ST. LOUIS – After weeks of tension and disagreements, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen has hit pause on plans to spend nearly $300 million in Rams settlement funds, leaving the contentious decision unresolved as the board heads into a lengthy legislative break.
The Board of Aldermen was unable to finalize a funding plan during Friday’s meeting, the last one before St. Louis’ mayoral election in April, unless a special session is called.
The dynamics behind getting a deal done have grown quite unpredictable. Just last week, Board President Megan Green abruptly walked out of a meeting, then proceeded to accuse some aldermen of showing up drunk, an accusation she later retracted. Along with this, deep divisions over funding priorities have emerged, prompting the board to postpone further discussions last Tuesday.
Jason Rosenbaum and Eric Schmid, political and economic correspondents for St. Louis Public Radio, have closely followed aldermanic discussions over the last several weeks. On Friday, during a public radio production of the “Politically Speaking Hour on St. Louis on the Air,” they explored the causes of the delays, the ongoing disagreements, and their potential impact on St. Louis.
Why a deal didn’t get done
To simply put it, there were two competing bills on what to prioritize in allocating Rams settlement funds, and neither of them received enough votes to advance to the St. Louis Mayor’s Office to sign into action.
Schmid says this was partly due to federal funding cuts and broader concerns about the city’s financial future.
“They didn’t have the votes on a full measure, I think for a variety of reasons,” said Schmid. “One of them being the Trump administration’s decision to say it was going to cut federal funding. That really spooked a lot of aldermen, saying, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa.’ We need to pause. We need to slow down. This is a one-time pot of money that is unrestricted. The city can do anything with it. And if the federal government is posturing that they might not give city governments like St. Louis money in the future, then maybe we need to rethink how this is going to be spent.”
While two bills under consideration, Board Bill 131 and Board Bill 153, have some similar goals, there are also key differences, one prioritizing infrastructure projects slightly more and the other focused slightly more on community investments.
“I also think there weren’t votes because there were certain provisions that aldermen didn’t agree on or wanted to support,” said Schmid. “Some people wanted something and wanted it in return. It just kind of fell apart.”
Disagreements
Two key points of discussion that have sparked disagreement in recent weeks are water infrastructure and childcare services.
Schmid says both bills proposed similar allocations for water infrastructure, around $40 million in investments. However, disagreements surfaced when some aldermen questioned why, if water infrastructure was receiving that much funding, the northside of St. Louis couldn’t receive a comparable share for its own needs.
“As far as I could tell on Tuesday, the big reason why that faltered or failed was because you had a coalition, a contingent of the northside Aldermen, who stood up inside, [noting] ‘If you can give money to the water department, then you should give money to north St. Louis,'” said Schmid. “Then there started to be squabbling over like how much money should go to north St. Louis, and it kind of almost became this little political chip in it. And then it became the decision to just pause on doing anything on this because there was clearly no agreement that was going to be reached.”
Meanwhile, Board President Megan Green has long supported the proposal to create an endowment fund for childcare and youth education opportunities.
Under that plan, the city would launch a pilot program by investing a portion of the Rams settlement funds into an endowment, using generated interest to help cover costs for city workers with the potential for future expansion. However, concerns emerged over its long-term sustainability and the initial focus on city employees.
“Presumably you could allocate more money to it and grow that so that the program could grow beyond just city workers to include potentially everybody in the city,” said Schmid. “That was a big priority. It came up a lot in discussion and the question Aldermen had was, ‘How can we even support and sustain this?’ And I think where the communication was challenging was to really be clear about, ‘It’s not like we’re giving $30 million to just stand up a new program. We’re setting aside $30 million so that the money it throws off every single year can start a new program that we could potentially grow in the future.'”
Whether due to such discussion or other matters, it seems tensions have flared at times. As previously noted, Green abruptly walked out of a meeting on Jan. 31, then accused some aldermen, including Joe Vollmer, of showing while intoxicated. She formally issued an apology for the accusation on Feb. 2.
While a deal remains unfinished, the heated moments may just be a thing of the past. Rosenbaum asked Schmid if Green’s actions were now just “water under the bridge?”
“It might be,” said Schmid. “It didn’t really come up on Tuesday. The feeling in the chambers was pretty subdued. It was people moving procedurally through and not getting very worked up as in the [Jan. 31] meeting that was recessed.”
Timeline
The next St. Louis Board of Aldermen legislative session is scheduled to begin on April 15, according to the city’s website. Right now, that’s the next possible date when a Rams funding bill could gain momentum. While Green could call a special session before then, that’s not necessarily guaranteed.
Unlike federal relief funds, the Rams settlement money has no spending deadline, meaning there’s no urgency in terms of a set timeline to finalize a plan.
However, postponing a decision comes with two key considerations. First, since the funds are currently in an interest-bearing account, they could continue to grow if left untouched. Secondly, it’s whether such an approach could impact city services and investments due to delayed allocations.
“In terms of whether or not a delay will mean more city services don’t happen, that is true,” said Schmid. “The money is in the bank. It is not allocated to fix streets to invest in water infrastructure or to do neighborhood or community development. Whatever the proposals are that aldermen had to actually spend this, those aren’t happening. And it will take time for those to actually ramp up once they allocate in the future, as soon as they get back from the spring elections.”
Could the mayor’s race have an impact?
With the board unable to pass a funding bill Friday, this increases the likelihood that a decision on Rams settlement allocations won’t happen until after the April 8 St. Louis mayoral election.
Incumbent Mayor Tishaura Jones faces a challenge from Ward 8 Alderwoman Cara Spencer, and if Spencer wins, St. Louis would not only see a new mayor, but a new alderperson, potentially reshaping the debate and introducing new perspectives into the fold.
“It may change the dynamics of what an eventual bill or what an eventual spending package actually looks like,” said Schmid. “If we have a different mayor or a different comptroller with different priorities or different opinions on what things should look like, then it influences presumably what legislation would make it to the desk, because even if a bill makes it through the board of aldermen to the mayor, the mayor still has to sign it into law. And if there is a different mayor, there will be different priorities, and that will filter in.”
The public’s input
For much of 2024, the city gathered public input on how to allocate the Rams settlement funds. A survey drew around 12,500 responses from residents, while a series of public forums allowed residents to share their priorities.
When the city released its survey results in October, the top priorities included redeveloping vacant buildings and investing in infrastructure, such as streets, sidewalks, and water mains.
Still, some residents felt some ideas didn’t get enough attention. Callers to Friday’s “St. Louis on the Air” production suggested alternative uses, such as fixing roads in every neighborhood, implementing a gun buyback program, or keeping most of the money in an interest-bearing account for years to come.
“[The Aldermen] would say, ‘We asked the public what they wanted. This is the aggregate result, and that’s what the bill is organized around.’ Did the public input work? It’s hard to say whether it did or didn’t because we don’t have a bill passed.”
With no firm decision in place, the debate over the Rams settlement drags on, leaving both city leaders and residents waiting to see what happens next.