The St. Louis Board of Aldermen descended into confusion and chaos on Friday after board President Megan Green abruptly ended the meeting as members of the board began to discuss the Transform STL Act, which seeks to allocate $294 million in Rams settlement money.
Members were just preparing to question Ward 7 Alderwoman Alisha Sonnier, one of the bill’s sponsors, when Green gaveled the meeting into a recess, indicating it would resume next Tuesday before striding out of the chambers.
“There were procedural motions afoot to bring dysfunction to debate,” Green said during an impromptu press conference after the fact. “It’s very clear to me that there [have] to be conversations that take place amongst board members and for cooler heads to prevail if we’re to get anywhere in this debate.”
Some members questioned if Green’s move was out of line with the rules of the board, but Green said the board president has the ability to unilaterally recess a meeting — not adjourn it.
“There’s a difference,” she said. “We have essentially paused the meeting, and we’ll take [it] up at the exact same place where we left off on Tuesday.”
From the moment it started, Friday’s board meeting was tense. It was the first time, the full board was set to consider a compromise reached last week between Sonnier and Ward 13 Alderwoman Pamela Boyd.
The two board members had each filed bills earlier in the session laying out independent versions of how to spend the Rams money but had managed to find common ground on a single proposal. That proposal dedicates funding for water infrastructure, streets and sidewalks, housing and neighborhood development, piloting child care subsidies for city workers, direct investments in downtown and north St. Louis.
What had been a show of collaboration last week devolved when Ward 2 Alderman Tom Oldenburg moved for Boyd’s original proposal, which he was a co-sponsor on, to also be considered on Friday’s agenda.
During discussion of the motion, Boyd expressed her frustration at amendments passed at last week’s Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee. Amendments from Green had reallocated $14 million away from downtown and to housing and neighborhood development, as well as to an endowment fund whose interest would pilot programs to offset child care costs for city workers.
“That was disrespectful to me. I feel this bill needs to be redrafted,” Boyd said. “The compromise became null and void because we had 10 amendments that the HUDZ committee accepted.”
Members approved the motion, meaning the full board would consider both the compromise reached by Sonnier and Boyd and Boyd’s original proposal. Ward 14 Alderman Rasheen Aldridge was happy to see his colleagues work together.
“It was beautiful to see the joint collaboration,” he said. “I think there has been a notion that some of us north side alders can’t get along. So when I was seeing that, it was almost like maybe we can start to reset.”
Sonnier shared a similar sentiment when discussion began on the Transform STL Act. She had introduced substitution language that restored the funding to levels that she and Boyd’s had originally agreed on.
“The best part of this entire process was actually working with Alderwoman Boyd. It really was,” she said. “It was so refreshing to be able to have genuine conversations with her and put a lot of things aside and figure out a pathway forward based off a genuine love and connection for our city.”
Members of the board didn’t get much further into discussion before Green moved to recess the meeting.
“I had to gavel members of the board several times because I could not hear given all of the talking that was happening,” Green said. “We came in today and had an understanding about amendments to [Sonnier and Boyd’s compromise] and then all of that went out the door.”
Afterward, Sonnier said Friday’s meeting reflected her colleagues’ frustration at amendments made to her and Boyd’s proposal.
“A majority of them did not necessarily have an issue with the [original compromise], but they were unhappy with specifically the amendments,” Sonnier said. “I know that at one point [our compromised bill] did have more than we needed to get through: eight votes.”
The Trump administration’s withdrawn attempt to freeze federal funding has some members balking at allocating the full $294 million, which is the preference of Sonnier, Green and Mayor Tishaura Jones. Ward 1 Alderwoman Anne Schweitzer said a minority of the board supports fully allocating the Rams money.
Schweitzer said the majority of her colleagues now support passing $40 million for water infrastructure and holding off on allocating the rest of the funds. She said she had prepared substitution language for both bills being considered Friday that would make that change.
“This is because of so much uncertainty at the federal level and the certainty that we need to make sure that the water division has the funding it needs to provide the most essential, most basic city services,” she said. “What you saw today was a group of people organized and ready to move that forward.”
Ward 4 Alderman Bret Narayan and Ward 9 Alderman Michael Browning have expressed similar sentiments.
“There are several infrastructure projects, especially in St. Louis, that have been years in the making and that federal match might not be there,” Browning said. “I think it’s a good idea to allocate money towards our water division but then use the next session to discuss the most prudent use of this money.”
He referenced the city’s upcoming bridge replacements, including the Lindell-Union bridge, where “a lot of the money was being provided by the federal government” to make upgrades. There’s also a chance to check with constituents on how they want Rams funding to be spent with spring elections for some members of the board right around the corner, Browning added.
“I don’t see anything wrong with checking with our constituents on this and making sure that we are addressing the city’s most critical needs,” he said.
Green, for her part, pushed back on this notion saying the city has already conducted robust community engagement with tens of thousands of residents over the past 14 months on how to spend the Rams money.
“Sixteen-thousand residents have weighed in on the Rams settlement process,” she said. “They’re counting on us to have their voices heard in the final legislation that passes the finish line.”
The board resumes consideration of both proposals at 10 a.m. Tuesday.
This story has been updated.
