2014-03-24 Reg - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Elsie Glickert, 6712 Etzel Avenue Ms. Glickert stated that Joe Edwards is reporting that the Federal Transit Administration has granted approval for the Loop Trolley, but what he did not say is that the FTA’s approval was contingent upon two “grant conditions” that require additional work. She stated that one issue has to do with “outstanding deficiencies” in the bidding documents, so apparently these deficiencies need to be corrected before any trolley construction can go out for bid. She stated that the second issue has to do with real estate for the maintenance and storage facility, which if not addressed could also jeopardize the grant. The letter from the FTA states that known hazardous contaminants are on the property and the Loop Trolley TDD is not allowed to negotiate with the owner of the property or bid a rehabilitation contract until the FTA has reviewed and approved the appraisal. Ms. Glickert stated that she is a Plaintiff in the lawsuit filed against the Loop Trolley and would like to mention something that the Loop Trolley TDD said in a court filing earlier this year. “Thus the pendency of this lawsuit jeopardizes the Loop Trolley District’s FTA grant because construction cannot begin until this lawsuit is fully resolved”. At the last City Council meeting questions were raised concerning the Loop Trolley Company’s relationship to the Loop TDD. It was established however that City staff was in possession of a letter indicating that the Loop Trolley Company had been authorized by the Loop Trolley TDD to seek an extension for the Conditional Use Permit. Yet, another legal filing by the Loop Trolley states that, “The Loop Trolley District specifically denies it has any relationship with the Loop Trolley Company”. Ms. Glickert stated that this raises more questions as to who is actually running the project and whether the permits have all been done in the proper manner. She stated that from the beginning there have been unanswered questions about the Loop Trolley and they persist to this very day, so it is her belief that City Council has the responsibility to address these issues. The court filings identified by Ms. Glickert were attached to her comments and provided to the City Clerk. Tom Sullivan, 751 Syracuse Mr. Sullivan stated that this morning he filed another Sunshine Complaint against University City. He stated that the fact that lawsuits and numerous complaints have been filed against this city’s government would lead anyone to believe that University City has to be one of the worst violators of the Sunshine Act in the State of Missouri. Mr. Sullivan stated that on March 6, 2014, he made a written request to Ms. Pumm for any correspondence related to the two trees that were anticipated to be cut down on th Delmar Boulevard. Ms. Pumm’s response of March 7; which he believes is not in compliance with the law, stated that the charge for the records would be $55.69; $45.69 for one hour of the Director of Public Works’ time and $10.00 for copies. Mr. Sullivan stated that he then made another request dated March 13, 2014, for correspondence related to the Conditional Use Permit for the Loop Trolley and to date he has not received a reply. Mr. Sullivan stated that he made a similar request to the City of St. Louis regarding the trees along De Baliviere and the information was furnished immediately. Any written correspondence received by the City and any response thereto is maintained by the Custodian of Records who handles these types of requests in a proper manner. Mr. Sullivan stated that University City has trouble replacing streetlights, sweeping the streets and Sunshine requests. He stated that he is having a difficult time understanding why they have so many problems with things that other cities do in the regular course of business, but hopefully these requests will be dealt with.