Laserfiche WebLink
Voice vote on the motion of Mr. Glickert to approve Item Number 5 carried by a majority with Nay <br />votes from Ms. Carr and Mr. Crow. <br /> <br />6. <br />Approval of second extension request for the Conditional Use Permit (C.U.P.) for the Loop <br />Trolley, a public utility facility in the CC – Core Commercial District and PA – Public Activity <br />district. <br /> <br />Mayor Welsch informed members of Council that the City had received notification today that <br />Judge Limbaugh had issued an Order granting the TDD of the Loop Trolley’s motion to dismiss and <br />Motion for Summary Judgment. The ruling states that “At the end, Plaintiffs have no standing or <br />are barred from bringing their lawsuit as to Count I, which leaves the Court with Counts II through <br />V. All four of those counts are State law claims which were brought under this Court’s <br />supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to, et cetera, et cetera. Having disposed of the Federal claims <br />on which those four counts depend on for jurisdiction the Court will dismiss those remaining <br />claims.” <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe moved to approve, seconded by Mr. Price. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft stated that before anyone spoke on this he would like to propose an amendment to <br />extend this item until the next Council meeting, or perhaps until the thirteenth, since the permit <br />expires on the tenth. He stated that the reason is because the operating agreement between <br />University City and the Trolley Co. has not been competed yet and one thing that he has been most <br />concerned about was the legal liability questions. Mr. Kraft stated that he wants it to be absolutely <br />clear that University City bears no legal liability for the operation, maintenance, et cetera, of the <br />trolley. And since there is a pending draft agreement he thinks that Council needed to make sure <br />the indemnity clause was rock solid. <br /> Mr. Kraft stated that the second thing he wanted to be clear on was that University City bears no <br />financial responsibility for this trolley, whether it succeeds or fails. And that in fact, if the trolley fails <br />that there are funds leftover and a mechanism in place for those funds to bring Delmar back to its <br />pre-trolley state. These are things that can easily be done he thought Council ought to make sure <br />that they are done before approving a six month extension of the Conditional Use Permit. <br /> <br />Director of Public Works & Parks Richard Wilson stated that the City had just received the second <br />draft of the agreement and staff is working on changes to make sure that all of the things <br />mentioned by Mr. Kraft are covered, but according to protocol he would have to submit it to Ms. <br />Pumm by tomorrow in order to get it on the next agenda. Mr. Wilson stated that to date the <br />revisions have not been reviewed and approved by either the City Attorney or the Trolley Co., so he <br />would like to extend this item to the last meeting in May. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft stated that he had no problem with doing so and would make a motion that the permit be <br />, <br />extended until May 302014. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sharpe. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharpe asked whether the City Attorney would have an opportunity to review these revisions <br />before it is presented to Council. Ms. Forster informed Mr. Sharpe that she has looked at every <br />draft that has come through and this one would also be reviewed before it is finalized. <br /> <br />Mr. Kraft asked Ms. Forster if there was any reason why the completed Operating Agreement could <br />not be made public at the next meeting, if Council so desired. Ms. Forster stated that it could be. <br />Mr. Kraft asked Ms. Forster if Council would be approving both the C.U.P. and the agreement at <br />the same time. Ms. Forster stated that if Council is extending the permit to the thirtieth both could <br />be run through at the same time. <br /> <br />Mr. Crow asked Ms. Forster if she was the only attorney working on the operating agreement. Ms. <br />Forster stated that she was the only attorney on behalf of the City and that the Trolley Co. had <br />retained its own counsel. Mr. Crow stated that looking through the drafts as they have come forth it <br />appeared to him as though there are a number of issues that seem to be rather lopsided in their <br /> <br />