St. Louis Board of Aldermen: New Board Bills 10/14/2016

The following twelve (12) Board Bills will be introduced at today’s meeting of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. Review today’s agenda here. BB164 will likely be the most controversial of this group.

Board Bill No. 153 | luggage cart rental concession agrmt

BOARD BILL NO. 153 INTRODUCED BY ALDERWOMAN LYDA KREWSON An Ordinance recommended and approved by the Board of Estimate and Apportionment authorizing and directing the Director of Airports and the Comptroller of The City of St. Louis (the “City”) to enter into and execute on behalf of the City the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport® (the “Airport”) a Luggage Cart Rental Concession Agreement AL-035 (“Concession Agreement”), between the City and Smarte Cart, Inc. (“Concessionaire”), granting to the Concessionaire, subject to and in accordance with the terms, covenants, and conditions of the Concession Agreement, certain rights and privileges in connection with the occupancy and use of the Premises, which is defined and more fully described in Section 201 of the Concession Agreement that was approved by the Airport Commission and is attached hereto as ATTACHMENT “1” and made a part hereof, and its terms are more fully described in Section One of this Ordinance; containing a severability clause; and containing an emergency clause.

Board Bill No. 154 | Redevelopment plan for 3530 Wyoming

BOARD BILL NO. 154 INTRODUCED BY ALD. STEPHEN CONWAY An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 3530 Wyoming St. (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statute” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated September 27, 2016 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Section 99.430; finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available ten (10) year real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan.

Board Bill No. 155 | Redevelopment plan for 4112 Flad

BOARD BILL NO. 155 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN STEPHEN CONWAY An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 4112 Flad Ave. Area (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statute” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated September 27, 2016 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Section 99.430; finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available ten (10) year real estate tax abatement with five (5) years of payments in lieu of taxes or up to five (5) years real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan.

Board Bill No. 156 | Redevelopment plan for 4050 Detonty

BOARD BILL NO. 156 INTRODUCED BY ALD. STEPHEN CONWAY An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 4056 Detonty St. (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statute” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated September 27, 2016 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Section 99.430; finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available ten (10) year real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan.

Board Bill No. 157 | Redevelopment plan for 3442 Missouri

BOARD BILL NO. 157 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN KENNETH ORTMANN An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 3442 Missouri Ave. Area (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 and Chapter 353 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statutes” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive and Chapter 353), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated September 27, 2016 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Sections 99.430 and 353.020 (4); finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available ten (10) year real estate tax abatement with five (5) years of payments in lieu of taxes or up to five (5) years real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan.

Board Bill No. 158 | Redevelopment plan for 3006 Missouri

BOARD BILL NO. 158 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN KENNETH ORTMANN An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 3006 Missouri Ave. Area (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 and Chapter 353 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statutes” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive and Chapter 353), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated September 27, 2016 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Sections 99.430 and 353.020 (4); finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available ten (10) year real estate tax abatement with five (5) years of payments in lieu of taxes or up to five (5) years real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan.

Board Bill No. 159 | Redevelopment plan for 2861 Lemp

BOARD BILL NO. 159 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN KENNETH ORTMANN An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 2861 Lemp Ave. Area (“Area”) after finding that the Area is blighted as defined in Section 99.320 and Chapter 353 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, 2000, as amended, (the “Statutes” being Sections 99.300 to 99.715 inclusive and Chapter 353), containing a description of the boundaries of said Area in the City of St. Louis (“City”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A”, finding that redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Area is in the interest of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people of the City; approving the Plan dated September 27, 2016 for the Area (“Plan”), incorporated herein by attached Exhibit “B”, pursuant to Sections 99.430 and 353.020 (4); finding that there is a feasible financial plan for the development of the Area which affords maximum opportunity for development of the Area by private enterprise; finding that no property in the Area may be acquired by the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of the City of St. Louis (“LCRA”) through the exercise of eminent domain; finding that the property within the Area is unoccupied, but if it should become occupied the Redeveloper shall be responsible for relocating any eligible occupants displaced as a result of implementation of the Plan; finding that financial aid may be necessary to enable the Area to be redeveloped in accordance with the Plan; finding that there shall be available ten (10) year real estate tax abatement with five (5) years of payments in lieu of taxes or up to five (5) years real estate tax abatement; and pledging cooperation of the Board of Aldermen and requesting various officials, departments, boards and agencies of the City to cooperate and to exercise their respective powers in a manner consistent with the Plan.

Board Bill No. 160 | Amending Northeast Hampton, I-44 TIF

BOARD BILL #160 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN JOSEPH VOLLMER An Ordinance Amending Ordinance Nos. 70076 and 70077 Relating To The Northeast Hampton/I-44 TIF Redevelopment Project; And Prescribing Other Matters Relating Thereto.

Board Bill No. 161 | Intergovernmental agreement to fund Energy Loan Program

BOARD BILL NO. 161 INTRODUCED BY: ALDERWOMAN KREWSON An ordinance adopted pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement Act, Sections 70.210 to 70.325, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes of Missouri, and authorizing the City of St. Louis, by and through its Department of Human Services (“DHS”) to enter into an Intergovernmental Cooperation Agreement with the Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District (doing business as “Metro”) for the purpose of appropriating funds for DHS to provide transit passes for certain persons in need, which passes DHS will acquire from Metro at a discounted rate, terms pursuant to the Intergovernmental Agreement attached hereto and incorporated by reference into this Ordinance, containing a severability clause and a governance clause. 

Board Bill No. 162 |Loan agreement to fund Energy Loan Program

BOARD BILL NO. 162 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN BOSLEY, Sr. An ordinance authorizing and directing the Comptroller and the Director of Streets, on behalf of the City of St. Louis, to enter into and execute a Loan Agreement and other documents required by the Loan Agreement with the Missouri Department of Economic/Division of Energy (“DED/DE”) to fund an Energy Loan Program (“Program”), further appropriating an amount not to exceed Twelve Million ($12,000,000.00) Dollars from the Capital Improvement Fund, authorizing the Comptroller and the Director of Streets, on behalf of the City, to expend such appropriated funds by entering into contracts or otherwise, establishing and maintaining an Energy Loan Conservation Account, authorizing and directing the reimbursement funds from the Program to be deposited and credited to the Capital Improvement Funds, to make applications, provide data, and to take any and all actions necessary to seek further funds from the State of Missouri under the Program, and containing a severability clause and an emergency clause.

Board Bill No. 163 | Charter amendment regarding the Assessor

BOARD BILL NO. 163 INTRODUCED BY ALDERMAN JOSEPH VACCARO An ordinance submitting to the qualified voters of the City of St. Louis a proposed amendment to the Charter of the City of St. Louis to require that the Assessor be duly elected by the registered voters of the City of St. Louis, by amending existing Section 2 of Article II and amending existing Section 1 of Article VIII; providing for an election to be held therefor and the manner of voting thereat; and containing an emergency clause.

Board Bill No. 164 | Charter amendment abolishing the Recorder of Deeds Office

BOARD BILL NO. 164 INTRODUCED BY PRESIDENT LEWIS E. REED An ordinance taking up a proposed amendment to the Charter of St. Louis that was proposed by petition pursuant to Article V, Section 4 of the Charter of the City of St. Louis; said proposed Charter amendment would abolish the elected office of recorder of deeds and place such duties under the office of the assessor.

The meeting begins at 10am, it can be watched online here.

— Steve Patterson

Readers: Hosting Debate Worth Expense

In the recent non-scientific Sunday Poll more than 60% of the readers agreed that hosting the debate was worthwhile — the poll ended as the debate started.

Here are the results:

Q: Agree or disagree: The high cost of hosting a presidential debate is worth it in the end.

• Strongly agree 6 [17.65%]
• Agree 10 [29.41%]
• Somewhat agree 5 [14.71%]
• Neither agree or disagree 2 [5.88%]
• Somewhat disagree 3 [8.82%]
• Disagree 4 [11.76%]
• Strongly disagree 1 [2.94%]
• Unsure/No Answer 3 [8.82%]

This was Washington University’s 5th time hosting a national debate. The exposure was certainly good for the private university, lots of viewers from all over the world.

How about the St. Louis region?  The regional benefit is…debatable. We certainly didn’t look bad, nothing happened to embarrass us as a region. Well, other than the fact that just 2+ years after Ferguson there was zero mention of Black Lives Matter.

St. Louis is less than 15 miles from Ferguson, Mo., site of demonstrations in 2014 over the police shooting of a black teenager that sparked a national debate over law enforcement’s treatment of African Americans in communities across the country.

It’s an issue that’s still very much a part of the national dialogue two years later.

So, naturally, that topic was front and center in Sunday night’s debate, which was held in St. Louis?

Not exactly, noted Antonio French, a city alderman now running for mayor who became well known two years ago with his tweets documenting the Ferguson protests. (USA Today)

I’m still in the middle on the question of worth it. Although, had the debate not taken place here we can be assured that neither candidate would’ve visited Missouri — a reliably red state. Maybe that would have been best. I saw friends post on Facebook that they were embarrassed this took place here.

The second presidential debate veered into ugly territory Sunday night in St. Louis, as the two nominees swapped insults and interruptions.

Republican Donald Trump at one point said that his rival Hillary Clinton had “hate in her heart,” and showed it by saying that half of his supporters were in the “basket of deplorables.”

Clinton in turn accused Trump of living in an “alternate reality” and of peddling what she called the “racist lie” that President Obama was not born in the United States.

That exchange came as an especially bitter, boundary-breaking debate neared its conclusion. (Washington Post)

— Steve Patterson

Know Your Ballot: Judges

My post last week on the November general election ballot was on Propositions & Amendments. Today I’m looking at a part of the ballot people usually skip or just blindly say yes — judges up for retention. I’m no familiar with courts in other states, but it seems Missouri’s courts are different — in a good way:

Fed up with corrupt judicial elections, the people of Missouri adopted The Missouri Plan in 1940 and, two years later, reaffirmed their support in a statewide vote, rejecting the legislature’s attempt to repeal it.

The Missouri Plan is the foundation for merit-based judicial selection in America. Also known as the Non-Partisan Court Plan, it is Missouri’s constitutional system for selecting our appellate judges and trial judges in St. Louis, Kansas City, Clay County, Platte County, and most recently Greene County (Springfield). It is available to any county whose citizens wish to adopt it.

It works like this:  citizens and lawyers, working as a team, serve on nominating commissions to select the best three candidates to fill an open judgeship. The governor then appoints one of those candidates to the position. Then, at the general election following their first 12 months on the bench and at the end of each term, each judge must stand before the voters in a retention election.

The process is both transparent to the public and accountable to the people.

The Missouri Plan has produced a steady stream of competent judges in Missouri for more than 75 years.

The plan continues to be right for the for the people of Missouri because it attracts high-quality judges in the least political way and ultimately gives the people the final say.
(YourMissouriJudges.org)

The reviews for all the judges up for renewal were published on September 29th, all were determined to substantially meet overall judicial performance standards. That said, we can review the evaluation results for each, as well as copies of opinions they’ve written.

The following questions are used in the evolution of each, with responses from strongly agree to strongly disagree:

• The judge treated the parties equally.
• The judge carefully considered arguments from both sides before ruling.
• The judge conducted the proceeding in a neutral manner.
• The judge maintained a professional demeanor in the courtroom.
• The judge was prepared for court.
• The judge’s ruling cited the applicable substantive law.
• Considering the amount of case law required to make the decision, the judge was prompt in rendering a decision.
• The judge gave reasons for a ruling when needed.
• The judge listened carefully during the court proceeding.
• The judge started courtroom proceedings on time.
• The judge allowed the appropriate amount of time for each case.
• The judge used courtroom time efficiently.
• The judge made sure all parties (attorneys and their clients) understood the court proceedings.
• The judge adhered to appropriate rules of procedure.
• The judge applied rules of evidence relevant to the case.
• The judge assisted parties in narrowing key issues in dispute.
• The judge’s decision followed logically from the evidence presented.
• The judge issued an order that was clearly written.
• The judge addressed individuals (e.g., attorneys, court staff, litigants, public, witnesses) respectifully in the courtroom.

The following are judges on city ballots, though the last three will be on ballots in other Missouri counties as well.

Associate Circuit Judges (3)

CALEA STOVALL-REID

Judge Stovall-Reid was appointed associate circuit judge in 2003. She earned her J.D. from Washington University School of Law.

Prior to becoming an associate circuit judge, Judge Stovall-Reid was corporate counsel to the St. Louis Housing Authority (1997-’03). During her law career she has worked as a litigation associate for the law firm of Peoples and Hale (1995-’97) and served as an assistant circuit attorney (1993-’95) and an assistant public defender (1991-’93.) Judge Stovall-Reid has also served as a volunteer judge for truancy court for the St. Louis City Public Schools and teaches part-time at St. Louis Community College.

NICOLE COLBERT-BOTCHWAY

Judge Colbert-Botchway was appointed associate circuit judge July 2, 2015. She earned her B.A. and J.D. from St. Louis University and her MBA from the University of Missouri-St. Louis.

Judge Colbert-Botchway served as an administrative hearing commissioner for the State of Missouri when appointed to the associate circuit bench. After working in private practice and serving as an assistant circuit attorney for the St. Louis City Circuit Attorney’s Office, Judge Colbert-Botchway served as an assistant attorney general and unit leader for the State of Missouri for more than 10 years.

THOMAS C. CLARK, III

Judge Clark was appointed associate circuit judge Jan. 17, 2006, and retained in 2008 and 2012. He earned his B.A. from the University of Kansas and his M.A. and J.D. from Saint Louis University.

Judge Clark previously worked as an assistant circuit attorney in St. Louis from 1998 -2006.

Circuit Judges (10)

ROBIN RANSOM VANNOY

Judge Vannoy was appointed circuit judge Sept. 11, 2008, and retained in 2010. She earned her B.A. in political science and sociology from Douglas College-Rutgers University and her J.D. from the University of Missouri School of Law.

Judge Vannoy began her career as an assistant public defender for St. Louis County Circuit Court (1992-’95) and then as an assistant prosecuting attorney (1995-’96). She joined the legal department of the St. Louis County Family Court-Juvenile Division in 1996 and remained until December 2002, when she was appointed as a Family Court Commissioner for the 22nd Judicial Circuit in St. Louis City.

THOMAS J. FRAWLEY

Judge Frawley was appointed circuit judge in September 1991 and retained in 1992, 1998, 2004 and 2010. Judge Frawley earned his B.A. from Hamilton College and his J.D. from the University of Missouri School of Law.
Judge Frawley previously worked in private law practice (1972 -’91.)

DAVID C. MASON

Judge Mason was appointed circuit judge in August 1991 and was retained in 1992, 1998, 2004 and 2010. He earned his B.S. from Austin Peay State University and his J.D. from Washington University.

Prior to his appointment, Judge Mason served as an assistant attorney general, general counsel to the Missouri Department of Corrections and was in private practice. Judge Mason has been a teacher of Trial Advocacy for The National Institute For Trial Advocacy, The Yeshiva University Benjamin Cardozo School of Law and several bar associations. He also has served as an adjunct professor of law at the Washington University School of Law since 1989.

MICHAEL K. MULLEN

Judge Mullen was appointed circuit judge in 2008 and retained in 2010. He received his B.A. and J.D. from the University of Missouri-Columbia.

Judge Mullen clerked for Judge James A. Pudlowski at the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District (1989 – ’90) before joining the St. Louis Circuit Attorney’s Office (1990 -’95). He worked for the Charles M. Shaw Law Firm (1995 -’96), was a partner in the firm of Mullen & Fernandez (1996 – 2000) and was a solo practitioner (2000 – ’01) before joining the bench as an associate circuit judge in 2001.

CHRISTOPHER E. MCGRAUGH

Judge McGraugh was appointed associate circuit judge Nov. 8, 2012, and appointed circuit judge April 15, 2015. He received his B.A. and J.D. from Saint Louis University.

Judge McGraugh previously worked as an assistant public defender in the St. Louis County Trial Division of the Missouri Public Defender’s office from 1987 to 1990. He was promoted to lead trial counsel for the Capital Litigation Division for the Eastern District of Missouri for the Missouri Public System from 1990 to 1992. From 1992 until his appointment, he was a principal in the law firm of Leritz, Plunkert & Bruning P.C., engaged in civil, criminal and appellate practice.

DENNIS M. SCHAUMANN

Judge Schaumann was appointed circuit judge Oct. 16, 1997, and retained in 1998, 2004 and 2010. He earned a B.A. from Missouri State University and a J.D. from Saint Louis University School of Law.

Judge Schaumann was a legal officer for the Circuit Court Juvenile Division (1973 -’75) and worked in private practice with the firm of Kuelker, Gates & Schaumann (1975 -’94.) He was appointed municipal judge for the City of St. Louis (1981 -’94) and served as the municipal court’s presiding judge. He was appointed associate circuit court judge in 1994.

PHILIP D. HEAGNEY

Judge Heagney was appointed circuit judge Feb. 28, 1996, and retained in 1998, 2004 and 2010. Judge Heagney earned his B.A. from Johns Hopkins University and his J.D. from Harvard Law School.
Judge Heagney was previously a St. Louis City police officer (1970 -’73) and worked in private law practice for a small general practice firm in St. Louis (1976 -’96).

JAMES E. SULLIVAN

Judge Sullivan was appointed circuit judge Feb. 10, 2015. He received his B.A. from Southern Illinois University and his J.D. from Saint Louis University School of Law.

Sullivan has served as an assistant public defender, prosecuting attorney, and circuit attorney; St. Louis municipal court judge; and drug court commissioner for the 22nd Circuit Court. Prior to joining the bench, he was in private law practice for 20 years.

MARK H. NEILL

Judge Neill has been a circuit judge in the City of St. Louis since Feb. 15, 2002. He received his B.A. in history from St. Louis University and his J.D. from Saint Louis University School of Law. From 1973 until 1986, he was with the Legal Division of the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and served as law clerk, assistant legal advisor, legal advisor and general counsel. From 1986 until his appointment to the bench, Judge Neill was in the general practice of law. He handled a variety of trial and non-trial matters in Missouri and Illinois and in the federal courts.

BRYAN L. HETTENBACH

Judge Hettenbach was appointed circuit judge April 2, 2008, and was retained in 2010. He earned his B.A. from the University of Missouri-Columbia, M.A. from the University of Michigan and J.D. from the University of Missouri School of Law.

Judge Hettenbach was in private practice for 23 years prior to being appointed to the circuit bench.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District (2)

JAMES M. DOWD

Judge Dowd was appointed to the Missouri Court of Appeals in June 2015. Judge Dowd earned a B.A. in history from St. Louis University and a J.D. from the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Judge Dowd was previously with the James M. Dowd Law Firm, P.C.

PHILIP M. HESS

Judge Hess was appointed to the Missouri Court of Appeals in December 2013. Judge Hess earned a B.A. in economics and philosophy from Rockhurst University and a J.D. from the University of Missouri.

Judge Hess was previously employed with Larsen & Hess P.C.; Randall, Keefe & Griffiths; Brown & Crouppen; Weier, Hockensmith & Sherby; and as a United States Senate page.

Missouri Spreme Court (1)

RICHARD B. TEITELMAN

Judge Teitelman was appointed to the Supreme Court of Missouri in February 2002 and retained in office at the November 2004 general election for a 12-year term expiring December 31, 2016.

Judge Teitelman served a two-year term as chief justice from July 2011 through June 2013. He previously served on the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, from January 1998 to February 2002.

Voters in St. Louis County can review their judges here.

— Steve Patterson

Sunday Poll: Debate Hosting Costs Worthwhile?

Washington University in St. Louis will host the 2nd presidential debate for 2016 tonight, not its first time doing so:

Washington University in St. Louis has hosted more debates than any other institution in history. Between 1992 and 2008, the Commission on Presidential Debates asked the university to host debates in five consecutive elections. The debate scheduled for Sept. 25, 1996, was canceled two weeks prior. The Oct. 9, 2016, event will be the fifth debate held at Washington University. (Washington University)

The last debate held at Washington University in St. Louis was the Vice-Presidential Debate in October 2008. Each time the costs have increased:

For the first debate that [associate vice chancellor] Givens organized in 2000, the fee the university paid to the debate commission was $450,000. This time, that upfront fee is just shy of $2 million. Combine that with other costs the university will incur, including the set-up of a state-of-the-art media center, security, staffing and crowd management, and Washington University will end up paying anywhere between $4-5 million to host the debate on Oct. 9. [St. Louis Public Radio]

That’s a lot of money! That figure might include paying local police departments for security details. With two presidential candidates in town at the same time their routes to/from the airport must be secure.

On the other hand, the influx of press and campaign officials means hotel rooms, restaurants. etc will be full for days prior. It’s unclear how much, if anything, local taxpayers will end up paying. It is unknown how much of the $4-5 million will stay in the local economy.

So lots of unknowns, but here is the poll question for today:

The poll closes at 8pm tonight, the time the debate starts.

— Steve Patterson

St. Louis Board of Aldermen: New Board Bill 10/7/2016

Only one new Board Bill will be introduced at today’s meeting of the St. Louis Board of Aldermen. Review today’s agenda here.

Board Bill No. 152 | Online posting of notices

BOARD BILL NO. 152 INTRODUCED BY PRESIDENT LEWIS E. REED An ordinance requiring online posting of notices and agendas of all public meetings of the City of St. Louis and requiring the Information Technology Services Agency to create an electronic subscription service that e-mails alerts of new notices of meetings.

Quite a few bills will get a 2nd reading and perfection by consent — see the agenda for the list. The meeting begins at 10am, it can be watched online here.

Seven board bills will be considered at two committee meetings next week:

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2016 HOUSING, URBAN DEVELOPMENT MTG – 8:30 A.M. – KENNEDY ROOM

• B.B.#110 – Roddy – An ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission to change the zoning of property from “C” Multiple- Family Dwelling District and “H” Area Commercial District to “J” Industrial District, City Blocks #2178 (1315-39 S. Grand & 3632 Rutger), #2181.06 (3656 Hickory) and #2180 (1101 & 1121 S. Grand and 1126 Motard); containing an emergency clause.
• B.B.#119 – Moore – An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for 4308-4324 Dr. Martin Luther King.
• B.B.#125 – Ingrassia/Davis – An ordinance amending Ordinance #60100 by modifying the terms of the termination of the Mill Creek Valley Redevelopment Plan.
• B.B.#137 – Ingrassia – An ordinance approving a Redevelopment Plan for the 2217 Locust.

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2016 STREETS, TRAFFIC & REFUSE MEETING – 10:00 A.M. – LEISURE ROOM

• B.B.#132 – Conway – An Ordinance, recommended by the Board of Public Service, establishing a public works and improvement project for the Tower Grove Park Neighborhood Access Enhancements; and containing a public work emergency clause.
• B.B.#147 – Conway – An ordinance authorizing and directing the Street Commissioner to take all necessary actions to honorarily designate the 4600 block of Cleveland as “Barbara Beck Boulevard.”
• B.B.#148 – Conway – An ordinance authorizing and directing the Street Commissioner to take all necessary actions to honorarily designate the 4900 block of Botanical as “George and Sandy Grbac Lane.”