The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

132nd Year No. 33 The Mark Bryson Chronicle Staff City moves The physical move by the city to the Waterloo City Centre has been completed, but the controversy raised by Waterloo‘s coal tar cleanup agreement with CN Real Estate is far from over. A published report last Friday indicates aldermen may have been kept in the dark by chief administraâ€" tive officer Don Roughley, who obtained a written legal opinion last August from a city solicitor and decided against providing the 11 pages of information to members of council. The written opinion is reported to state that if an agreement between Waterloo and CN could not be reached on sharing the coal tar cleanup costs, lawyer Al Ostner would rather have had the city‘s case over that of the Crown corporation ‘"I‘m very, very surprised it was withheld," said Ald. Brian Turnbull in an interview. ‘‘We did receive a verbal report, but without seeing the written one, we don‘t know whether anything was withheld from us or The revelation has left several members of council Turnbull, as well as Ald. Lynne Woolstencroft, were e both at the new city hall yesterday, requesting to see the document in question. Prior to last Fridpyt neither knew such an opinion existed. And contacted late Tuesday, neither was sure whether they would ever be allowed to inspect it. Woolstencroft said the turn of events has left her very confused as to what her actual powers are, and says her job is "becoming more frustrating all the time." But Roughley, as do some other members of council, thinks too much is being made about the decision to not issue the written report. He maintains the verbal report issued council members in caucus outlined all aspects of the written report. "The legal opinion dealt strictly with case law and really was more of a memorandum than anything. But that was last August, and a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then...we have since found out that coal tar was on our lands as well, so the question of liability has changed," said Roughley. ‘The CAO feels not"enough of the "positive aspects‘" of the agreement have been reported to the public, specifically what would have happened if the city did not agree to work cooperatively Yit.h CN. We would not have any sort of development along BeginaStreetandtberewouldstinbecoaltaronthe land. And the project has been completed in a positive way with no lawsuits,"‘ said Roughley, referring to the situation in Ottawaâ€"Carleton Region, where an $11.5 million coal tar cleanup operation has been hampered by a series of suits. _JHâ€"c);r‘e.s;;;.'-c'it;"-solicitor Bill White said in an interview yesterday that there was actually two reports provided t.oRou_ghley one last August and an elmg . Snd M oete aoen on niareuae sc tiiy e ul i addendum report in February. And despite what Roughley says about the developments that took place following the July discovery, White maintains his February report still favored the city‘s position over that of CN‘s. "I have consistently said that our case was better than their‘s. It would have been a difficult case, but wiit(l; shades of optimism, I liked our chances," he said. White declined to state what actually went on at the February meeting, but recalls he did tel} council that the case was not ‘"open and shut." Problems began last July, when coal tar was discovered at the site of the new city hall on Regina Street. Following negotiations between CN, Waterloo, (Continued on page 5)