St. Louis Board of Aldermen: Board Bills 62-75 (UPDATED)

There are 15 new bills to be introduced at the St. Louis Board of Aldermen today. Some further butcher the street grid, others related to development projects.

ON AGENDA FOR INTRODUCTION TODAY 6/16/17:

(Note: as of 7:30pm last night the pages with full bill language were not available). The following was updated at 7am on 6/22/17 — a few changes from the original agenda.  Looks like one bill was pulled so the last on the list was moved up so all wouldn’t need to be renumbered.

• B.B.#62 – Ogilvie –An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to conditionally vacate above surface, surface and sub? surface rights for travel in the western 65 feet of the 15 foot wide east/west alley in City Block 4649?A as bounded by Eitman, Sulphur, Columbia and Clifton Park Terrace/ C. B. 4700 (aka Clifton Park).
• B.B.#63 – Coatar –An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to conditionally vacate travel in the southern north/south alley in City Block 483?E as bounded by Hickory, Grattan, Park and Dolman.
• B.B.#64 – Martin –An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to conditionally vacate travel in Primm Street from Reilly Avenue westwardly to a point in City Blocks 3126 and 3150.
• B.B.#64 – Muhammad –An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for 4025 Shreve Ave.
• B.B.#65 – Bosley –An ordinance recommended by the Board of Public Service to conditionally vacate travel in the 20′ wide n/s alley in City Block 2485 beginning at Carter Ave. and extending southwardly to the northern line of the 20′ wide alley in City Block 2485 as bounded by Carter, Grand, Penrose and Obear.
• B.B.#66 – Kennedy/Muhammad –An Ordinance setting out regulations regarding the use of surveillance technology by the City, requiring the submission of Surveillance Program Plans and review by the Board of Aldermen before such plans can be put into practice; and containing a severability clause and an emergency clause.
• B.B.#67 – Ogilvie – An Ordinance designating a portion of the City as a redevelopment area known as the 6300 Clayton Avenue Redevelopment Area pursuant to the Real Property Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act; adopting and approving a redevelopment plan, adopting and approving a redevelopment project with respect thereto; adopting tax increment financing within the redevelopment area; establishing the 6300 Clayton Avenue Special Allocation Fund; authorizing certain actions by City officials; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#68 – Ogilvie –An Ordinance authorizing the execution of a redevelopment agreement between The City and Hibernia Dogtown Development, Inc.; prescribing the form and details of said agreement; authorizing other related actions in connection with such agreement; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#69 – Ogilvie –An Ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment authorizing and directing the issuance and delivery of not to exceed $3,800,000 plus issuance costs principal amount of tax increment revenue notes (6300 Clayton Avenue Redevelopment Project) Series 20__?A/B; prescribing the form and details of such notes and the covenants and agreements made by the City to facilitate and protect the payment thereof; prescribing other matters relating thereto, and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#70 – Conway –An Ordinance designating a portion of The City as a redevelopment area known as the Municipal Courts Building Hotel Redevelopment Area pursuant to the Real Property Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act; adopting and approving a redevelopment plan, adopting and approving a redevelopment project for the portion of the redevelopment area known as RPA 1; adopting tax increment financing within RPA 1; making findings with respect thereto; establishing the Municipal Courts Building Hotel RPA 1 Special Allocation Fund; authorizing certain actions by City officials; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#71 – Conway –An Ordinance authorizing the execution of a redevelopment agreement between The City and MCB Hotel Owner, LLC; prescribing the form and details of said agreement; authorizing other related actions in connection with such agreement; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#72 – Conway –An Ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment authorizing and directing the issuance and delivery of tax increment revenue notes (Municipal Courts Building Hotel Redevelopment Project) Series 20__?A/B, of The City of St. Louis, Missouri, in the principal amount of not?to? exceed $9,870,000 plus issuance costs; prescribing the form and details of such notes and the covenants and agreements made by the City to facilitate and protect the payment thereof; prescribing other matters relating thereto, and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#73 – Davis – An ordinance authorizing the honorary street name, Justine M. Petersen Pathway. Justine M. Petersen Pathway will begin at the intersection of N. Grand and Windsor Place and run west on Windsor Place to the intersection of N. Spring Avenue and Windsor Place.
• B.B.#74 – Kennedy –An ordinance approving a blighting study and redevelopment plan for Cook Ave. & Finney Ave. Scattered Sites Redevelopment Area; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#75 – Vaccaro – An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for 3118 Watson Road.
• B.B.#76 – Muhammad –An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for 4025 Shreve Ave.

The meeting begins at 10am, it can be watched online here. See list of all board bills for the 2017-2018 session.

— Steve Patterson

Readers: Remove Payroll Tax Exemption From Not-For-Profit Employers With More Than 20 Employees

Employers in the city pay a one-half of one percent payroll tax, but many have been exempted from this requirement. Ald Conway wants to end the exemptions for those with 21 or more employees:

BOARD BILL NO. 58 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN STEPHEN CONWAY An ordinance pertaining to the payroll expense tax, repealing, subject to voter approval, those exemptions from the tax in section nine of ordinance 60737 for religious and charitable organizations and institutions, not-for-profit civic, social, service or fraternal organizations, not-for-profit hospitals and not-for-profit educational institutions that employ more than twenty (20) employees; submitting to the qualified voters the question whether the exemptions to the payroll expense tax for religious and charitable organizations and institutions, not-for-profit civic, social, service or fraternal organizations, not-for-profit hospitals, and not-for profit educational institutions that employ more than twenty (20) employees shall be repealed and a payroll expense tax of one-half of one percent (0.5%) imposed; providing for the conducting of an election on such a question; providing, upon voters’ approval of such repeal of the exemptions, for the effective date for imposition of the payroll expense tax upon religious and charitable organizations and institutions, not-for-profit civic, social, service or fraternal organizations, not-for-profit hospitals, and not-for-profit educational institutions that employ more than twenty (20) employees; with an emergency clause.

If you look at the language in Board Bill 58 you’ll see it doesn’t mention any by name, just “religious and charitable organizations and institutions, not-for-profit civic, social, service or fraternal organizations, not-for-profit hospitals, and not-for profit educational institutions ” I’ve never been a fan of Ald Conway, but I agree with him on removing exemptions.

I’m not sure how 20 employees become his threshold. Why not 15 or 25? No threshold at all? Hopefully this will be discussed in the committee hearing on the bill. Ald Conway just happens to be Chair of the Ways & Means Committee. The committee meets at 9am this morning, but #58 isn’t listed on the event page.  Either it isn’t being considered or the website is out of space to list additional bills.

Committee members are:

• Stephen Conway, Chair
• Pam Boyd
• John Collins-Muhammad
• Marlene E Davis
• Carol Howard
• Samuel L Moore
• Beth Murphy
• Joseph Vaccaro

In the recent non-scientific Sunday Poll a majority of readers agreed these should no longer be exempt:

Q:  Agree or disagree: Large not-for-profit employers should remain exempt from a St. Louis payroll tax.

• Strongly agree 5 [16.67%]
• Agree 1 [3.33%]
• Somewhat agree 4 [13.33%]
• Neither agree or disagree 1 [3.33%]
• Somewhat disagree 3 [10%]
• Disagree 8 [26.67%]
• Strongly disagree 8 [26.67%]
• Unsure/No Answer 0 [0%]

If the Board of Aldermen approves this bill citizens would vote on removing the exemption. Just because a majority here favored removing the exemption doesn’t mean voters would do the same.

— Steve Patterson

50 Years Since Unanimous SCOTUS Decision In Loving v Virginia

Half a century ago today the US Supreme Court unanimously ruled laws outlawing interracial marriage were unconstitutional.

On June 12, 1967, the nation’s highest court voted unanimously to overturn the conviction of Richard and Mildred Loving, a young interracial couple from rural Caroline County, Va. 

That decision struck down the anti-miscegenation laws — written to prevent the mixing of the races — that were on the books at the time in more than a dozen states, including Virginia. (NPR)

The first 9 years of their marriage included arrests, moving to DC, and prolonged legal battles.

Few cases were more aptly named than Loving v. Virginia, which pitted an interracial couple – 17-year-old Mildred Jeter, who was black, and her childhood sweetheart, 23-year-old white construction worker, Richard Loving – against Virginia’s ‘miscegenation’ laws banning marriage between blacks and whites. After marrying in Washington, D.C. and returning to their home state in 1958, the couple was charged with unlawful cohabitation and jailed. 

The Lovings left Virginia and went to live with relatives in Washington, D.C. When they returned to visit family five years later, they were arrested for traveling together. Inspired by the civil rights movement, Mildred Loving wrote to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy for help. The couple was referred to the ACLU, which represented them in the landmark Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia (1967). The Court ruled that state bans on interracial marriage were unconstitutional. (ACLU)

Mildred Loving was on Indian descent, but often viewed as black. Nevertheless, she wasn’t white.

The Lovings, who had married in the District of Columbia on June 2, 1958, were in violation of Virginia code 20–54, which declared marriages between “white and colored persons” unlawful, as well as code 20–58, which made it unlawful to go out of state to marry with the intention to return and cohabit as husband and wife. The original legislation, which became the Racial Integrity Act on March 20, 1924, defined a white person as having only Caucasian blood. The Virginia ruling class, however, claiming descent from Pocahontas and John Rolfe, successfully lobbied the legislature to revise the definition to include what became known as the “Pocahontas Exception,” meaning that those with no more than 1/16th American Indian ancestry would be legally considered white.(Time)

Virginia’s position was interesting:

The State does not contend in its argument before this Court that its powers to regulate marriage are unlimited notwithstanding the commands of the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor could it do so. Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. The argument is that, if the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages. On this question, the State argues, the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages. 

Because we reject the notion that the mere “equal application” of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment’s proscription of all invidious racial discriminations, we do not accept the State’s contention that these statutes should be upheld if there is any possible basis for concluding that they serve a rational purpose. The mere fact of equal application does not mean that our analysis of these statutes should follow the approach we have taken in cases involving no racial discrimination where the Equal Protection Clause has been arrayed against a statute discriminating between the kinds of advertising which may be displayed on trucks in New York City or an exemption in Ohio’s ad valorem tax for merchandise owned by a nonresident in a storage warehouse. In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures. In the case at bar, however, we deal with statutes containing racial classifications, and the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes drawn according to race. (Source)

Here’s the trailer for the 2016 film based on their story.

A 4-minute vintage news report:

I know an interracial couple who were married prior to the Loving v Virginia decision — but my friends were from Manhattan so it wasn’t illegal, However, that doesn’t mean their relationship was met with approval or their children weren’t teased.

Loving v Virginia was cited in the 2015 SCOTUS decision in Obergefell v Hodges allowing same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

Mildred Loving wrote in 2007:

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God’s plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation’s fears and prejudices have given way, and today’s young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don’t think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the “wrong kind of person” for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights.

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.

— Mildred Loving 

Richard Loving was killed in a car accident in 1975, Mildred died in 2008 (source). I’m forever grateful to both of them — and the ACLU.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Should Large Non-Profits Remain Exempt From A Local Payroll Tax?

On Fridsy a bill was introduced at the St. Louis Board of Aldermen to increased revenue to pay for more police, and increase their salaries.

Alderman Stephen Conway says he’d like to end the city’s exemption of the half percent payroll tax granted to nonprofits.

“We are losing officers,” Conway says referring to the higher salaries being offered in nearby St. Louis County.

Conway estimates the payroll tax on large nonprofits could generate over $8 million a year to go towards giving police officers a raise and hiring more. (KMOV)

The official summary of Board Bill 58 is:

An ordinance pertaining to the payroll expense tax, repealing, subject to voter approval, those exemptions from the tax in section nine of ordinance 60737 for religious and charitable organizations and institutions, not?for?profit civic, social, service or fraternal organizations, not?for?profit hospitals and not?for?profit educational institutions that employ more than twenty (20) employees; submitting to the qualified voters the question whether the exemptions to the payroll expense tax for religious and charitable organizations and institutions, not? for?profit civic, social, service or fraternal organizations, not?for? profit hospitals, and not?for profit educational institutions that employ more than twenty (20) employees shall be repealed and a payroll expense tax of one?half of one percent (0.5%) imposed; with an emergency clause.

Which brings us to today’s poll:

This poll will close at 8pm tonight.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Board of Aldermen: Board Bills 49-61

Last week the St. Louis Board of Aldermen had new Board Bills 43-48 on their agenda for introduction but they adjourned after announcements — see video here.

ON AGENDA FOR INTRODUCTION TODAY 6/9/17:

• B.B.#49 – Davis  –An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for 3904 Folsom.
• B.B.#50 – Conway –An ordinance authorizing and directing the Mayor and Comptroller to execute, upon receipt of and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, a Quit Claim Deed to remise, release and forever quit-claim unto McGrath & Associates, Inc., certain City-owned property located at 1920 South Kingshighway Blvd.
• B.B.#51 – Davis –An Ordinance recommended and approved by the Airport Commission, the Board of Public Service, and the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, establishing and authorizing a public works and improvement program (the “Airfield, Building & Environs Projects”) at St. Louis Lambert International Airport, consisting of capital improvement projects to and for the terminal complexes, concourses, parking facilities, taxiways, runways, and associated Airport structures, and facilities, and environs including certain equipment and vehicles, and other associated Airport improvements, entitled “FISCAL YEAR 2017 PROJECT/EQUIPMENT LIST (PART 2)” at a total estimated cost of Nine Million Dollars; authorizing an initial appropriation in the total amount of Two Million Three Hundred Sixty Four Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Six Dollars from the Airport Development Fund; and containing a severability and an emergency clause.
• B.B.#52 – Spencer/Ingrassia –An Ordinance pertaining to the Animal Code; repealing Section Two of Ordinance 62941, providing definitions, codified as Section 10.20.010 of the Revised Code, and enacting in lieu thereof a new section on the same subject matter; repealing Section Five of Ordinance 62853, codified as Section 10.20.013 of the Revised Code, pertaining to Rules to be promulgated by the Health Commissioner and enacting in lieu thereof a new section on the same subject matter; repealing Section One of Ordinance 68463, pertaining to the prohibition of the keeping of certain animals, codified as Section 10.20.015 of the Revised Code, and enacted in lieu thereof is a new section on the same subject matter; repealing Section Eight of Ordinance 62853, pertaining to the regulation of animal housing, codified as Section 10.20.016 of the Revised Code, and enacting in lieu thereof a new section on the same subject matter; repealing Section Four of Ordinance 47883, pertaining to the penalty for violating certain sections of the Revised Code, codified as Section 10.20.160 of the Revised Code, and enacting in lieu thereof a new section on the same subject matter; repealing Section One of Ordinance 47883, pertaining to the definition of fowl, codified as Section 10.20.130 of the Revised Code; repealing Ordinance 42333, codified as Section 10.70.170 of the Revised Code, pertaining to the appointment of a veterinary surgeon; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#53 – Howard –An ordinance directing the Department of Public Safety, starting in 2018, to move the City of St. Louis’ National Night Out from the first Tuesday of August to the first Tuesday of October.
• B.B.#54 – Vollmer –An Ordinance recommended by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment authorizing The City to issue its Taxable Industrial Development Revenue Bonds (Huvepharma Inc. Project), Series 2017, in a principal amount of not to exceed $20,700,000 for the purpose of providing funds to pay the costs of acquiring, constructing, equipping and improving an industrial development project in the City.
• B.B.#55 – Conway –An Ordinance pertaining to the Transit Sales Tax imposed pursuant to Section 94.660, RSMo., as adopted and approved by the voters on August 2, 1994, pursuant to Ordinance 63168 creating the “City Public Transit Sales Tax Trust Fund” directing the Treasurer to deposit funds received pursuant to said sales tax into the “City Public Transit Sales Tax Trust Fund – Account ONE” appropriating $11,560,000 from the said sales tax for the period herein stated to the Bi?State Development Agency for certain purposes; providing for the payment of such funds during the period July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#56 – Conway –An Ordinance pertaining to the Transit Sales Tax imposed pursuant to Section 94.660, RSMo., as adopted and approved by the voters on November 4, 1997, pursuant to Ordinance 64111 creating the “City Public Transit Sales Tax Trust Fund” directing the Treasurer of the City to deposit funds received pursuant to said sales tax into the “City Public Transit Sales Tax Trust Fund – Account TWO” appropriating $11,560,000 from the said sales tax for the period herein stated to the Bi?State Development Agency for certain purposes; providing for the payment of such funds during the period July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#57 – Conway –An ordinance appropriating the sum of $21,877,000, as described and defined in Section 94.600 through 94.655, RSMo. 2000 as amended for the period herein stated, which sum is hereby appropriated out of the “Transportation Trust Fund” to the Bi?State Development Agency for transportation purposes; and further providing that the appropriation is conditional upon the Bi?State Development Agency supplying the Board of Estimate and Apportionment an annual evaluation report; further providing that in no event shall the Comptroller draw warrants on the Treasurer for an amount greater than the amount of proceeds deposited in the “Transportation Trust Fund” during the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2018; and containing a severability clause.
• B.B.#58 – Conway –An ordinance pertaining to the payroll expense tax, repealing, subject to voter approval, those exemptions from the tax in section nine of ordinance 60737 for religious and charitable organizations and institutions, not-for-profit civic, social, service or fraternal organizations, not-for-profit hospitals and not-for-profit educational institutions that employ more than twenty (20) employees; submitting to the qualified voters the question whether the exemptions to the payroll expense tax for religious and charitable organizations and institutions, not-for-profit civic, social, service or fraternal organizations, not-for-profit hospitals, and not-for-profit educational institutions that employ more than twenty (20) employees shall be repealed and a payroll expense tax of one-half of one percent (0.5%) imposed; with an emergency clause.
• B.B.#59 – Conway –An ordinance, relating to the Solid Waste Services Fee established under Ordinance No. 68698, authorizing an increase to said fee of three dollars ($3.00) per month per dwelling unit commencing with the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017, and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#60 – Conway –An ordinance relating to public safety; imposing, under and by the authority of Section 67.547 RSMo, subject to the approval of the voters, a one?half of one percent sales tax on all retail sales made in the City of St. Louis which are subject to taxation under the provisions of Sections 144.010 to 144.525 RSMo, solely for the purpose of providing revenues for the operation of the department of public safety, including police and fire divisions, in addition to any and all other sales taxes allowed by law; submitting to the qualified voters of the City of St. Louis a proposal to impose such tax; providing for an election and the manner of voting thereat; providing that if such question shall receive the votes of a majority of the voters voting thereon that such tax shall be authorized and in effect as provided in Section 67.547 RSMo; and containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#61 – Green/Tyus/Guenther/Williamson – An Ordinance to require the provision of community benefits and executed Community Benefits Agreements for certain development projects seeking public support for investments above certain threshold levels; including certain exemptions; providing penalties and provisions for enforcement; and containing a severability clause.

The meeting begins at 10am, it can be watched online here. See list of all board bills for the 2017-2018 session.

— Steve Patterson