Committee advances Board Bill 103 to extend airport carrier agreements, citing $50,000 capital investment

St. Louis Board of Aldermen (committee) · November 26, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A St. Louis Board of Aldermen committee voted to advance Board Bill 103 out of committee with a due-pass recommendation after a presentation that said the amendment would extend carrier agreements at the airport and include a $50,000 capital investment for U.S. Customs and Border Protection and up to $1.2 million in reinvestment.

A St. Louis Board of Aldermen committee on Tuesday advanced Board Bill 103 out of committee with a due-pass recommendation after a brief presentation and no questions from committee members.

The bill, introduced as a second amendment to existing carrier agreements at the airport, would extend contract term and option periods for mobile carriers identified in the record as T‑Mobile, AT&T and Verizon. The testifier identified in committee as “Mister Solerano” described the amendment and said it would include “a capital investment is $50,000 that we need to cover the United States customs and border protection.” He also referenced a DDP maximum reinvestment amount of $1,200,000 associated with relocation and distributed-system work.

Committee members did not ask substantive questions before an alderman from the fourth moved to pass the bill out of committee and an alderman from the eighth seconded the motion. After a request for previous roll produced no objections, the committee approved the measure by voice/roll call and recorded four aye votes; one member was excused as absent.

The presentation in committee focused on the amendment’s term extensions and the capital and reinvestment figures. The presenter described an option tied to an airport development project that would further extend the agreement if exercised. Several dates mentioned in the presentation were unclear in the transcript and could not be independently verified from the record presented at the meeting.

No formal amendments or detailed budget breakdowns were discussed during the committee’s consideration, and the committee took no additional formal action beyond advancing the bill with a due-pass recommendation.

Madam Clerk was asked to excuse the alderwoman from the first for necessary absence, the committee adjourned following a motion and second, and the meeting concluded with a Thanksgiving greeting from the chair.