Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes Council 102673October 26, 1973 To: Mayor and Members of the Council cc: Attorney Brant and Attorney Baldwin From: Councilman Viley Subject: The Hearing held in Judge Mactiillan's office on October 25, 1973 at 8:00 A.M. and at 3:30 P.M. regarding the suit by Chudnow Construction Company Prior to the hearing beginning at approximately ten minutes to eight, Mr. Brant gave Mr. Myers a copy of the respondants answer. Before the hearing Mr. Trapnell told us that he had been to the Regional Office of the Department of Pollution Control in Orlando requesting a 50,000 gallon addition to the existing Palm Beach Gardens Plant, however the Department of Pollution Control is currently withholding approval of that based on algae count in the polishing pond. The following is an approximate transcript as taken by my notes and should be construed only in terms of subject matter and not as literal quotes, as I was writing rather quickly. -- The hearing started with Mr. Myers calling Mr. Cooper as his first witness. Mr. Brant stated that the City had no question regarding Mr. Cooper's qualifications and dispensed with those questions. The discussion started relative to the Ordinance #14, 1970, the Building Moratorium Ordinance. Mr. Myers asked are you familiar with that Ordinance. Mr. Cooper responded that he was familiar with the effect but he was not instrumental in the creation, that was done by his predecessor, ,Mr. Lukin. Mr. Myers asked why was the Moratorium placed in effect. Mr. Cooper answered the plant was overloaded, it was not at the proper efficiency, it was not maintained. In his opinion the most serious problem was that the owner had no plans to upgrade (I gave Mr. Brant a note that that statement was not true. The Utility did have plans that were approved by the Board of Health prior to the Horatorium for upgrading the existing plant) Mr. Cooper did mention something about the discharge to the canal. Chudnow Hearing - October 25, 1973 Page 2 Mr. Myers asked did the Board of Health advise the City - he referred to the terminology in the moratorium -to either lift or to allow building permits with or without the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Mr. Cooper answered that it may have been the advice of Mr. Lukin. tie didn't know if Mr. Lukin advised regarding the Certificate of Occupancy. He did know that Mr. Lukin did advise to issuing no more building permits. Mr. Myers asked since this time has there been any expansion or new plant action. Mr. Cooper answered yes, a concept was approved. The new plant which is in the concept of a, regional plant to serve the City and the environs. Mr. Byers asked what capacity? Mr. Cooper answered 2z to 5 million and then additional 5 million gallon per day modules. htr. Myers and Cooper _ There has been action - construction has begun. Mr. Byers - Any projection date for the new plant being on the line. Mr. Cooper _ Summer of 1974 Mr. Myers questioned were there any delays in zoning etc. Mr. Cooper - regarding a 12 month period for completion ? Ur. Myers asked did he submit: a letter to Attorney Brant dated August 10. Mr. Cooper - yaps - in his opinion the new plant will be built, it will mean an elimination of the existing facility. The potential for health hazard is minimal. i,ir. Trapnell has asked for additional flow (50 - 60,000 gallons per day) from the Department of Pollution Control be allowed. His letter of August 10th was on the basis that the new plant would be available in July 1, 1974. Mr. Myers asked how many gallons does the average home or apartment put on the line. Mr. Cooper - 350 gallons per day average. Mr. Myers - Will 50 to 60,000 gallons be needed all at once. Mr. Cooper - There is a construction lag time Chudnow Hearing - October 25, 1973 Pge 3 Mr. Mvers - Relative to Ordinance #14 called attention to the section where it referred to overt action to construct. Mr. Cooper - The best man to answer would be Mr. Trapnell. As far as he knew the land had been cleared. Mr. Myers - .Did the Utility have all its permits? Mr. Cooper responded yes. Mr. Myers - Did he have to submit plans Mr. Cooper responded yes, we gave approval. page 2 Mr.Myers called attention to the fourth line of Ordiname 414 /regarding the City being aware of the plans. Mr. Myers asked is there any health hazard today. Mr. Cooper - Not within the 50 or 60,000 gallons per day(referring to the additional gallonage requested from the Department of Pollution Control.) Mr. Myers showed the letter with the construction permit with the proviso. Mr. Cooper - That letter was issued to Palm Beach County Utilities. Mr. Myers - Who approved it? (He entered the letter as Exhibit 3.) (The City had not received a copy of this. Mr. Brant was given a copy by Mr. Trapnell at this time.) Mr. Brant questioned of mr. Cooper as to the evidence for the twelve month projection. He cited the North Palm Beach Plant, noted that it was the same Utility Company, the same management and cited the delay in the expansion of the North Palm Beach plant. Mr. Brant asked "does the Utility Company have all the permits for the new plant ?" Mr. Cooper said he didn't know. Mr. Brant asked was there any health hazard. Mr. Cooper responded that a health hazard would exist for the interim period. Mr. Brant asked if Mr. Cooper was familiar with the progress since the issuance of his letter. Mr. Cooper responded no. i Chudnow Hearing - October 25, 1973 Page 4 Mr. Brant asked the average gallonage on an 108 unit apartment building. Mr. Cooper responded it would be in the range of 15,000 to 25,000 gallons per day. Mr. Brant called attention to the letter of August 10 from Mr. Cooper. It was recommended that the City rescind its moratorium,. Relative to that statement Mr. Brant asked is it a fair statement that this is based on your theory of not permitting any more than 50 to 60,000 gallons per day.(additional) Mr. Cooper - yes Mr. Brant called attention to Paragraph 6 of that letter and asked for an explanation. Mr. Cooper responded it pertained to relief of the Temporary Operating Permit - that the Utility had asked the Department of Pollution Control for 50- 65,000 gallons per day. The Department of Pollution Control had made a counter offer which they did not feel reasonable. (The Utility and the Board of Health did not feel reasonable.) Mr. Brant - Would it be a fair statement that the Board of Health and the Department of Pollution Control are in conflict over this 50 - 65,000 gallons per day. Mr. Cooper responded yes. Mr. Brant - Had Mr. Cooper sL•en the site. Mr. Cooper responded no. Mr. Brant - [qtr. Trapnell would be the best witness but do you have any record on average flow. Mr. Cooper responded no, he had the range. Mr. Brant asked to have the range explained. Mr. Cooper responded that the flow varies from month from month. Mr. Trapnell would be the best witness. He thinks the flow is approximately 750,000 gallons. He referred to the influence of rainfall as a fluxuating factor in the average month to month flow. Chudnow Hearing - oc-tober 25, 1973 Page 5 Mr, Brant asked Mr. Cooper iCsh his capacity with the Board of Health did he wear another hat? What is that capacity? Mr. Cooper responded that he was not an arm of the Department of Pollution Control, that that enforcement came out of Ft. Lauderdale under the jurisdiction granted by the State. He did have an Environmental Health Officers hat that he wore. Mr. Brant asked that as far as granting connections the final authority rests with the Department of Pollution Control. Mr. Cooper responded yes. 14r. Brant asked do you have assurance with no hesitation that the new plant will be hooked to the City of Palm Beach Gardens. Mr. Cooper responded no. Mr. Brant asked if the Utility owner decided not to connect can you force him to. Mr. Cooper responded we have no way to force him. Mr. Brant asked what was his basis for the twelve month projection. Mr. Cooper responded primarily on the basis of equipment. Mr. Brant asked if he had made an allowance in his twelve month projection for completion for acts of God, strikes, labor, etc? Wasn't that normal3 F7r. Coo er paused _ A primary basis for his twelve month projection was equipment. Mr. Brant added did he not have percentages etc. that he could go by Mr. Cooper responded he had a five page or five inch thick (I dontt know which) book he could go by. Mr. Brant asked then about Ordinance #14 and did Mr. Cooper know of the approval of the expansion of the existing Palm Beach Gardens plant in 1970. Mr. Cooper responded yes although no action had been taken on the part of the Utility. Mr. Brant referred back to the August 10th letter and he asked the base for the twelve month construction. He wanted to know if construction was underway. Mr. Cooper responded that the equipment was ordered and it was the owners own Chudnow Hearing - October 259 1973 Page 6 estimated completion date. Mr. Brant asked ryas Mr. Cooper still of the opinion that July, 1974 was a reasonable date Mr. Cooper paused and answered yes. Mr. Brant asked for arguments sake that the time the letter was written it was based on the estimate completion. Mr. Cooper responded don't hold me to the twelfth month. It is an estimate - he could make a critical path estimate - he could do it,but he didn't. Mr. Brant asked the twelve month period - does it include the transmission line - do they have the right -of -ways. Mr. Cooper responded it would be the biggest problem he did not know if they had the right -of -way approval. Mr. Brant asked is a lift station required. Mr. Cooper said yes. Mr. Brant asked if the plans were on file. Mr. Cooper said no. Mr. Brant then stated that he assumed that Mr. Cooper had taken this into account in the twelve month projection. Mr. Cooper did not answer. Mr. Brant asked that his statement regarding the health hazard revolves around the 50- 60,000 gallons. If a new plant is not built or hooked up would we have a health hazard. Mr. Myers objected at this point. The Judge overruled and asked Mr. Cooper to explain the 60,000 gallon influence on the new plant. Mr. Cooper explained that the 60,000 gallons per day would overload the plant. He did not think a health hazard would exist although degradation of the water quality would exist on the discharge from the plant. At the time of the moratorium we based our decision on the rapid expansion of the Community - there were no plans to expand etc. The issue here is now we are regulating flow. He made a point that we could now regulate flow - it was a practical issue. i Chudnow Hearing - October 25, 1973 Page 7 Mr. Brant asked what is the maximum daily flow. Mr, Cooper answered 770,000 Mr. Brant asked is there any independent record of demand for building permits Mr. Cooper answered - we have single family records regarding septic tanks. Mr. Brant asked in your calculation of 60,000 gallons per day and the twelve month projection have you taken into account the on -site treatment plants. Mr. Cooper answered that they would continue on the line with no change. Mr. Brant asked are you familiar with the Longwood agreement. Mr. Myers entered objection. The Judge clarified the issue - overruled the objection. Mr. Brant asked that we are trying to tie in the on -site treatment plants with the 60,000 gallons per day, Mr. Cooper answered that it was his understanding that the on -site treatment plants are negotiated settlements. If you are asking me do I mind if Chudnow puts in an on -site treatment plant, the answer would be no, I do not mind , It would tax the Utility less. Mr. Brant asked if Mr. Cooper was familiar with the Longwood on -site treatment plant and the agreement to get it off the line. Mr. Cooper responded that the plant provides pre treatment and the effluent goes to the Utility. Mr. Brant asked have you taken that into account. Mr. Cooper answered that was a fine legal point. He was not prepared to answer. The Judge asked if he considered this. Mr. Cooper said he had no consideration. At this point the hearing was recessed until the afternoon. The hearing resumed at 3:45 P.M. Mr. Cooper still on the stand. Judge MacMillan asked Mr. Brant if he was finished with his cross examination. Mr. Brant answered yes. i Chudnow Hearing - October 25, 1973 Page 8 Mr. Cooper said he would like to correct some of the statements he has said earlier in the day. He had stated that last months daily flow in September was in error_ that the correct value was 870,000 gallons per day. Mr. Myers asked did the 870,000 gallons constitute a health hazard. Mr. Cooper answered we have tested the facility with 820,000 gallons pEr day flow with no apparant loss in efficiency. This was a 24 hour daily test and included rain water infiltration. The Judge asked does rain water get into the water system. Mr. Cooper answered that the water system was separate. The sewer system has poor seals at the man holes, cracked pipes with the high water table. Mr. Myers asked that there was confusion regarding the Longwood, that the gallonage was considered in the 60,000 - is it not a fact that the 770,000 gallons includes what Longwood sends through the plant treated. It would not increase hydraulic - would it increase bacteriological load. Mr. Cooper responded both Longwood and Tanglewood are included in the 770,000 gallons. Mr. Myers asked if increased bacteriological load came in would it constitute a health hazard. Mr. Cooper responded no. Mr. Myers asked regarding the North Palm Beach equipment delays was Mr. Cooper familiar with the North Palm Beach moratorium. Mr. Cooper answered yes. The plant was considerably overloaded - the moratorium was placed on. Mr. Brant objected asking the Judge and citing he failed to see how the North Palm Beach situation entered into this issue. The Judge agreed. Mr. Myers explained that he intended to tie in the North Palm Beach and the letter that Mr. Cooper had sent to the City. if The Judge asked/Mr. Myers had a question. He asked Mr. Brant if he objected. Bill said yes. The Judge upheld that objection. Chudnow Hearing - October 25, 1973 Page 9 Mr. Brant asked TJas the letter based on conjecture and not factual data. Mr. Myers on cross examination regarding paragraph 6 of Mr. Cooper's letter explain �.. dated August 10 - you were asked to . what happened - please explain the unreasonable counter offer. Mr. Cooper answered that the request was that the efficiency be increased to 857. and that the Board of Health certify the solid disposal. Mr. Cooper felt that 855 was ridiculous-If it is their intent to control pollution the efficiency would have to go greater than 85;0. Mr. Myers asked what level does the plant now treat. Mr. Cooper answered we did a 24 hour analysis in mid August - the BOD was approximately 781 which is very good for that type of facility. Greater than 856 is unreasonable based on a new plant and would not produce a measureable effect. The Department of Pollution Controlts demand seems to be for treatment sake only. Mr. Myers asked referring to the moratorium ordinance(see page 2)are those .r facts current now and do the conditions now exist. Mr. Cooper answered that he had spoken on the overt action - the performance of the Utility,`rhey have improved.In 1970 it was less than ,00r - the treatment was in the 30 to 40 percent range. Now it is up to 7876. And it does have a p6lishing pond. Mr, Myers asked you have handled this kind of matter before, do you have any opinion on how to handle this kind of matter. Mr. Brant objected - failed to see how Mr. Cooper qualified to answer. The Judge asked .fir. Myers to explain the question. In the explanation the name of John :dacArthur came out for the first time. The Judge commented on this. The Judge asked Clr. Myers to ask the question. Mr, 11yers asked ?,Jr. Cooper did he have an opinion. Mr. Brant objected. Mr. Cooper to The Judge asked /answer the question yes or no. yr. Cooper answered yes. Chudnow Hearing - OCtober 25, 1973 Page 10 \ The Judge asked Mr. Brant if he objected . Mr. Brant said yes. He is at a loss to know how Wr. Cooper qualifies. ". The Judge upheld. Mr. Myers made reference to solving the Cities health problem. Mr. Cooper made reference to the Blair case. Ile said they tried to encourage new construction. There is a way to manage the interim. Take that quantum and apply it to the existing facility until the new facility is built. Controls could be through the City building department with a gallons limit established. Mr. Brant asked is it not a fact that the Department of Pollution Control has final control. Mr. Cooper answered yes. Mr. Brant asked you stated 700,000 gallons is designed and 770,000 is the approved overload. Mr. Cooper answered you could work a designed capacity in excess of 770,000. Mr. Cooper qualified that the 770,000 gallons is based on a lb hour day. This may not be the case in Palm Beach Gardens since there is storage in the line which lags. Mr. Brant asked are there sewage treatment lines near the property in question. Mr. Cooper said I guess so. Mr. Brant asked do you know if North Palm Beach has lines in the area. Mr. Cooper did not know. Mr. Brant asked regarding the Longwood situation are you aware the Longwood Plant has just recently been hooked up. Mr. Cooper responded he assumed it was on the line. Mr. Brant asked if Mr. Cooper was aware that Longwood is dry. Mr. Cooper said no. Mr. Brant asked if Mr. Cooper was aware of the Tanglewood capacity. Mr. Cooper responded he thought it was near 40,000 gallons per day. Mr. Brant asked do your records show the average Tanglewood flow. Mr. Cooper responded that he could not recall Chudnow Hearing - October 25, 1973 Page 11 Mr. Brant asked if both of these were out of utilization what effect would the efficiency have at the existing plant. �. Mr. Cooper answered it would drop. Mr. Brant asked how much. Mr. Cooper answered less than 10% Cooper Mr. Brant asked could it be zero. what is the flow range.(i4r. /discussed the flow and the various months and the BOD) -(I did not get the exact months or the dates) (Mr. Brant talks too fast) Regarding January Mr. Cooper cited this month as saying here we are getting into basic sewage treatment. It is a dry month. Rainfall infiltration can approach 100,000 gallons per day. Fair. Brant asked how do you determine rain amount Mr. Cooper said by taking the monthly differences Mr. Brant asked aren't there peak months Air. Cooper said I don't think Palm Beach Gardens has a tourist period. He U cited Palm Beach where there is a high monthly periodic increase. Mr. Brant - Going back to the 107o - Will taking Tanglewood and Longwood off the line _ will the Board of Health go as high as a 103 degradation. Air. Cooper said yes. There was a break here and Mr. Brant and For. Baldwin conferred. Fir. Brant asked that in Mr. Coopers office did he have rainfall data. Mr. Cooper said he did. mr. Brant asked if it would require a court order to get it. Mr. Cooper said no. Mr. Brant asked did he recall the flow of the plant in November 1970. Mr. Cooper did notrecollect - he thought it was approximately 800,000 gallons. Mr. Brant asked if November was a wet month. Air. Cooper responded that May through October is the rainy season Mr. Myers questioned that the Department of Pollution Control has final authority and that they do not base their decisions on a health matter. Chudnow Hearing - October 25v 1973 Page 12 Mr. Cooper responded they do not judge on health Mr. Myers relative to the 101 on Longwood and Tanglewood would it operate at a u lower efficiency at the plant. Mr. Cooper said put it this way - I would not recommend they come off the line Mr. Myers said do you object to on -site treatment plants Mr. Cooper said not if they discharge to the Utility. Mr. Myers asked would you expect a drop in rain now through May which is the construction period for the new plant. Mr. Cooper said yes That was all of the questions fcr Mr. Cooper. Mr. Myers called Mr. Trapnell and asked him to state his name and title Mr. Trapnell stated that he was a Director of Palm Beach County Utilities and a Vice President of North Palm Beach Utilities The Judge asked is Palm Beach County Utilities a private organization? Mr. Myers asked Hr. Trapnell did you have occasion to take over the Palm. Beach Gardens plant 2 years ago. Mr. Trapnell answered yes. When I took it over conditions were terrible. The digester, chloridator(and he went on to mention many other items)were inoperative. Mr. Myers asked was the moratorium in effect. xr. Trapnell answered yes. He would have done it also Mr. Myers asked since that time what has happened. Mr. Trapnell answered we have cleaned it up to near capacity as possible. Mr. Myers asked what was the treatment level at the time of 1970 Mr. Trapnell answered nobody could really tell. He discussed items regarding the plant etc. and how terrible the situation was Pir. Myers entered the TOP for the old plant into evidence Mr. Brant - Mr. Trapnell discussed service under the Public Service Commission The Judge asked when the new plant will be completed Mr. Trapnell responded the old plant will come off the line to make room for the water plant Chudnow Hearing - October 253 1973 Pag e 13 Mr. Myers asked what is the status of the construction of the new plant. Mr. Cooper furnished the construction permit Mr. Trapnell furnished the County permit, the building permit and this was entered as exhibit #5. Mr. Myers asked do you have all the permits. Mr. Trapnell said yes all of them. Mr. Myers asked what is the construction progress status. Mr. Trapnell said that he had all the contracts ready in April, May and June ready for the approval of the various County agencies. These were all signed by Air, Trapnell, initialed by Mr, MacArthur and Mr. Schwencke . The contract for the building was let this week Mr. Myers asked how much of a committment have they made Mr. Trapnell said `800,000 to a million dollars Mr.Myers asked is all of that in equipment Mr. Trapnell said yes `-' Mr. Myers asked when the equipment would arrive Mr. Trapnell answered that some was here. The pipe was goring in today under the first tank - 400 h.p, blowers and other equipment he listed. The orders were to be released tomorrow. The plant City steel equipment would be delivered plant sometime between Dec. 20th and January 10th. These are /components to go inside the building. The Judge asked maybe we could expedite the situation. Could you answer what is the operation date. Mr. Trapnell said his target was July 1st. The Judge asked what year Mr. Trapnell said 1974 Mr. Myers said that earlier there was questions on the right -of -way. Mr. Trapnell said we have no problem. We are negotiating as to over and under the turnpike Chudnow Heaing - October 25, 1973 Page 14 Mr. Myers asked does Mr. MacArthur own the land. Mr. Trapnell said most of it The Judge asked is the plant located West of the turnpike Mr. Trapnell described the location of the new plant Mr. Myers asked are you familiar with the Chudnow property Mr. Trapnell answered yes facilities are there Mr. Brant looking at exhibit #5 and noted that the date was October 5th Mr. Trapnell answered we have been held up since April Mr. Brant asked you list Larry Jarrell Construction Inc. Do you know of Mr. Jarrell's experience Mr. Trapnell answered Mr. Jarrell is a General Contractor. Crom will do the plant. He has experience in North Palm Beach Mr. Brant asked if a lift station will be necessary Mr. Trapnell said yes Mr. Brant asked are the plans approved Mr. Trapnell said no - they just got the plans today from Brockway, Owen and Anderson and yesterday for the lift station and the force mains Mr. Brant called attention to exhibit #4 on the bottom. Is the language the only basis for hooking up the old plant to the new. Mr. Trapnell stated we have to hook in. We can not meet the Department of Pollution Control requirements for the old plant. We will have to pay a $59000 a day fine Mr. Brant asked do you have a performance bond guarantee - performance on the date. Mr. Trapnell answered no. The contracts are all issued by Palm Beach County Utilities. He has no doubt when the plant will be in operation. Mr. Brant asked do you includle the existing lines off the existing plant Mr. Trapnell stated that plant are on the board. He doesn't expect any trouble in getting approval Mr. Brant asked as an officer of the Company will this plant serve other areas Chudnow Hearing - October 25, 1973 Page 15 \ Mr. Trapnell answered that under the Public Service Commission they have a new which to service area / he described from Silver Beach Road to the ocean /Donald Ross Road etc. Mr. Brant asked what was the initial capacity Mr. Trapnell described the plant basically was rated at 22 million gallons per day with some of the tanks and components as 5 million gallon capacity on July 1 Mr. Brant asked /will they be able to serve all of the service area or was there a priority area Air. Trapnell answered that the City of Palm Beach Gardens is first, that they must make available the area to expand the water plant. The problem herevtts not sewage we don't have enough water - we'iae got to fill in the polishing pond and expand the water plant Mr. Brant asked regarding the existing lines - would they be hooked up before or after July 1st. Mr. Trapnell said he hoped before. He had received data yesterday that he could not sign or approve it because Mr. MacArthur was out of Town. Mr. Brant asked on the contracts outstanding - did he have delivery dates. Mr. Trapnell said 16 to 20 weeks Mr. Brant asked was there a penalty for late delivery Air. Trapnell said no Mr. Brant asked was there a guarantee Mr. Trapnell answered none :9r. Brant asked for the contract with Larry Jarrell. It was furnished. Mr. Brant asked was there a completion date on the Jarrell Construction contract. Mr. Trapnell stated there was a start within 15 days of signing it. There was no completion date. They did not expect the general contractor to sign a completion date when he had to install equipment that was being furnished by others. Mr. Brant asked if there was a liquidated damage clause, shortage of material, agreements on other equipment etc. Mr. Trapnell said there were no exceptions Chudnow Hearing - October 25, 1973 Page 16 Mr. Brant asked in the event of non completion was there a bond posted. qtr. Trapnell said no. The Utility is the General Contractor Mr. Myers noted that the delays etc. that the Utility had run into with the Area Planning Board, the Flood Control District and the County Zoning etc, and he gaid the Utility still went ahead and made their committments. Mr. Trapnell said yes Mr. Myers then noted that they had taken overt action Mr. Trapnell said yes Jr. Myers asked have you advised the City Mr. Trapnell said no he had not advised the City. He did advise Mayor Kiedis. PIr. Kiedis was advised of the project date in July. Mayor Kiedis has looked at the site Mr. Myers asked has the City Council bothered to go to the site Mr. Trapnell s aid no Mr. Myers to Mr. Brant - asked if he had any objection to entering the Xerox copy of the contracts into evidence Mr. Brant said no if the City was furnished a copy of them The Judge asked what do some of these terms mean - BOD Mr. Trapnell and Mr. Cooper explained that SOD stood for Biochemical Oxygen Demand The Judge asked the present site - he wanted to know where it was - he had heard of the new one. Mk. Trapnell described the location of the present site. The Judge asked was the water plant there too Tor. Trapnell answered yes The hearing was adjourned approximately 5 :00 P.M. with a continuance set for 8 :00 A.M. on November 6, 1973. Chudnow Hearing - October 25, 1973 Page 17 Attorney Brant reported the following at the Workshop Meeting of the City Council held October 25, 1973: The Plaintiff has not arrested the case as yet. They have two witnesses to go - in all probability they won't conclude on November 6th - they have an V-2 hours set aside from 8 :00 - 9:30 A.M.to spill over until November 7th at 8 :00 A.M. Hopefully X will get one City witness on November 6th because of the timetable established. There is a possibility they may not conclude this case on November 7, 1973 the way the timetable looks to me. I do feel a member of the Council should appear as a witness in behalf of the City. Mr. 1 %,iley has quite a handle on the problem and I would suggest to you considering allowing me to use Mr. Wiley for that purpose. The Council agreed with Attorney Brants suggestion that Mr. Viley be the designated representative to appear as a witness in behalf of the City.