2026-10-20 - Housing, Urban Development & Zoning Committee

01:01All right, good morning. We'll call

01:02today's Housing, Urban Development, and

01:04Zoning Committee meeting to order. Madam

01:06Clerk, please call the roll.

01:11>> Alderman Cohn.

01:13Alderwoman Sweitzer.

01:14>> Present.

01:16>> Vice Chair Sonya.

01:17>> Present.

01:18>> Alderman Browning.

01:20>> Present.

01:23>> Alderman Aldridge.

01:25Chair Clark-Hubbard.

01:27>> Here.

01:28>> Alderman Cohn.

01:29Alderman Aldridge. We have four

01:32members present.

01:34>> All right, with that, uh, Alderman

01:36Browning said he needs to be moved for a

01:38steal so that we can, um, approve the

01:40minutes. I know he has to have his

01:42screen on.

01:43>> He's on there. I just

01:47>> Okay.

01:59>> I'm present.

03:03>> Alderman Browning, can you turn your

03:04camera?

03:19Okay, we can see him now, Alderwoman.

03:26Oh, there he goes. Okay.

03:28Uh with that, I'll accept a motion to

03:30approve the minutes from Tuesday,

03:31October 13th, 2026.

03:34>> So moved.

03:36>> It was motioned by Vice Chair Sonya

03:38Young seconded by Alderman Rodgers that

03:40we approve the minutes from Tuesday,

03:42October 13th, 2026. Madam Clerk, please

03:45call the roll.

03:47Alderman Cohn.

03:48Alderwoman Spicer.

03:50>> Aye.

03:50>> Vice Chair Saunier

03:52>> I

03:52>> Alderman Browning

03:55>> I

03:56>> Alderman Aldrich

03:57>> I

03:58>> Chair Clark-Hubbard

03:59>> I

04:00>> Alderman Cohn, we have five I votes.

04:03>> All right, with that we successfully

04:04approve the minutes from Tuesday,

04:05October 13th, 2026. We don't have any

04:09board bills for review or resolutions

04:11for review, so we're moving down to

04:13committee discussions. We will recognize

04:15SLDC

04:16on the St. Louis Development

04:18Corporation's annual compliance report.

04:21Thank you. Now, before you all speak,

04:23just remember to state your name and

04:26your position.

04:39>> Good morning, Madam Chair and members of

04:41the committee. My name is Madeline

04:43Bollinger and I am the incentive

04:45compliance manager at SLDC and I will be

04:49um

04:50presenting our annual compliance report.

04:53Can I do the slides from here or

05:03Uh next slide, please.

05:07Sorry.

05:18Oh, there it goes.

05:23Just hit the up

05:24the next button.

05:25Thank you so much.

05:27Okay.

05:29And I am presenting our annual

05:31compliance report with City Code Chapter

05:333.160.

05:35And just so you all know, the

05:36PowerPoint's a little more updated since

05:39June when we first turned in report.

05:42But we are required to

05:44present this annual compliance report at

05:46an annual at a meeting of the HEDC

05:48committee

05:49um uh every year. Before We're supposed

05:51to do it before the end of the fiscal

05:53year, which we did turn in the report by

05:54then. Um and then just with scheduling,

05:56we moved it to October.

05:58And there are three ordinances that

06:00comprise this chapter, and many members

06:02of the HEDC committee were instrumental

06:04in passing these ordinances, of course.

06:08So,

06:09I'll cover how we've complied with the

06:12entire uh chapter.

06:15And so, in accordance with chapter

06:173.160,

06:19all of our meetings are live-streamed,

06:21and the minutes are made public.

06:23And the public can request sunshine

06:25records uh sunshine law requests for

06:27public records through the city's

06:29website.

06:32We are also required to hold a publicly

06:34accessible training seminar

06:36and every year.

06:38So, we have one that we uh created, and

06:41we've reposted this every year

06:44um it's for the last 3 years. And so, if

06:47anyone wants to watch that training

06:49seminar, it is on our website, and it

06:51covers the requirements and policies

06:54that govern our redevelopment

06:56agreements.

06:59A large part of the chapter is about

07:01what we need to include in those

07:02development proposal reports that we

07:04give to the HEDC committee

07:06um whenever there's a board bill with a

07:08project a new redevelopment area.

07:10And so, that includes things like the

07:12information about the applicant and the

07:14site, the approvals that are needed, our

07:17abatement recommendation

07:19from our board,

07:21public input for projects over 10

07:23million, any response from SLPS for

07:25projects over 1 million,

07:27site selection information for BREA

07:29projects,

07:31um and also our two scorecards, which

07:33which inform our recommendation to you

07:36all.

07:37Any uh deviations from a standard

07:39development agreement, and any labor

07:42contracts or input from labor

07:43organizations for projects over 1

07:45million.

07:47We have a template, of course, that you

07:48all have seen many times.

07:50And we

07:52Our first step is always to vet those

07:53developers and include information about

07:56the relevant past projects for you all.

08:00And so we have the the community

08:02benefits scorecard is a a huge part of

08:05the process and it ensures that projects

08:07are meeting stated objectives by the

08:10community, including prioritizing

08:12neglected geographic areas, transit

08:14access, historic preservation, and

08:17the overall level of investment.

08:20And our financial analysis projects the

08:23developers returns with or without the

08:25requested incentive. And as I said,

08:27these both make up our recommend inform

08:30that recommendation by SLDC our

08:32development board.

08:35So for projects over 10 million dollars,

08:37they have to

08:39must engage the community and provide

08:40proof of community support.

08:42And there haven't been too many

08:43roadblocks here, I would say.

08:47Um

08:47most projects have been able to receive

08:49that, the ones that we take to you.

08:52Uh for example, Amber Stones, which you

08:54heard last week, um

08:56received

08:57uh letters of support from Old North St.

08:59Louis Restoration Group and SLPS and the

09:03alderman.

09:04Um Alderman Aldridge.

09:06And then for projects over 1 million, uh

09:09we are required to contact the schools,

09:12um St. Louis Public Schools, and inform

09:15them about those projects. We send them

09:17a develop a draft of the development

09:19proposal report that we show to you.

09:21And so far they've only opposed two

09:24projects, Baden School and Millennium

09:27Hotel. Those did ultimately make it to

09:29the Huds committee and were passed by

09:31the Board of Aldermen.

09:33Still, once those concerns were worked

09:34out. And then in 2025, they did actually

09:38give their explicit support to Amber

09:40Stones and Tiffany Scattered Sites.

09:43Um but for the most part, they haven't

09:45given us a response whenever we've

09:46submitted um for response.

09:53And then also the the chapter covers

09:56some things we have to include in our

09:58development agreements including that

10:00failure to uh fulfill those benefit so

10:04default or forfeiture in the event of

10:07uh not fulfilling their community

10:09benefit commitments that you see on that

10:10scorecard. Um or if it in failure to

10:14to comply with any of the city's other

10:17requirements for prevailing wage or

10:19minority-owned and women-owned business

10:21participation,

10:23workforce development, etc.

10:25They have to maintain the property up to

10:27code and also comply with accessibility

10:29requirements.

10:31And so we've added all those provisions

10:33to our standard development agreement

10:35template and they are informed

10:38developers are informed when they

10:40commit to something on the community

10:41benefit scorecard, they will be held to

10:43that those those promises basically.

10:47And so we

10:49collect annual reports every year to

10:51make sure they are complying with those.

10:54For example, if they promise that their

10:57housing units will be affordable to uh

10:59individuals earning 60% of the area

11:02median income, they have to maintain

11:03rents at that level

11:05throughout the duration of the

11:06incentive.

11:08We also um require

11:11uh clawbacks um to hold the applicants

11:14accountable for any misleading

11:16representations that they had initially

11:18submitted to us.

11:20For example, if construction costs are

11:21much higher or lower than expected.

11:24And also a revenue protection policy to

11:27index the tax payment base and pilots to

11:30inflation.

11:31And so we have included those those

11:33clawbacks in our templates. They have to

11:35submit those verified construction costs

11:38um when the construction is complete.

11:40And there's an affidavit when when the

11:42construction is complete that they turn

11:43in to us. And for

11:45And now we have also included a base

11:47escalator of 2.5%

11:49um for those new developments. We worked

11:51with the assessor to make sure that

11:53those are being implemented every year.

11:58We also are required to notify labor

12:00organizations for projects over 1

12:01million.

12:03And um

12:04this is also included in the development

12:05proposal report. And we also have to

12:08include any

12:10any response and any collective

12:11bargaining agreements. Um we've had two

12:14additional unions contact us to be

12:17included on those on those

12:19notifications. And so far we've not

12:21received really any response one way or

12:24the other from labor organizations,

12:26which we take to be their their basic

12:28support. And they're or not they're not

12:32opposed at least. And there've been no

12:35collective bargaining agreements with um

12:38any developers

12:40that we've had to include.

12:42Um TDA Tax Accountability for Developers

12:45Act um that was Alderwoman Sawyer's um

12:48ordinance that was passed back in 2024.

12:51And so we have worked out a good

12:54process with the collector of revenue.

12:57Sometimes the projects have taken a We

12:59have seen recently. We hadn't had too

13:01many issues up until now, but sometimes

13:03it takes a little longer for developers

13:05to get that TDA clearance.

13:07Um you know, we do what we can, but

13:09sometimes they just have to be worked

13:11out between the collector and and the

13:13developer.

13:18So we

13:21the So these are some summary statistics

13:23about what was

13:25passed in 2025 since January 2025, and

13:29there have been some new ones since

13:31passed back in June, or this report was

13:33initially prepared back in June.

13:36Um, 5105, so first I'll start with

13:39projects that were under a million, so

13:41they didn't require notifying SLPS or

13:44unions or any kind of community

13:45engagement. Uh, 5105 Cabanne,

13:50um,

13:51that was,

13:53you know, a single-family home

13:54renovation in the McKinley Heights

13:55neighborhood.

13:56The city passed that back in January.

13:59And then, 1122 Jonas Hubbard Street was

14:02recently approved by, um, at the LCRA

14:05board, recommended, uh, 10 years of tax

14:08abatement for a new construction

14:09single-family home in the Carr Square

14:11neighborhood.

14:133843 Ohio Avenue, also a rehabilitation

14:17of,

14:18um, a single-family home in the

14:20Dutchtown neighborhood. And LCRA has

14:22recommended 10 years of tax abatement at

14:2475%. back in September.

14:29And then, projects that are between a

14:30million and 10 million, so they do

14:33require SLPS and labor group

14:35notification, but not community

14:37engagement necessarily. There's a 44

14:41The only project we have is 4415

14:43Margaretta, which was passed by LCRA

14:45back in April, and it's the proposed

14:48renovation of the former Ashland School

14:51in the Penrose neighborhood. Um, it's

14:53going to be

14:54it's proposed to be turned into a 24/7

14:57child care center.

14:59And right now, uh, the development

15:01proposal reports are being prepared.

15:05And then, projects over 10 million, um,

15:08last year we had a dermatology clinic

15:10that was,

15:12um, proposed near the VA, but that

15:15project was, um, the developer no longer

15:19needed an abatement. They were no longer

15:20seeking it due to some federal

15:22requirements.

15:23So, um they do plan to continue the

15:26project, however. We have Amber Stones

15:29and Tiffany Place, which you all heard

15:30last week, and that was

15:32passed out of committee on October 13th.

15:37Um

15:39and then we also had

15:40uh 4500 Washington Avenue, been proposed

15:43by Jeffrey Harden.

15:45So, that's the proposed rehabilitation

15:47of the Liberty the former Liberty

15:49Hospital building into 31 mixed-income

15:52housing units with a commercial space.

15:55LCRA passed that back in April, but

15:57development proposal report components

15:59are still being prepared before

16:01presenting the board bill to HUDs.

16:04That very similar to Elliott School,

16:06which is

16:07um

16:08in North St. Louis, proposed by Jubilee

16:10CDC. LCRA recommended 10 years of 90%

16:15tax abatement back in April, and

16:17currently the development proposal

16:18reports are being uh prepared before

16:21presenting a subsequent board bill to

16:22HUDs.

16:25We've also had a few areas. Um so, these

16:28are larger redevelopment areas sometimes

16:30or smaller that are kind of pre-approved

16:32for incentives.

16:35So, we have 30 4359 Lindell Engineers

16:38Club, that was passed uh by the city

16:41back in April.

16:43And then we have Cass Cass and I-44,

16:46that was passed back in in May. And um

16:50yeah, so both of those are ready for a

16:52developer to come.

16:55And then we also had the one that you

16:57all heard last week, Kings Highway and

16:59Oakland Redevelopment Area. Of course,

17:01that's being held in committee right

17:02now.

17:04And then we have the Cass 1450 North

17:0713th Street, so the former Cass Bank

17:10um in the Carr Square in the Columbus

17:12Square neighborhood. LCRA approved this

17:15area back in August and recommended up

17:18to 25 years of tax abatement. That is

17:20actually going to before the the

17:22planning commission before it comes to

17:24HUDs.

17:26Uh the next is easy projects. We have

17:30two that are

17:32hopefully going to be coming up before

17:33this committee very soon.

17:35Sensient Technologies or project Rojo is

17:38$134 million expansion of Sensient

17:41Technologies, which is near the NGA

17:43site. Um and it's an expansion to

17:47for them to expand their production of

17:49natural color solutions

17:51um it used in food and beverage.

17:54And easy board recommended 10 years of

17:5790% tax abatement in April.

18:00And the project

18:02is

18:03you know, like the other tax abatement

18:05projects are required to provide proof

18:07of community support, SLPS,

18:10notify labor organizations, and it is

18:13ready

18:14and I think he's now going to be

18:16presented to HUDs quite soon.

18:18Very similar to

18:20AAA Cooper transportation.

18:23So that's a $17 million relocation and

18:25expansion of logistics and

18:27transportation company at AAA Cooper.

18:30And that's on the North Riverfront. Easy

18:33board recommended 10 years of 90% tax

18:36abatement in June and

18:39also required to

18:41do community engagement and um

18:44or or provide proof of community support

18:47and notify SLPS and labor tions.

18:51We also had one TIF project that was

18:54passed the over the summer. So that's

18:57the Midtown public infrastructure

18:59redevelopment area TIF. That's being led

19:00by Cranesburg Arts Foundation.

19:03And it's a 3350 parcel redevelopment

19:06area in the Covenant Blue Grand Center,

19:09Midtown, and Downtown West

19:11neighborhoods. And the the purpose is

19:13really to address public infrastructure

19:15needs that have been identified mostly

19:17by Cranzberg.

19:19And they did uh the TIF committee

19:22approved the redevelopment plan and

19:24lighting study at the public hearing on

19:26August 12th. And right now it's going to

19:29the planning commission before

19:30proceeding to HUDs.

19:34And now um you all might remember we do

19:36these

19:37charts here just showing you know,

19:40purple bar is how many LC projects LCRA

19:43or redevelopment areas LCRA approved.

19:47Uh the blue is how many the Board of

19:49Aldermen ultimately approved and the red

19:52is how many were activated. So, you

19:55know, we have seen a decline since 2017

19:57in in the number of areas being passed

20:00for

20:01you know, various reasons that we have

20:03gone into in in the in the past. Um

20:07and yes, just showing you all

20:10there have been very few that have been

20:11passed since the new ordinances or that

20:14have been activated since

20:16went into effect.

20:17That comprise chapter 3.160.

20:23And I anticipate that once more of those

20:25come online, we'll have a slightly

20:27different report about what that is

20:29looking like.

20:31And then so projects that didn't that

20:34were approved by the chart on the left

20:38or on my left

20:39um

20:40is projects approved for abatement by

20:43the Board of Aldermen and not activated.

20:46So, what happened to those? We had a

20:47total of 130 between 2017 and five.

20:52Uh 54 were completed, 40 are still under

20:54construction

20:56or planning, 15 have been canceled or

20:58stalled, 21 are areas so we can't say

21:02that they've been activated. There might

21:04have have projects that were completed

21:06there, but it's a wider area, so we

21:09can't say that it's been completely

21:10activated.

21:11And then we had 18 projects that were

21:13approved by LCRA, but then weren't

21:16approved by the Board of Aldermen, so

21:17what happened to those?

21:20Um

21:21Oh, and really the the first chart I was

21:23talking about, a lot of times when

21:25they're completed and they have already

21:27been approved, they may not have met

21:29minority

21:30hiring or women-owned business goals. Um

21:34and they didn't get a good faith effort

21:36by SLDC or they didn't want to pay the

21:39activation fees. It

21:42which are not that much. Usually it's

21:44the a compliance issue.

21:46Um

21:48And then we also but sometimes it's not

21:51worth it for them to

21:53to activate it if the investment was

21:55small or or the assessment didn't go up

21:57by much or something.

21:59Then the one on the right that I was

22:02talking about,

22:03approved by LCRA, but then not approved

22:05by the Board of Aldermen, seven of those

22:08were completed, four of those are areas,

22:11so

22:12um can't say if they've been completed

22:14or not, five were canceled or stalled.

22:17Sorry, two were pre-approved for

22:18redevelopment areas.

22:20Four are still under construction and

22:21planning.

22:23And then since 2017, we've had 27 easy

22:26projects passed by that board.

22:30Um 24 which were approved by the Board

22:32of Aldermen and 17 have had their

22:35incentive activated.

22:37And then for TIF, since 2007 between

22:402017 and 2025, we've had nine TIFs,

22:44eight which were approved by the Board

22:45of Aldermen and five where the incentive

22:48was activated.

22:50And so at this time we will take

22:52questions. Thank you.

23:11>> Thank you, Madeline. I think before we

23:12go into questions, we'll go ahead and

23:14get the public comment um portion done,

23:17and then we'll circle back that way if

23:18there's anything that can

23:20from the public comments, we can address

23:22those all at once. Thank you.

23:26If there's anyone in line or

23:28online, rather, that would like to speak

23:31on this uh compliance report, please

23:34turn your screen on and raise your right

23:35hand and swear to tell the whole truth

23:37and nothing but the truth.

23:45We just have one speaker, and it's Erj

23:47John

23:49Rickenbaugh. Okay.

23:52Come on up.

23:53Mr. Rickenbaugh, you swear to tell the

23:55whole truth and nothing but the truth?

23:56>> I do.

23:57>> Thank you. Please proceed.

23:59>> Uh good morning, uh

24:00Chair Clark Hubbard and members of the

24:02committee. Uh

24:04again, my name is John Rickenbaugh.

24:06And I

24:08am commenting on behalf of the SLPS

24:10Parent Action Council. Um and I try to

24:14emphasize not on behalf of SLPS itself.

24:17Um

24:18first of all, we just want to

24:21mention that we really do appreciate the

24:23work of the committee and the passage of

24:26Ordinance 71620, I think in 2023, and

24:30some subsequent uh

24:32further amendments and strengthening

24:34of that bill. Um I also think the report

24:37uh

24:38uh the annual compliance report is a is

24:40a nice piece of that, and I appreciated

24:42the uh the report. Um

24:45just a couple of comments uh to go over

24:47a little bit uh some to share some

24:49perspective from from the committee. Um

24:52uh

24:54we we really especially appreciate the

24:56uh inclusion of our recommendation to

25:00require SLDC consultation. Actually,

25:04it's The word is consultation, not

25:05notification, so I think that

25:08applies a little bit more, you know,

25:09back and forth and, you know, engagement

25:11with opinions than just

25:13uh notification does. But, um

25:17and again, that's for projects of 1

25:18million or more that are expected.

25:21Um

25:22it's interesting that in some states uh

25:24school boards which are empowered uh to

25:27a greater extent than here in Missouri

25:29in terms of having some level of veto

25:31power over a portion of their affected

25:34revenues from tax incentives. We don't

25:36have that here in Missouri, nor do we

25:38have much uh funding from the city of

25:40Missouri for public education, which is

25:42a big shame, but that's a different

25:44story.

25:45Um so, again, you know, we feel it's

25:47important that there's at least, you

25:48know, some consultation there because

25:50they really are impacted the most uh

25:52from from tax incentives. Uh when we're

25:55talking about property tax incentives,

25:57again, it's about 60% of the amount of

26:00incentives. Um and it's also kind of

26:03strange, you know, I I

26:05ideally, I think we'd like some uh SLPS

26:08representation at LCRA. I'm not sure why

26:11there's not at the moment and what it

26:13would take to get that, but uh that

26:15would be very helpful. And it's also

26:17kind of strange that um for whatever

26:18reasons, you know, I kind of wonder how

26:20did that happen, SLPS has a

26:23representative at the at the LRA, and it

26:26has two representatives on the TIF

26:28Commission, but it has zero, you know,

26:31on LCRA. So, again, that would be, you

26:33know, ideal. And again, for us, ideally,

26:36you know, having um

26:37you know, some kind of state law that

26:38that empowers school boards a little bit

26:40more, but that's I think a little bit

26:42beyond the the scope of today.

26:44Um

26:45next, I wanted to just kind of address a

26:47comment I made last week where

26:50I got kind of thrown for a loop on the

26:52development proposal report that it was

26:53missing from the bill for the

26:56Amberstones um

26:57project and we learned and I had a good

27:00discussion with Zach afterwards that it

27:02was prepared but what for whatever

27:04reason on the mechanics it wasn't

27:06attached to the bill and again that had

27:08been a problem that we have seen um kind

27:10of on a rather consistent basis where

27:13there's some form of deficiency with

27:16ordinance 71620 in terms of the

27:18development proposal report. In some

27:20cases it hasn't been attached to the

27:23bill so it probably was prepared but it

27:25wasn't you know attached to the bills

27:27and the public can never was able to see

27:29that. And then there are several

27:31instances where

27:33um

27:35a development proposal report was

27:36prepared but there was no

27:39uh

27:40information about SLP certification and

27:42I do notice that two of those were

27:45>> With the reg I'm wasting your time.

27:47>> Okay. We're

27:48Okay, thank you. We're regarding uh

27:50personal property tax bill so I'm not

27:52sure if that had any anything to do with

27:54that.

27:55Um

27:56And then of course regarding the area

27:58redevelopments we feel that in terms of

28:00the spirit of of uh consultation with

28:03SLPS we feel that they should be uh

28:05consulted as well.

28:07Um there are just to wrap up there are

28:09just a couple um

28:11things again that we might want to see

28:13some further changes in terms of the

28:15scorecard process and uh

28:18uh financial analysis and included and

28:20we'll we'll work on that and we'll share

28:21that in the future.

28:23Um and also think it's very important to

28:25recognize there's a lot of development

28:27going on in the city without any

28:29abatement and probably you know even

28:31several years ago they probably would

28:32have received an abatement but I think

28:35that's very good for the city that have

28:36some very exciting things continuing

28:39without any abatement. So we look

28:41forward to working with the committee on

28:42uh further reform and and uh moving our

28:44city forward.

28:46Thank you very much.

28:52>> That was the only speaker signed up.

29:04Okay.

29:07I put your name down.

29:14>> Yes, I do.

29:16Thanks for the opportunity to speak

29:17today. Uh I just wanted to highlight a

29:19couple of points. I was listening on my

29:21way down here um to the report from

29:24SLDC.

29:25And I think it'd be really helpful both

29:27for you and the public that we could

29:29have

29:31disclosure on all the projects going

29:33back the 10 years to see

29:36you know, what abatement they received,

29:38what their status is as to whether it

29:40was activated. Um and a little more

29:43detail on the ones that were done

29:45in redevelopment areas that didn't come

29:47through the Board of Aldermen.

29:49And one of those, and I think it came

29:51through LCRA in

29:542018,

29:55is the Fairfield Hotel, a Marriott

29:58that's right next to kind of the soccer

30:00headquarters on the south side of

30:02Market.

30:03And that got, I think, a 5-year 90%

30:06abatement. It got a SID. It got the

30:09sales tax exemption on materials.

30:12And because it sits within the north

30:15side regeneration TIF,

30:17it was an existing redevelopment area. I

30:19think that's why it didn't come to the

30:20board.

30:22The SID would have come to the board. Um

30:25and I think a case like that it

30:27now we're in a situation where even

30:29though McKee's projects have stalled,

30:32the redevelopment area, which is

30:33massive, is collecting um

30:37the the special allocation fund is

30:40collecting collecting the difference in

30:42assessment assessment plus um the

30:44economic activity taxes. So they're just

30:47accumulating and they're not flowing

30:49through

30:51to the relevant taxing jurisdictions.

30:54Um the controller's report that comes

30:57out every year, the annual comprehensive

30:59financial report,

31:01does have a section on there. It's the

31:03GASB 77 accounting procedures where

31:09the values per parcel are assigned to

31:12what the revenue being foregone is due

31:14to the incentives.

31:16And a friend of mine submitted a

31:18sunshine request for that and it comes

31:21back with all the parcel IDs. It doesn't

31:23have the actual property addresses. You

31:25can kind of figure out what some of them

31:27are.

31:28And you know, there's an example in

31:29there of a house that

31:32there were two houses on a property.

31:34They got torn down.

31:35The developer reassessed the land, so

31:37it's been paying less than $400 a year

31:40in taxes, and there's a house that's

31:42probably worth, you know, 400 to 600,000

31:46that's still benefiting from its 10-year

31:49abatement.

31:50Um and

31:52although the number of projects on the

31:54bar chart might look a lot from 20

31:5717 2018, a lot of those were single site

32:01spot lighting.

32:03And I think a lot of folks would agree

32:05that even at that time, particularly

32:08neighborhoods that were receiving them,

32:10Tower Grove South, Tower Grove East,

32:11Shaw, the Hill, Lafayette Square, didn't

32:15actually need an incentive of that size.

32:18So I think those are things that it

32:20would be helpful to have a little more

32:21disclosure as to which projects there

32:23are.

32:24And finally, the um

32:27the the redevelopment areas

32:30that are Chapter 353s,

32:32um they had a lot of residential

32:34development, notably the Gate District

32:37and um McCree Town / Botanical Heights.

32:42Within the last few years, there are

32:43homes getting developed in those

32:45neighborhoods that are getting

32:47you know, 5 to 10-year abatements and

32:50you know, these houses are like 400,000.

32:53There was one that sold for like 700,000

32:55in Botanical Heights.

32:57And when that redevelopment was done, I

32:59don't think the intent was

33:01we'd be, you know, abating for 10 years

33:04at 90% or 100%. Um houses that were

33:08selling for half a million dollars. So,

33:11I encourage more in transparency and

33:14forward to the Q&A.

33:16Thank you.

33:19>> That's the final speaker.

33:28>> Do you want my mic?

33:31>> We've got three questions. Ald. Miss

33:33Spencer.

33:35>> Thank you, Chairwoman Clark Hubbard, and

33:37thank you so much for the presentation.

33:38You always do a great job sharing the

33:40information and letting us know what's

33:42going on and where things are. So, I

33:43appreciate it. It always seems like this

33:45gets closer and closer in time every

33:47year, but really we just do it once a

33:48year, so.

33:49Um one of the two of the projects that

33:51I've been following along with are the

33:53Rail and 1014 Spruce, and those are

33:55related to tax abatements with some

33:58issues with um payment of prevailing

34:00wage. Um you know, on page eight of the

34:03presentation, the development agreement

34:05specifically mentions that if um the

34:09ordinances aren't complied with, there's

34:10a potential to not have their abatements

34:13activated. Those abatements have been

34:15activated, and there is proof that they

34:17haven't paid prevailing wage. So, is

34:18there any more information that is being

34:20discussed about that or or repayments um

34:23from those projects?

34:25>> I'll let Zach answer that.

34:27>> Uh Zach Whitson, SLDC. Those two

34:30projects are I would have you contact

34:33our attorneys. There is special

34:36agreements that have been worked out. I

34:38can't speak on that, but I'd be happy to

34:41put you in contact with

34:43>> Yeah, I'd really like to know what the

34:45special agreements are and um

34:48if they're going to if they've paid any

34:50of their underpayments. That's something

34:52that I'm really interested in.

34:53>> No, I'll definitely put you in contact

34:55with

34:56>> Okay.

34:57Um

35:00So, are you not going to answer any

35:02questions on those projects then?

35:04>> Um

35:04>> I have a lot of questions on those

35:05projects, but if every answer is just

35:07attorneys, I don't want to

35:08>> For those two projects, I cannot

35:10>> Okay.

35:10>> was not in part of the negotiations on

35:12that.

35:12>> Okay. Um one of the issues that came up

35:15with those properties is that prevailing

35:16wage hadn't been properly

35:19um

35:20calibrated in headcount. It was they

35:22were using the wage of the the I guess

35:25carpenter's union, not prevailing wage.

35:28Um has that been audited in other

35:30projects to make sure prevailing wage

35:32has been properly accounted for in

35:34projects especially from the same time?

35:36>> The I can't speak for that. The

35:39compliance department that handles

35:40prevailing wage and minor compliance is

35:42a separate department than mine.

35:45Uh

35:46we work separately. I get a letter from

35:48that department saying it's

35:51uh

35:52for or against compliance on during

35:55construction. Marilyn takes care of all

35:58compliance after construction is

35:59completed. Make sure those we get yearly

36:02reports on that to make sure they meet

36:04all the requirements that were

36:06established in the community scorecard.

36:08Uh the compliance department only

36:11focuses the construction compliance

36:13department focuses during construction

36:15is a separate department. Uh so we

36:18are two different silos if they meet the

36:21requirements, I get a letter and that's

36:23where we go why abatement is activated.

36:27Um

36:28during the rail and the spruce projects

36:32there was ongoing issues with those two

36:35projects.

36:37Uh there were

36:38extra meetings uh I was not involved

36:41with uh that

36:43I had

36:44a previous director uh reach out to come

36:48up with negotiations on how to

36:51uh correct

36:53uh

36:54missed wages.

36:55>> Mhm.

36:56>> I don't know if that correction has been

36:57addressed, but that's what part of the

37:00agreement was.

37:01>> Okay. Um yeah, I I I would like more

37:03information on that and I

37:05um I'm just wanting to make sure that

37:07the folks who are underpaid get get

37:09paid. Um

37:11and

37:12is SLDC responding is the attorney Do

37:15you know if the attorney's responding to

37:16questions that are from interested

37:18parties like labor organizations on

37:20this? Are they also supposed to be

37:21contacted?

37:23>> They sh- they should be, yes. They have

37:26I know there's been some since this lot

37:28of these programs are new and the

37:30software is new that we've

37:32uh SLDC has purchased in the past and

37:36prevailing wage did not

37:39work exactly the way they wanted to in

37:41the beginning stages.

37:43A lot of these were the earlier projects

37:45and we've found flaws and I I believe

37:48they're correcting those.

37:49>> Okay. I appreciate that. I think it

37:51would be very interesting in this report

37:53um in there if you know, if any flaws

37:55are found or if there's a moment where

37:57there's examples for each of these

37:58things like if there is a failure to

38:00comply that who failed to comply, what's

38:02being done about it. That's just as much

38:04a part of compliance that we want to see

38:05as, you know, what the standards are

38:07which we are aware of.

38:08>> And the minority and women owned goals

38:11will be hopefully becoming in front of

38:13this board uh very soon.

38:15>> Thank you. I appreciate the time

38:17answering questions.

38:17>> Thank you.

38:21>> Autumn M. Brownie.

38:27>> Uh thank you for the presentation. Uh

38:29all the ones twice have asked some of my

38:31questions, so I really appreciate that.

38:33While I'm questioning, um I'm also

38:35interested in some of the answers there.

38:38Um

38:39I suppose I'm wondering

38:41we heard some of the public speakers

38:43talk about how well development is doing

38:45in St. Louis.

38:47Um I don't think that's true. I think if

38:49we look at the numbers, we see the

38:50building permits are down despite a

38:53tornado hitting our city and a lot of

38:55housing needing repair, there's still

38:57not a lot of building permits being

38:58filed.

38:59Um I think there's a

39:03disturbing record of

39:05things that aren't really coming to

39:06light because they don't even make it to

39:08the political process. They don't even

39:10make it to to LCRA

39:12or the Board of Aldermen

39:14uh before they're canceled canceled. And

39:16I've spoken with developers who say they

39:18won't even consider developing in St.

39:20Louis

39:21uh because of the hoops they have to

39:24jump through and the unpredictability in

39:26the market. Um I was wondering if you

39:29could speak to

39:31from what you're seeing in the

39:32developers that you talk to as they work

39:34through the process, what are the

39:35concerns that they bring up?

39:38And uh what are some of the things that

39:40are preventing us from

39:43uh building more housing

39:45in St. Louis or building more commercial

39:49for create more jobs or you know, any

39:52any kind of development. What are the

39:54What are the roadblocks that you think

39:57currently exist that are decreasing our

40:00numbers and um making it really

40:02difficult to build right now that we're

40:04in control of. I would say I know that

40:05the market is tough right now. I know

40:07that the construction costs are really

40:08high. Interest rates are

40:11not historically high, but high for this

40:14decade. Um but is there anything else

40:17that you're

40:18hearing or

40:20seeing that might explain the

40:23slow

40:25production of

40:27new construction in the city?

40:34>> I would initially say our neighbors have

40:40no rules or guidelines to be honest with

40:42you.

40:43Uh

40:44We have a good system here, a good set

40:46of goals, good set of guidelines, good

40:49set of a process.

40:51We've misused incentives in the past. I

40:54would be 100% agree with everyone that

40:57says that.

40:58Uh we over did TIFs, we over did tax

41:00abatements in town areas

41:02that didn't need investment and we

41:05learned from those mistakes as we should

41:07do with all of history.

41:09Um when I first started in 2016, we had

41:123,700 tax abated parcels in the city of

41:15St. Louis.

41:16Right now we have about 1,500.

41:19Uh the other issue we have over 16,000

41:22tax exempt parcels in the city of St.

41:24Louis.

41:25Uh those things are those tax exempt

41:29proper- properties may provide jobs but

41:31they don't provide nothing to the bottom

41:33line of the city of St. Louis

41:35uh general budget.

41:37Uh tax abated parcels

41:39pay property taxes

41:41um and they also are active uh parcels.

41:44Um we also have a vacancy issue uh

41:47through the city of St. Louis over

41:4925,000 vacant parcels

41:52that are not active uh

41:54or sitting on the sidelines and we need

41:57those activated.

41:59The

42:00as many of these

42:02scorecards we produced are guidelines

42:05that we produced, the tax exempt tax

42:07abatement map we put online

42:10our uh

42:12transparency Uh we are try to

42:16uh

42:16put it online all the maps. Shows you

42:19every tax abatement parcel with

42:20currently receiving abatement. When

42:22those are coming off, we're showing

42:24every TIF. Hopefully we'll have 12 to 14

42:27TIFs uh retired this year. Uh we

42:30hopefully will see that board bill in

42:32the next couple uh weeks.

42:34Uh the issue is

42:37uh we have a clear process and we we've

42:40adopted all these new processes

42:44and procedures. We can't we should let

42:46it kind of breathe for a hopefully a

42:48year or two so developers and

42:50neighborhood groups understand it.

42:53Uh use it.

42:54Um and then I agree with the Alderwoman

42:58um Sweitzer.

43:00The prevailing wage is a

43:02ideal

43:03ordinance but

43:05when we enact these things we there's

43:07some growing pains and we need correct

43:11software and

43:12full-time staff to monitor all these

43:15projects. So

43:18the issues Cref Core gives out 20 years

43:20of tax abatement with guidelines.

43:23Most of the money will chase deals like

43:26that. Um

43:28we uh should rec

43:31uh

43:31encourage

43:33all uh projects like the Ryan Price

43:35project on uh

43:37Washington Locust. He's been working on

43:39that for four or five years.

43:41We should encourage the developers we

43:43have uh the good ones uh to keep on

43:46doing here in the city and

43:48uh do as much as we can to uh

43:51help them

43:53with this procedure.

43:55Uh I would I would just also say

43:58uh

44:00we

44:01as a city it has a conscience. Oh

44:05like the rules we have established and I

44:08also like the rules we have put on these

44:09abatements.

44:11Uh

44:12we're also kind of fine with one hand

44:14behind our back while Creve Coeur and

44:16other municipalities are

44:18freely doing

44:20no rules or guidelines, and that's part

44:22of the problem.

44:25>> Thank you. I can appreciate that. Um I

44:27think it's something to keep in mind as

44:29we are trying to attract

44:32people who want to build here and that

44:35we are competing with

44:37at least 88 different municipalities.

44:40Maybe they're not all equal in their

44:42terms of ability to attract development,

44:44but

44:45uh that we are

44:47plagued by the same problem that plagues

44:49our ability to attract more police

44:51officers for our

44:53SLMPD or our ability to attract more

44:56city employees for our departments.

44:58Uh

44:59the fragmentation provides people with

45:01other options and perhaps more appealing

45:05options.

45:06Uh depending on

45:08what they're looking to do. So, um

45:11that's why I caution that we as a city

45:13need to keep in mind the context in

45:16which we exist.

45:18Uh and make sure that we are still

45:20competitive. Um

45:22and I think that SLDC is a key part of

45:25that, but there needs to be that trust

45:27in the process and make sure that we are

45:30um being very up front, providing that

45:33predictability, providing that

45:35accountability to make sure that things

45:36are being done correctly and clarifying

45:40things like the prevailing wage

45:41ordinance so that we know which

45:43prevailing wage we're asking for, and

45:45people can use that in their numbers.

45:47Uh

45:48so that we have active compliance

45:51monitoring so that we can make sure that

45:53people are

45:54adhering to these projects so that they

45:55are benefiting the city in the way that

45:57we laid out. Um all very important, and

46:00I think SLDC is a is a good partner in

46:02that.

46:03And I look forward to continuing to try

46:05to work to make sure that we're

46:07uh always improving in that area. Um I

46:09want to be very clear, I'm for

46:11responsible development. I want to make

46:12sure that we're doing it the right way.

46:14But uh this report was very uh very

46:18helpful to understanding where we're at.

46:19And um

46:21I look forward to uh discussing these

46:23things a little more with you, but

46:24appreciate your time today.

46:26>> Thank you.

46:27Alderman Aldrich.

46:29>> Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the

46:31Huds Committee. Uh thank you, Madeleine,

46:33for the presentation and SLDC

46:37uh for the work that you all did to put

46:38this together. Um

46:41no questions. I always look forward to

46:43kind of getting this annual update to

46:45kind of figure out um

46:47you know, where we are with some of the

46:49tax abatements um

46:51and TIFs project that we haven't done in

46:53a very long time, which I think the

46:56board I think has um

46:58uh Zachary said has put in

47:01some more safeguards. You know, I've

47:03heard that

47:05um before I got to the board, tax

47:07abatements and TIFs, mainly TIFs, was

47:09passed out like Halloween candy.

47:11Um and I'm glad that and I do agree with

47:14the alderman from the ninth, we we we

47:16definitely I think as we put these

47:18safeguards in place that we have um I

47:21think Mr. Wilson also talked about it

47:23some a guideline for developers to know

47:25kind of what the rules are, but I am

47:27glad that there has been some um

47:30proactive changes to the way we do

47:32development and not just think about

47:37incentivizing developers,

47:39um but also think about what does that

47:41look like for the growth of the city.

47:43You know, I think of some developers

47:45um that we were stuck with. Um

47:47not the same, but I could just I'm going

47:49to say it like Paul McKee, right? We

47:50gave him a lot, and look at us now.

47:52Right? So, only thing we could do is

47:54like, you know, live and learn. And

47:58I do appreciate the work that you guys

47:59are doing

48:01to try to track development but also the

48:02work that this body has done to put

48:05safeguards in place. My

48:07also I got to echo the sentiments from

48:09all the women Sweitzer

48:11the concerns around

48:14some of the prevailing wages on the two

48:17projects which I know Mr. Wilson said he

48:19he can't speak on it sounds like there

48:21may be a concern of a lot of folks on

48:23the HUDs committee so not sure what

48:25legally the lawyer can just provide to

48:27us for clarity on those two projects.

48:33And is it I guess is it a requirement

48:37outside of the prevailing wage is when

48:40these projects are happening that there

48:42is signage posted on these projects of

48:47the actual wage or

48:50um

48:53>> Yeah, that's part of the compliance

48:56departments construction compliance

48:58group that have goes out site visits and

49:01look at

49:02things like that. The part of the

49:04problem was when the

49:06minority compliance department that was

49:09established for from the previous

49:10ordinance

49:12has been up and running for a while and

49:14when the prevailing wage ordinance

49:16passed they kind of thought oh who

49:19should just take this on here minority

49:21compliance department you take this on

49:22also so that there was some there was

49:25some growing pains during that process

49:28because that department was doing extra

49:31more so than they were built out for

49:34but they do have site visits and uh

49:37and they're catching up so yes.

49:41>> Um

49:42and it's the developer only get the tax

49:46abatement once all those

49:48things are been signed off as they've

49:51done it correctly.

49:53>> That's how it's Yes, that's how it's

49:55supposed to

49:56>> Is that a compliance office? Is it like

49:59one individual that gets the checklist

50:02of all the things that have been

50:04approved and they sign off? Is it the I

50:06guess the president CEO that signs off

50:09on the I guess who signs off on the

50:11everything's been

50:13checked off right and they sign off and

50:15say

50:16>> The usual process is if the project is

50:21all the way completed and met all the

50:23guys and goals and guidelines, I get a

50:25letter saying this project exceeded

50:28expectations or met expectations.

50:31And I write a letter to the assessor,

50:33"Please activate this abatement."

50:35Spruce and Rail was dragging on for

50:37years, I believe, a year or two at

50:40least,

50:41uh after construction construction was

50:43completed.

50:45Uh that went up above me and they there

50:47was extra discussions.

50:50>> And

50:51>> the abatement was activated on under

50:53some

50:54agreement with the developer to pay for

50:57the missing wages of some sort, but I

51:00I would have to get the counsel to

51:04the legal counsel to uh give you more

51:06details on that part.

51:07>> I appreciate that, Zach. And then, um do

51:10we know

51:11cuz I know one of the future projects

51:13that's coming up,

51:14uh the Cass Bank, and I know I've been

51:16asking you about that. Is that coming in

51:18front of maybe planning?

51:20>> We're going from plan tomorrow, uh

51:22tomorrow night, on Goodfellow, as a

51:25neighborhood uh neighborhood planning's

51:28being adopted, but it'll be

51:30that resolution's believes right after

51:32that one vote. It'll go up for vote

51:34tomorrow night.

51:35>> Okay. Thank you.

51:36>> be in front of this board hopefully in a

51:37couple weeks or weeks.

51:39>> Thank you.

51:41>> Vice Chair Sinyangwe.

51:46Thank you.

51:47Um I appreciate the report. Um I don't

51:50really have any questions

51:53per se to the report. Um, what I will

51:56say that I guess that Mr. Wilson can't

51:58say, um, but I'll speak to, um,

52:00especially as someone who gets the

52:02privilege of serving on SLDC's board.

52:04Um, some of the questions that my

52:07colleagues are asking are questions that

52:08I've asked in that space as well. Um,

52:12and some of the questions arise because

52:14there were incentives that were

52:16activated even though the project was

52:18not in compliance, and that was a

52:20decision that was made by, um, the

52:23previous director of SLDC, uh Mr. Otis

52:27Williams, who, um, kind of activated

52:30those incentives even though they

52:31weren't in compliance by ordinances.

52:33Typically, the leverage for SLDC to get

52:35someone to come into compliance is that

52:37they do not activate the incentive

52:39until, um, the person has showed

52:41compliance. Um, but in this case, it was

52:43one of the parting gifts that Mr.

52:45Williams left was activating the said

52:47incentive. And something that I noted

52:49that was interesting was that typically

52:50Mr. Wilson signs off on those

52:52incentives. This case, uh, it was

52:54actually Otis Williams who signed off on

52:56this incentive himself. Uh, so I've

52:58already been vocal. I just want to be

52:59transparent as I have in those board

53:01meetings and this setting as well that

53:03that is something that needs to be

53:04addressed, um, that it did take us out

53:06of compliance even though there's a new

53:08director now, and that decision was made

53:10again, as I said, as a partner gift of

53:12the previous director. Um, I do think it

53:14leaves serious concerns, um, need to be

53:17addressed, and I think it's alarming

53:18that an executive director would

53:20activate an incentive that is not in

53:22compliance with ordinances on the books.

53:24Um, and so I think that needs to be

53:26resolved and needs to be a a further

53:28conversation. I understand that it is

53:30um, a legal matter because when you do

53:32things that don't comply with

53:33ordinances, you open yourselves up to

53:34legal vulnerabilities. Um, but I think,

53:37you know, I think I would say my

53:38interest and probably a lot of my

53:39colleagues' interest is in making sure

53:41the reason we have ordinances on the

53:42books are because we want to have laws

53:45that dictate, you know, that workers

53:46have got to be paid and we want to make

53:48sure that people are actually following

53:49through and doing what they said they

53:51would. Um and so I don't think that's

53:53anything for you necessarily to respond

53:54to, Madam Leary, or even Mr. Wilson, but

53:56I do want to be transparent and state

53:58that on the record and I will continue

53:59to raise this as um both here as a vice

54:02chair and as a SLDC board member. Thank

54:05you.

54:07>> All right, thank you. Did you all have

54:09any remarks to make?

54:12I think we're good.

54:12>> No, I don't think so.

54:14>> Okay.

54:16Okay, well, thank you uh so much and if

54:18you could put it I'm I will say all of

54:20us um received the same phone calls

54:22about those issues and understand um the

54:24sensitivity now since it's in the hands

54:26of the lawyers and will hopefully be

54:29able to stay abreast so that we can give

54:31some

54:33some assurance um to the people um they

54:35have been victimized by this. I will

54:37even, you know, it will I'll be remiss

54:39if I didn't say one person, you know,

54:41passed before he was able to be

54:43compensated. So this is a real issue um

54:46that we are all aware and want to be

54:48able to work with you all to address.

54:51Thank you.

54:53Uh with that, I'll see if anybody uh do

54:57we have it Thank you so much. You get

54:59off the hot seat.

55:01Uh do we have any written testimony?

55:05I'm sorry, right. I have your microphone

55:07now.

55:07>> We have none.

55:09>> Any announcements, anyone?

55:14Uh we need to excuse Alderman Menkone,

55:17third ward, for necessary absence.

55:19>> I move.

55:20>> Second.

55:21>> moved by Alderman Aldridge and seconded

55:23by Vice Chair Sonya that we excuse

55:25Alderman Aldridge for necessary absence.

55:29Alderman Alderman Menkone, right, for

55:32necessary absence.

55:34All in favor.

55:36I. Okay.

55:38Um with that I'll accept the motion to

55:39adjourn.

55:43It was moved by Alderman Audrey to

55:45second it by Vice Chair Signey that we

55:47adjourn with the copper previous vote.

55:50But Alderwoman Spicer, we are adjourned.

55:52Everyone have a blessed day.