MORE ON THE METRO LAWSUIT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL SHREWSBURY CONTRACTORS

The more I look into the Shrewsbury Metrolink extension, the more I want to see EVERY SINGLE Metro financial transaction.

I didn't live here then, but there is SUCH an obvious link between this fiasco and the Metro financial crisis in 2009 that resulted in 24 bus lines being shut down and a 30% reduction in services.

Look at this audit: http://auditor.mo.gov/press/2008-58.pdf
(This is the report, I think, that Salci tried to block McCaskill from conducting.)

Please, public transit rider, read this article.  It is VERY revealing about how Metro does it's dirty business.

https://enr.construction.com/news/transportation/archives/060124.asp

Here's a few more:

http://www.stlamerican.com/news/local_news/article_4ba7ba62-9d73-5509-be3a-fa0be34ab4e7.html?mode=jqm

http://www.dowdbennett.com/tag/trial-practice/page/2/

http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2008/12/another_larry_salci_trainwreck_metro_metrolink_colorado_railcar_st_louis.php

We are "clowns" as the former Metro CEO says, for letting guys like him run our transit agency:
http://www.stlamerican.com/business/local_business/article_b1f3a6ef-3183-5bb6-bfe1-bafb3c13586a.html?mode=jqm

http://www.stlouiscnr.com/features/article/kwames_tony_thompson_when_being_right_is_not_enough/

http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/St-Louis-MetroLink-Takes-Shape-Despite-Delays/5874/

If further investigation leads me to conclude that all the scandal directed at Dooley's office comes from Salci I will rescind my accusations:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/ex-metro-chief-cites-st-louis-county-pressure-on-parking/article_22de1ea0-3ccd-5013-abc1-15b8b818a568.html

OH WOW, and this one on Salci-- just WOW, what an a**hole!:
http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2005-08-03/news/metro-messy/

From the article:
In August 2004, in a move transit officials call unprecedented, he fired and sued the Cross County Collaborative, a group of four firms charged with designing the 8.2-mile MetroLink extension that will connect Forest Park and Shrewsbury by way of Clayton. The CCC countersued Metro three months later.
Then, earlier this year, Salci raised eyebrows by recommending that Metro refuse an audit requested by state auditor Claire McCaskill. Salci said it would jeopardize the agency's lawsuit. Salci lost the skirmish, and Missouri auditors are expected this week to begin a year-long financial audit to determine why cost overruns on the $550 million MetroLink project might total $126 million. The completion date for the new line was scheduled for May but has been pushed back to the fall of 2006.

Should have known he worked for Gephardt before Metro!
No more of these fancy businessmen and politcians as Metro CEOs!

Don't use this man's consulting services, EVER! http://www.salciconsult.com/Contact.aspx

PROP A: WHAT YOU VOTED ON

This is a scan of the language on the ballot.  "Pubic Transportation" which "includes" Metro transit, is my guess what the argument will be ("no we always meant that Charlie Dooley would decide what went to roads and what went to buses!")

http://occupyurlife.blogspot.com/2014/04/occupy-saint-louis-county-executive.html

Still have to file a Sunshine Act request to get the actual bond, but it is already obvious that they lied to the public.

This alone is the basis for a lawsuit.

Shall the County of St. Louis impose a countywide sales tax of one-half of one percent for the  purpose of providing a source of funds for public transportation purposes including the restoration, operation, and expansion of  Metrolink, MetroBus, dsabled and senior transportation, in addition to an existing sales tax of one-quarter of one percent for the same purpose?

Read this, too: http://optinstl.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-metro-is-doing-with-your-money-and.html

FTA HAS SENT ME THE LINK TO THE METRO 2011 METRO COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL REPORT

One thing we don't have to file a Sunshine Act request for:

http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/Annual_Financial_Reports/FY_2011_Comprehensive_Annual_Financial_Report.pdf

Now to sort through it.

I hope some Occupy Accountants and Financial Wizards will get on board soon.

The Table of Contents alone has supplied me with some information, and a quick glance at page 29.

Table of Contents:

Regional Statistics

Regional Population.........................................................................................................96

Regional Per Capita Personal Income

.............................................................................97

Regional Unemployment Rate .........................................................................................98

Regional Top Businesses ................................................................................................99

General population statistics are sited, but nothing on their riders, or changes in their riders.

Page 29:
Metro shows increased ridership and boardings from 2005 through 2009 on their website.  

Page 29 says "unemployment" has caused them to LOSE riders.

PROP A:

Missouri Sources

. Funding for Missouri projects comes from the City of St. Louis, St. Louis

County and the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). The City of St. Louis and

St. Louis County collect revenue from ½ cent and ¼ cent local sales taxes. Beginning this

fiscal year with the passage of Prop A, St. Louis County collects an additional ½ cent and the

City of St. Louis collects an additional ¼ cent. Both the City and the County appropriate all of

their receipts from the ¼ cent sales tax to Metro. The City of St. Louis appropriates virtually all

of its revenues from the ½ cent sales tax and Prop A to Metro. St. Louis County splits revenue

collected from the ½ cent sales tax between Metro and County road and bridge projects. They

also appropriated $39.5 mi

llion of the Prop A funds to Metro, of which $3 million was set aside

for future capital projects. Excluding Prop A, the County appropriated approximately $34.0

million and $34.8 million to Metro in FY 2011 and FY 2010, respectively. From FY 2002

through FY 2008, the County’s ½ cent sales-tax appropriation to Metro was indexed with the

Consumer Price Index. At least 2 percent of the appropriations to Metro from the ½ cent sales

tax must be used for transportation for developmentally disadvantaged persons. The balance

is usually required to fund Missouri operations. MoDOT provides Metro with limited operating

and FTA discretionary capital assistance.

Absolutely nothing going on with Metro in MO or IL:
http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304_14366.html


Statistics on boardings and fare box recovery, and miles/fleet/ etc.  There are conclusions to be drawn from this that no one bothers to (or does not want to) make.  They attribute the decline to "unemployment" and not reduced service. In 2011 service area decreased, according to a footnote, because of the cancellation of bus lines to Gray Summit, while rider demand increased.

METRO, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT YOUR STATISTICS NEED TO BE BASED ON YOUR TRANSIT RIDERS AND NOT GENERAL POPULATION STATISTICS.

Another very telling thing on this page is that they do not report the money they make from their business enterprises-- or how much of it goes to Metro.  I hope it is in this report somewhere.

http://www.metrostlouis.org/Libraries/Annual_Financial_Reports/FY_2011_Comprehensive_Annual_Financial_Report.pdf

Page 10 - The years are 2009 2010 and 2011

Metro Transportation System

Service area square miles

449

579

558 *

Metro Bus

Fleet size – total vehicles

449

412

432

Passenger trips

32,679,788

24,256,126

26,215,139

Revenue miles

16,938,053

16,082,275

18,198,927

Farebox recovery

22.3%

20.7%

19.9%

Metro Link

Fleet size – total vehicles

87

87

87

Passenger trips

19,423,931

15,828,981

16,209,098

Revenue miles

3,398,923

2,913,199

3,147,407

Farebox recovery

28.5%

30.4%

27.8

Demand response

Fleet size – total vehicles

129

147

144

Passenger trips

665,137

545,606

568,419

Revenue miles

4,903,975

4,616,903

4,626,716

Farebox recovery

4.8%

4.2%

4.7Will be adding more, check back.

Litigation is on page 29 of the report, page 50 of the PDF (all previous pages listed are the PDF page) Here is a nice pack of lies.

Metro is also the defendant in several lawsuits arising from matters other than workers

compensation and personal injury litigation. These matters principally relate to,

environmental cleanup, breach of contract, and

alleged violations of equal protection and

credit protection requirements. In the opi

nion of management, including its General

Counsel, the ultimate resolution of these matters is not likely to have a material effect of

the Metro’s financial position.

On page 56 of the document, page 75 of the PDF, they contradict themselves (not the first time-- still sorting through the Prop A doublespeak before I post that) 

In the ordinary course of business, a number of claims and lawsuits arise from individuals

seeking compensation for personal injury, death, and/or property damage resulting from

accidents occurring in the operation of the system. In addition, Metro has been named

as a defendant in a number of lawsuits relating to personnel and contractual matters.

Management does not believe that the outcome of these claims will have a material

adverse effect on Metro’s financial position. However, in the event of an unfavorable

outcome in one or more of these matters, the impact could be material to Metro’s

financial position or results of operations

CALL FOR A PUBLIC AUDIT OF METRO BI-STATE

More on the Minority Contractor vs. Metro Bi-State lawsuit that cost Metro 39 million dollars.

(Read my rampage about this:
http://optinstl.blogspot.com/2014/04/what-metro-is-doing-with-your-money-and.html)

US Missouri courts register over 3000 legal cases against Bi State Development Agency.  Most are personal injury or wrongful death.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/nameSearch.do

I think the public should be allowed to examine the records of these proceedings.  (And I really hope that this was hidden from the media and that they weren't just bought off on not reporting it.  I hope local media didn't ignore this purposefully.)

Also obtaining the exact wording of Prop A from 2010. I don't think that laws and legislation and bond props should be so hard to understand clearly. It hurts my pride that I was duped into voting for this.  I want to read and understand exactly how this happened.

EDIT: FROM METRO'S 2009 Report, page 14:

Missouri Sources

. Funding for Missouri projects comes from the City of St. Louis, St. Louis

County and the Missouri Department of Transportation (“MoDOT”). The City of St. Louis and

St. Louis County collect revenue from ½ cent and a ¼ cent local sales taxes. Both the City

and the County appropriate all of their receipts from the ¼ cent sales tax to Metro. The City of

St. Louis appropriates virtually all of its revenues from the ½ cent sales tax to Metro. St. Louis

County splits revenue collected from the ½ cent sales tax between Metro and funding road

and bridge projects within the county. The County appropriated approximately $40 million to

Metro in FY 2009. From FY 2002 through FY 2008, the County’s ½ cent sales tax

appropriation to Metro was indexed with the Consumer Price Index. At least two percent of

the appropriations to Metro from the ½ cent sales tax must be used for transportation for

developmentally disadvantaged persons. The balance is usually required to fund Missouri

operations. MoDOT provides Metro with limited operating and FTA discretionary capital

assistance.

Still going through the report-- but the B.S. about Prop A is actually "hiding right out in the open" in that paragraph.

Also looking into:

How Metro's funds are awarded and audited. I contacted the DOT but they sent me an email directing me to the Federal Transit Authority.   

There must be some sort of appeal we can make, or petition, to some governing body, to get absolute transparency on financial matters, planning, structure.  I do not think I should have to file a Sunshine Act request to find out how many bus drivers work on the average weekday.

Also, there must be some precedence, in this country or somewhere in the world, where a Business District or Business Development Agency was separated from it's public transit agency.  Metro needs to be separated from Bi-State Development Agency.

And a more balanced committee needs to chair it.  The more I investigate East West Gateway Council of Governments, the appointing of people by the Governor, the more I see how public transit needs to be determined locally.  And NOT for purposes of owning real estate, developing business, and paying for future political campaigns.

I also think the County Executive needs to be audited.

I haven't found it yet, but I know the solutions are out there.

St. Louis deserves a world-class transit system.  And I know that it is possible- with the funding it has now.

EDIT: http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2010/04/former_st_louis_mayor_sues_metro_freeman_bosley_jr.php 

Page 22 is enlightening, sadly the full court documents are not available at this link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/30306078/mokan-naacp-v-metro

EDIT: These records are from 2010, and you have to search by individual names, but here it is:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/metro-transit-agency-employee-payroll/html_1396d59c-088b-11e0-ad1c-0017a4a78c22.html

Robert Joseph Baer, CEO, John Nations predecessor: $190,000

Ray Friem: Chief Oper Ofcr-Transit Serv/Chief Operations Officer $174,350.00

Jessica Mefford Miller:  Chief of System planning and development: $86,000.00

Dianne Williams, Director of Communications: $85,696.00

Bus driver I knew the name of: $43,784.00