Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transit Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aldermen debate sending sales‑tax question to voters to allow Bus Rapid Transit or preserve North‑South MetroLink funding
Summary
The St. Louis City Budget & Public Employees Committee heard staff and Bi‑State Development discuss a committee substitute to Board Bill 106, which would ask voters whether economic development sales tax revenue earmarked for a North‑South MetroLink line may instead be used for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). The committee adopted a substitute to clarify ballot language and held the bill for further outreach and consensus building.
President Tishaura O. Green opened the committee hearing by presenting Board Bill 106 and urging the Board of Aldermen to take the question to voters rather than seek a judicial declaration on the proper use of previously collected economic development sales tax revenue.
"Board Bill 106 is more than deciding if we're going to invest in bus rapid transit for St. Louis," Green said, framing the measure as a decision that should be made by voters. She described the substitute language circulated to the committee as designed to let voters decide whether the portion of the city's economic development sales tax currently allocated to a North‑South MetroLink be allocated instead for a North‑South MetroLink and/or Bus Rapid Transit, while preserving non‑transit allocations.
Bi‑State Development representatives told the committee they had reviewed three options for the funds: proceed under current language if BRT qualifies as an equivalent economic development use; pursue new legislative action and a friendly declaratory judgment to strengthen federal grant applications; or revise the ballot question and pursue voter approval. Tammy Paris, Bi‑State’s chief financial officer, asked the committee to hold the bill so Bi‑State could advance public engagement and refine project details.
Committee members across the political spectrum said they want the public to decide but repeatedly urged more time for education and outreach before a ballot question. "I think April is way too soon," said one member, recommending November or a later election to allow a sustained campaign and public information effort. Members also pressed for clearer language in Exhibit 2 describing BRT and for assurances that funds already collected (discussed in committee as roughly $96 million to "close to $100,000,000" in the record) would be protected if voters reject the change.
Speakers from the public expressed sharply divided views. Supporters urged the Board to allow the tax to be used for high‑quality BRT and stressed careful ballot wording and public education. Opponents, including several online commenters, said voters previously approved rail and urged officials to wait for future federal funding rather than pivot to buses.
Bi‑State and city staff said they will run a roughly 12–15 month community engagement and alternatives analysis for a BRT corridor starting in early 2026; Bi‑State legal counsel said the options presented were internal/legal paths under consideration and that no declaratory judgment had been filed. Several aldermen recorded concerns that a unilateral court action could tie up funds or erode public trust and asked Bi‑State and the mayor’s office not to pursue a court filing without consensus from the Board.
The committee adopted the circulated committee substitute for Board Bill 106 by unanimous consent and then voted to hold the bill in committee to allow additional public engagement and drafting work. No final ordinance or ballot certification was approved at the hearing; the president said the committee will spend weeks and months building consensus and refining the ballot language before bringing a final recommendation back to the Board.
