vacant uh and we haven't been

1:53:26able to get anything going. So, it's a

1:53:29matter of how do we offer a package

1:53:32that's predictable for someone to know

1:53:34what they're going to be able to do here

1:53:37uh and whether the numbers are going to

1:53:38work for them if they buy the property.

1:53:40Uh because right now we haven't been

1:53:43able to do that and we haven't been able

1:53:44to do it over several decades either.

1:53:47Um, I would say that the reason other

1:53:50cities do it this way is because, uh, it

1:53:53is hard to get people interested in

1:53:55developing in your city unless they know

1:53:57if it's going to be worth their while

1:53:59and they're going to be able to make the

1:54:01numbers work on that development. Um, so

1:54:05I think despite asking questions in

1:54:08past, I've always been supportive of my

1:54:10colleagues uh, development proposals

1:54:12when they come in front of this board

1:54:14for exactly that reason. I think we need

1:54:15to be building more housing. We need to

1:54:17be getting more jobs in the city. We

1:54:18need to be growing our city. Uh we are

1:54:21on our eighth or ninth decade of losing

1:54:24population. And meanwhile, we know when

1:54:27we add housing in neighborhoods, we gain

1:54:29population because people move from out

1:54:32of state into our city and they land in

1:54:36neighborhoods like Forest Park

1:54:38Southeast. And then I'll say on the

1:54:40other side of that, when we don't add

1:54:43the housing in Forest Park Southeast or

1:54:45in a neighborhood like it, then the

1:54:48current housing starts to get more

1:54:49expensive. That supply is constricted.

1:54:51There's more demand and competition for

1:54:54the existing housing. And so the prices

1:54:56can stay high or go even higher. And we

1:55:00noticed that as we build housing in

1:55:02Forest Park Southeast, over the last

1:55:04decade, we had seven buildings go up uh

1:55:08south of Manchester. Green Street built

1:55:10those and we can be upset with Green

1:55:14Street for, you know, falling behind on

1:55:15their tax bills. But what I will say is

1:55:18all those buildings are occupied now.

1:55:20And as a result of those buildings being

1:55:22built, the rents in Forest Park

1:55:24Southeast did not go up as much as the

1:55:27rest of the city over that time period.

1:55:29They stayed relatively stable uh

1:55:32compared to inflation uh over that time

1:55:35because we had added almost a thousand

1:55:37units uh on in those buildings. So when

1:55:41we add more units, we find that it does

1:55:44stabilize housing prices. We do keep

1:55:47things more affordable. And while I

1:55:49can't guess what um would be charged for

1:55:52this building, uh I can say that market

1:55:56rate, you know, or you know, uh

1:55:58affordable units uh would would

1:56:00certainly be at a price where the

1:56:02developer felt like they could fill uh

1:56:05and that's our goal here is to have this

1:56:07property full.

1:56:09>> Yes. And I will I mean I won't go on

1:56:10record because I think it's important it

1:56:12is true that um I think most of the

1:56:14development bills here u and alder wards

1:56:17you personally and most of us have

1:56:20supported we try not to get in the way

1:56:22of other alder wards and I do want to

1:56:24give you the credit to that because I

1:56:25don't I think it's been very few. I will

1:56:28say if we going off history, I think

1:56:29every alder uh maybe I mean I'm gonna be

1:56:32outside of maybe alderwoman Clark Hubber

1:56:34when we did the OYO hotel and labor came

1:56:37all of you guys had questions and didn't

1:56:39feel comfortable uh voting it out the

1:56:42first time or the second time because

1:56:44you wanted to hear from the developer

1:56:45and I think I think that is what I'm um

1:56:49saying. I'm not looking to hold your

1:56:51bill up. I think you are the best to

1:56:53know and the people in your resident um

1:56:55and your ward. But if we're going to

1:56:56give incentives to a developer, any

1:56:58developer, um, even if it's one in my

1:57:01ward or anywhere else, I think that that

1:57:03incentive from the city should be

1:57:05scrutinized a little bit. Not

1:57:06scrutinized, but just be able to ask the

1:57:08developer questions. And I would feel

1:57:10comfortable if, you know, once a

1:57:13developer is identified, um, that if

1:57:16there was language in the bill that that

1:57:18developer would still need to come and

1:57:20present to the committee to say, "This

1:57:22is their plans. This is how they're

1:57:23going to support the city." Um, I would

1:57:26just feel more comfortable with that.

1:57:27And, uh, it sounds like it's in the

1:57:29bill, not in the bill, that there's a

1:57:31carrot over the area for a a number of

1:57:33years. I think if we start moving in

1:57:35that direction, I could tell you, uh, I

1:57:38got a lot of land in North Side that if

1:57:40we going to put carrots over land with

1:57:42just tax incentives to try to lure

1:57:44people in, if that's the direction we're

1:57:45moving in, I think it's excellent, but

1:57:47let's make it fair for everybody to have

1:57:49that same opportunity. um and not just

1:57:54one part of the city, you know, and I

1:57:56think it it may be a good model, but if

1:57:58we do that, I still would be in support

1:58:00if we provide any incentive. The

1:58:03developer should still have should come

1:58:05in front of the committee to talk about

1:58:07what they plan to do. Um it is upon us

1:58:10to do our research

1:58:12throughout the city because these bills

1:58:14will affect mainly your ward, but it

1:58:16will affect the city in the long run. So

1:58:17that's just my hesitation of

1:58:20we won't it will be up to SLDC. I know

1:58:23in some places we like to praise them

1:58:25and other places we like to criticize

1:58:26them. You guys get the the good and the

1:58:29bad. Um but it should I would feel

1:58:32comfortable if that came back to um this

1:58:35committee like we've done probably 98%

1:58:37of development incentive bills. And you

1:58:41know, I I absolutely hear that and I

1:58:43think if you have language prepared to

1:58:46add that, you know, I'd be happy to take

1:58:47a look at it and could even find myself

1:58:50in support. I mostly want to make it

1:58:54clear that, you know, there's not going

1:58:56to be moving goalposts. There's not

1:58:58going to be extra demands made at that

1:59:00stage that if they did have to come back

1:59:02to the board that we would follow our

1:59:04scorecard process. And if uh SLDC

1:59:08applied their entire process, applied

1:59:10that but for test made sure that there

1:59:12were the requirements in there for

1:59:13prevailing wage and the inclusion of

1:59:15minority owned businesses and womenowned

1:59:17businesses and all the other things that

1:59:20we have tied to incentive packages. As

1:59:22long as all of those are being applied,

1:59:24uh I I don't think that at the stage it

1:59:27comes in front of the board of alderman

1:59:28that we should be adding any other

1:59:29additional requirements because the

1:59:32incentive is meant to make the project

1:59:35possible. It is adding the money

1:59:38necessary to make the numbers work and

1:59:40when we add additional requirements that

1:59:43makes the numbers work less and so we

1:59:46can get to a point where we overburden

1:59:48something and then make the numbers not

1:59:49work anymore. what happened to the last

1:59:51proposal for this land. So, we would

1:59:54love to be very upfront. And the last

1:59:58thing I'll say is, Alderman, if you

2:00:00bring a bill like this for properties in

2:00:02your ward, um I'd be supportive because

2:00:06I I do think this is a model that we

2:00:08need to be looking at more. The reason

2:00:09you've seen two, the second one you've

2:00:11seen in the ninth ward is that I am

2:00:14trying this out as a policy looking at

2:00:17how other cities do it and trying to be

2:00:19more upfront because when I say other

2:00:22cities do this, developers have a

2:00:24choice. They can build in St. Louis or

2:00:26they can build in Kansas City or Chicago

2:00:28or Nashville, Minneapolis or any number

2:00:31of cities around us. if they're making

2:00:33their process easier, they're going to

2:00:35build there instead of here, and we

2:00:38won't get the housing we need to grow

2:00:39our city and and benefit our city and

2:00:41our uh so I do think this is a good

2:00:45policy and a good way to uh create that

2:00:48predictability going forward. Uh and I

2:00:51would be supportive of my colleagues

2:00:53picking up this using it. All I did was

2:00:56reach out to SLDC and say, "I'm

2:00:58interested in doing this." and they

2:01:01applied their expert analysis and said

2:01:03we agree we'll we'll start preparing

2:01:05this. It went through the planning

2:01:07commission which voted unanimously in

2:01:08support. Uh the planning commission

2:01:10spoke if you go back and watch that

2:01:12debate they spoke to uh their limited

2:01:15knowledge of how difficult it has been

2:01:17to develop this land and uh as I've said

2:01:20before I think everybody in St. Louis if

2:01:22if you travel around St. Louis you're

2:01:24familiar with these properties. Um, and

2:01:27while we're grateful that the homes that

2:01:29were falling apart and uh really quite

2:01:31the eyesore are gone now, uh, it really

2:01:35won't be a success story for St. Louis

2:01:37until we build housing there.

2:01:39>> Thank you, Alderman. And I do, like I

2:01:41said, I want to be very clear. This

2:01:42isn't to try to hold up development in

2:01:44your award. I take you as somebody who

2:01:46you do your homework. You're very uh

2:01:48engaged in your neighborhood meetings.

2:01:50Um, you you attend those. you very uh

2:01:54here at the board you make sure you do

2:01:56your research um you know like I say

2:01:58it's it's it's it's less about um

2:02:02it's about you know how do we if this is

2:02:04again the direction you know how do we

2:02:05apply it equitable because it is very

2:02:08clear any other development proposal

2:02:09that's been in front of this board

2:02:10outside of the other one that you did

2:02:13we've always had the developers uh in

2:02:14front of us and that gives us that's our

2:02:16role our obligation if we going to give

2:02:18an incentive which let's definitely give

2:02:21incentives for more people to bill. But

2:02:24um I think we you know let's the rules

2:02:27have been set at least since I've been

2:02:28here since 23. That's how like the

2:02:30process goes outside of the one on

2:02:32Lindle and then this one that it's like

2:02:34a little pivot of a I wouldn't say pivot

2:02:37but an opportunity for uh you to do it

2:02:40this way which I'm sure benefit your

2:02:42ward. But uh I'm yeah I I would just I I

2:02:47would definitely love to talk with you

2:02:48about that language. I think uh there is

2:02:51some uh potential language. My computer

2:02:53is dead. So I was having an allwoman

2:02:54from the seventh help me a little bit

2:02:56and I got a jet out but I'm going to be

2:02:57on virtual but that would just be my I

2:02:59mean could hold up of you know how to

2:03:02make sure that that uh not to change the

2:03:04requirements of the development but for

2:03:06the developer to come back and say this

2:03:08is a plan that he or she or they uh plan

2:03:11to do for the area. Especially if we're

2:03:14given an incentive that uh is benefiting

2:03:17your award, but it's incentive that

2:03:18comes from the whole city that takes

2:03:20away from

2:03:22>> it adds I would say add, but it's

2:03:23something that the whole city has to

2:03:25deal with.

2:03:26>> Yeah. Might I suggest that as you work

2:03:27on that maybe it it requires a

2:03:29resolution passed by the board. Uh I

2:03:31think there's been

2:03:32>> Well, you know, resolutions are

2:03:33non-binding.

2:03:34>> Well, but if you require it by law that

2:03:37is passed, then it would still have to

2:03:39be passed. And we've done similar

2:03:40things. I think there was a tax

2:03:42abatement for a business in the first

2:03:44for that we did that for recently. Uh so

2:03:47we can work on it but yeah

2:03:56>> I just want to clarify a statement I

2:03:59made earlier in the redevelopment plan

2:04:01uh section I which is page 13 of the re

2:04:04redevelopment plan page 25 of board bill

2:04:08um there is a provision um that the the

2:04:11redevelopment plan uh is in full force

2:04:13I'm just reading it here shall be in

2:04:15full force in effect for 25 years

2:04:17commencing with the effective date of

2:04:19approval by of this plan by city

2:04:21ordinance. So it's only good for 25

2:04:23years, not indefinitely.

2:04:27>> Okay. So not 30 like I said, but 25 up

2:04:30to 25. So

2:04:32>> yes,

2:04:32>> still a carrot that will sit over the

2:04:33land probably for a long time.

2:04:38>> Yes. I just wanted to clarify my my

2:04:40statement. No, I I appreciate that. I

2:04:41appreciate all the work that you all do

2:04:43at SLDC um to prepare this to be very

2:04:45clear.

2:04:50>> Vice Chair Sier.

2:04:54>> Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I just

2:04:57wanted to say on the record as uh

2:05:00Alderman Aldridge leaves the room that

2:05:02I'm going to send an email now since his

2:05:04computer did with uh the amendment with

2:05:07to Michael to to both Alderman Browning

2:05:11and Alderman Aldrich. I will just put it

2:05:12on the email between all of us. Um, I

2:05:16got a chance to see this bill in the

2:05:17planning commission and so I am

2:05:19generally uh supportive of it. You know,

2:05:21I I think that I I see value to me. This

2:05:24is basically trying to outline a

2:05:26specific criteria uh say hey these are

2:05:29the requirements of what we're looking

2:05:30for and then kind of putting the

2:05:33incentive in place in order to attract

2:05:34the developer. Um and you know I've

2:05:37mentioned before I think when it was in

2:05:38planning commission and talked to

2:05:39Alderman Browning about you know I I

2:05:41have the similar issue where

2:05:42unfortunately sometimes projects you

2:05:44know you get a housing developer here

2:05:46and there but the most common developers

2:05:47I certainly would say are folks who want

2:05:49to have fast food restaurants or folks

2:05:50who want to have gas stations and um I

2:05:52know in the seventh floor we're not

2:05:54really interested in that as much

2:05:55because we have a lot of those already.

2:05:57Um that's not necessarily the need. Um,

2:05:59I do understand Alderman Aldidge's point

2:06:01about uh, I guess just wanting to make

2:06:04sure that we're still a part of the

2:06:05conversation once the developer is

2:06:07selected. So, I don't have, you know, an

2:06:09issue either. You know, I do I do

2:06:11support the legislation and I would like

2:06:13to see it advance. So, if that's an

2:06:14amendment that's needed and makes all of

2:06:15us comfortable, I I don't have an issue.

2:06:17But I do just want to make sure I say

2:06:20like, you know, I think even mentioned

2:06:22from the public comment we had from the

2:06:23school district, I can see why that

2:06:25would be just kind of a question of

2:06:26members of the public, especially if

2:06:27we're going to do this more often. Then

2:06:29I think trying to find that balance

2:06:30between trying out new methods, which we

2:06:32absolutely should, Ottoman Browning,

2:06:33because we do need all the housing and

2:06:35redevelopment we could get and we need

2:06:37schools to attract um developers. Um and

2:06:39balancing that with the with the

2:06:41transparency, you know, is not an issue

2:06:42for me. So um I'm supportive of a

2:06:45possible amendment. I'm supportive of

2:06:46the of the bill as as well and I I do

2:06:48think I understand well what the

2:06:50alderman of the ninth and SLDC is trying

2:06:52to do here and I also do understand some

2:06:54of the concerns that might you know the

2:06:56public might have. We you know you guys

2:06:58know I have a ward with residents who

2:07:00are very vocal um and I could see them

2:07:01being curious about who the developer

2:07:03would be. Um and so I think there's an

2:07:05opportunity here maybe just to add some

2:07:07additional language to cover that base

2:07:08for everyone. Um but in a way that makes

2:07:10sure that this does advance. Um and I

2:07:12think this is something I think could be

2:07:13useful in in my area. Right. I have a

2:07:15receiverhip bill that I filed. It might

2:07:17be helpful to begin to pre-incentivize

2:07:20properties that the city has receiverhip

2:07:21for to attract developers for the many

2:07:24vacant negligent homes we have

2:07:26throughout our city. So, I am, you know,

2:07:28overall supportive of this method. I

2:07:29think um maybe just add an additional

2:07:31layer of transparency might make it more

2:07:33stronger and comfortable for everyone

2:07:34involved. Thank you. Yeah, I'll also

2:07:37note that as we prepare to look at

2:07:39closing school, it might be good for

2:07:43this board to coordinate with SLDC and

2:07:46with the school district to incentivize

2:07:48the conversion of vacant school

2:07:50buildings into housing or whatever that

2:07:52neighborhood needs. That way, those

2:07:55neighborhoods are not left with a

2:07:57building, a often very large building

2:08:00that just sits empty in the middle of

2:08:02the neighborhood. uh when Adam's school

2:08:04was on the list of closures, I was

2:08:07starting to think about what steps do I

2:08:09want to take to make sure that that

2:08:11building doesn't sit empty. Uh because

2:08:13that is the worst thing that could

2:08:14happen for that neighborhood. Uh so I

2:08:17think there is all sorts of opportunity

2:08:18to collaborate with the school district

2:08:20on this and make sure that we're

2:08:22assisting them and taking those

2:08:24buildings off of their books and putting

2:08:26them back onto the tax role of the city.

2:08:29uh and doing it in a way that we can

2:08:31also possibly add more housing or some

2:08:34other benefit to the communities that

2:08:35they're in.

2:08:36>> Agreed.

2:08:41>> And I also just um hit send on the

2:08:43email. So, and I put Mr. Wilson in it as

2:08:45well for you all to see that amendment.

2:08:53Is automate call still on?

2:08:57Okay.

2:09:00So

2:09:01>> I do have a committee substitute uh that

2:09:03we need to adopt just other one to

2:09:06provide the updated fiscal note. So at

2:09:08this time I'd move that we adopt the

2:09:10committee substitute to board bill 70.

2:09:15>> Okay. For clarity, can I uh ask you one

2:09:19thing off to the side? Sure.

2:09:38>> [snorts]

2:10:50>> Okay. So, I think this needs to be an

2:10:51amendment, not a committee substitute.

2:10:55Uh so,

2:10:57if it's uh in front of everybody, uh it

2:11:00should be in the drive as well.

2:11:05Madam clerk, can you let us know an

2:11:08amendment?

2:11:37So, um, first of all, I'm going to

2:11:40retract my motion for the committee

2:11:42substitute.

2:11:44>> Did you get a second?

2:11:45>> I didn't. Okay,

2:11:47>> I'll just retract the motion. Um,

2:11:53and

2:11:55I think, okay, I see your amendment now,

2:11:57alderwoman, uh, in the email. I'd like

2:12:00to go over this language a little more.

2:12:02So, uh, my question for you would be,

2:12:04uh, if you want to figure this out in

2:12:06committee or if you want to figure this

2:12:07out on the full four after it moves out

2:12:10of committee, but if not, I'll I'll

2:12:12probably hold the bill today so we can

2:12:14go through it um, and then we can take

2:12:16it back up in committee at another time.

2:12:18I always prefer to do it in committee. I

2:12:20just feel like it's easier when it's a

2:12:21smaller group of us as opposed to the

2:12:23whole floor. And I kind of think that's

2:12:25what the committee process is for. Um,

2:12:27but I'm open to whatever works best for

2:12:29folks.

2:12:29>> So, in that case, I'll I'll go ahead and

2:12:31just hold this bill today. Uh, we'll

2:12:33hear another day and uh take up an

2:12:35amendment at that time. So, we'll we'll

2:12:37also get this fiscal note situation

2:12:39sorted out for that as well.

2:12:40>> Thank you. Perfect. So, with that, we're

2:12:44going to hold board bill 70 in

2:12:47committee.

2:12:48Madame Clerk, do you have any

2:12:50resolutions for review?

2:12:52>> We have none.

2:12:53>> Do we have any additional committee

2:12:55discussions?

2:12:56>> We have none.

2:12:58>> Okay. Uh, any written testimony?

2:13:02>> We have three written testimony.

2:13:05Well, four. one for board bill 70 in

2:13:08support and three and one for each other

2:13:12board bill in support.

2:13:15>> Okay, any announcements?

2:13:19All members are present so we don't need

2:13:21to excuse any members. So with that I'll

2:13:23accept a motion to adjurnn.

2:13:28>> Second.

2:13:28>> So move.

2:13:30It was moved by Alderman Browning and

2:13:32seconded by Aldwoman Clark Cubbert that

2:13:34we adjourn.

2:13:36All in favor?

2:13:38>> I

2:13:39>> I we are ajourned. Everyone have a

2:13:40blessed day.