Members of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen have chosen to end discussions on allocating $294 million in Rams settlement money without any agreement. They likely will not resume consideration of any spending proposals until after board elections this spring.
The board did not agree to perfect any bill spending the Rams money, instead moving proposals from Ward 7 Alisha Sonnier and Ward 13 Pamela Boyd to the board鈥檚 informal calendar.
The decision came after about two hours of debate on Tuesday morning when the board reconvened from an abrupt recess last Friday after that session devolved into chaos.
鈥淧reviously on the St. Louis Board of Aldermen,鈥� Ward 1 Alderwoman Anne Schweitzer joked as the meeting resumed.
The tone of Tuesday鈥檚 meeting was much more subdued than Friday鈥檚 as board members picked up right where they left off. Schweitzer had put forward substitution language for the Transform STL Act, sponsored by Alisha Sonnier, that would only allocate $40 million to the city鈥檚 water division, leaving the rest to be appropriated later.
鈥淲ater is the most basic of the basic,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t is the one thing we cannot live without.鈥�
Schweitzer said she put forward the proposal because it was something a majority of her colleagues on the board appeared to agree on.
鈥淲hen I started to ask them, 鈥榃hat are the parts of this bill that you like?鈥� they would say, 鈥榃ater and downtown,鈥� 鈥榃ater and north side,鈥� 鈥榃ater and mobility,鈥� 鈥榃ater and housing,鈥欌�� she said. 鈥淚t just kept coming back to a common theme.鈥�
Ward 9 Alderman Michael Browning echoed this viewpoint with a finer point on the commitment to water infrastructure that was included in legislation filed by Sonnier and Boyd.
鈥淭he water [funding] was the only piece that had identical language in both bills,鈥� he said, adding their other shared goals, like investment in north St. Louis, small business support or housing production, had different language.
Discussions on the stripped-down spending proposal began to shift when Ward 12 Alderwoman Sharon Tyus took to the floor to voice her displeasure.
鈥淲e have no reason to pass the water bill and leave everything else out,鈥� she said. 鈥淭he whole thing about a compromise is to do something that people can agree to. It is not a compromise when you say, 鈥榃e鈥檙e just going to pull out the water bill because that鈥檚 the only thing people agree with.鈥欌��
Other members representing north St. Louis agreed with this viewpoint, specifically taking issue with the lack of allocation for the city鈥檚 long-disinvested and underserved north side.
鈥淚t is a shame and kind of a slap in the face for me as a Black alder to hear from my colleagues, 鈥極h, we care about north side [...] we need to support it, but let鈥檚 not do that right now. Let鈥檚 just do water,鈥欌�� Ward 14 Alderman Rasheen Aldridge said. 鈥淚f we can do water now, we can also do north St. Louis.鈥�
Aldridge pushed two amendments to the legislation that sought to allocate $50 and $100 million, respectively, to north St. Louis neighborhoods in addition to the funding for water infrastructure. The bills were moved to the board's informal calendar before the latter amendment could be voted on.
For Sonnier, who chaired the monthslong process to gather public feedback on how to spend the Rams money and sponsored one of the bills seeking to allocate it, the meetings Friday and Tuesday reflected the danger of getting far along in the legislative process without consensus.
鈥淚鈥檓 scared and nervous that we鈥檝e hit a point where we鈥檙e having this conversation, and it鈥檚 this portion of the city against this portion of the city,鈥� she said. 鈥淚f we were to come to the table and work together, we could hopefully arrive at something where the majority of the needs of our city are met.鈥�
Other board members noted a 鈥渇alse sense of urgency鈥� because of the break starting next week for spring elections for mayor, city comptroller and odd-numbered wards. Ward 6 Alderwoman Daniela Velazquez pointed to the piecemeal nature of the amendments.
鈥淚t鈥檚 dangerous for us to be putting millions and millions of dollars in here and there without a plan,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e鈥檙e in an election year; why is there an urgency to resolve the problems [of the] city? These problems did not start today.鈥�
Ward 4 Alderman Bret Narayan also pointed out the duplicative language and lack of definitions in some of the amendments.
鈥淭his all sounds like discussion that we should have been having in committee,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 a shame that we鈥檙e having it on the floor. It鈥檚 a clear sign that the legislation isn鈥檛 ready to go.鈥�
He added the board would still be successful in not passing anything since these funds continue to grow in an interest-bearing account and do not have a timeframe that they must be spent, unlike American Rescue Plan Act dollars that had to be allocated by the end of last year and must be entirely spent by the end of 2026.
Tyus said the water division would be able to manage for the few months when the board won鈥檛 meet for elections, adding the department likely wouldn鈥檛 be able to get many projects started during that time anyway, even if the board approved allocating them money.
鈥淚f you don鈥檛 have an exact timeline, I can almost guarantee they got to figure out the project, write up a request for proposal, put that out,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e will be back here and working on this [by that time].鈥�
Eventually, Tyus asked both bill sponsors in Boyd and Sonnier if they would move their legislation to the informal calendar, effectively ending debate before election season.
Reaction to no agreement
Browning said he left the meeting feeling disappointed because funding for water infrastructure had been something his colleagues appeared to agree wholeheartedly with.
鈥淪uddenly today, when we try to focus on what we can agree on, we couldn鈥檛 all agree,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 think the antics we saw on Friday were indicative of poor leadership.鈥�
Schweitzer added it was a situation she was trying to avoid with the bill鈥檚 elements that people didn鈥檛 agree on getting in the way of what they did.
鈥淚 think people are sick of seeing inaction from their city government,鈥� she said. 鈥淚t is what it is. We just have to roll with it. I鈥檓 still going to be fighting for water, for basic city services, for infrastructure.鈥�
However, other board members had less negative views on the end discussion without any agreement.
鈥淎 good leader has to know when to move forward and when to pause,鈥� Sonnier said. 鈥淎nd it鈥檚 important that community can see that you鈥檙e not a leader who鈥檚 just dead set on what you individually want.鈥�
Aldridge added that the community input incorporated into the process to figure out how to spend Rams money highlighted many goals in addition to spending on water infrastructure. In many public comments during committee hearings on the legislation, multiple city residents expressed a clear desire for the city to make investments in north city and for child care.
鈥淲hat we [saw] Friday was a maneuver to say, 鈥極h no, let's just do water. We all agree on that,鈥欌�� Aldridge said. 鈥淲hy are we leaving out people in north St. Louis? Why are we leaving out folks downtown? Why are we leaving out the child care advocates?鈥�
He added there鈥檚 now an opportunity to return after the April elections and collaborate on a piece of legislation that represents multiple needs and provides many opportunities for residents to tap into.
Greater St. Louis Inc. Interim CEO Dustin Allison said in a statement the lack of action at the board meant the city鈥檚 needs would go unmet. Greater St. Louis Inc. had lobbied for a portion of the Rams money to go downtown.
鈥淲aiting doesn鈥檛 get St. Louis growing again, and we continue our call for the city to use Rams settlement funds to address depopulation in north St. Louis and revitalizing downtown so that the city can expand its population and grow its tax base,鈥� he said.
Mayor Tishaura Jones, in a statement, said she had been inclined to keep the Rams money where it would accrue interest but was proud of the compromise reached by Boyd and Sonnier.
鈥淲hen cooler heads prevail, my hope is that the Board of Aldermen will bring a bill to my desk that directs these historic funds to benefit all of St. Louis in ways that our residents can see and feel,鈥� she said. 鈥淯ntil then, these funds will continue to grow.鈥�
