Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/11/1980 Meeting ~ . . M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 11, 1980 Regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller, at 7:30 p.m., February 11, 1980, with the following Councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, and Emily Schue. I. ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL, APPOINTMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS, AGENDA ADJUSTMENTS A. Pool Closures Mr. Lieuallen noted that citizens were present who are concerned about the pool closures. His feeling was that, although there are more appropriate forums, the meeting should be opened up for the first 10 minutes for people to present their concerns, and that the Council could then determine a time in the near future to discuss the issue. Mr. Lieuallen moved, seconded by Mr. Hamel, to entertain a presentation by two or three people who wished to speak for the group on the issue of pool closures, said discussion being limited to 10 minutes, and occurring at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Keller requested clarification from Mr. Henry regarding items which do not appear on the agenda, as it was his understanding that, historically, those items would appear at the end of the agenda. Mr. Henry responded that this was historically correct; however, placement of an item is the prerogative of the Council. Mr. Haws spoke against the motion and felt that the Council should stand with its past decision to not allow public testimony at this meeting. No public notice had been given and there might be people opposed. If the Council were going to consider the motion, notice should have been given to the public. He stated that he would like to hear both sides; he opposed the procedure as stated in the motion. Ms. Smith voiced agreement with Mr. Haws, but noted she would suppport putting the issue on a future Council agenda for discussion. Ms. Miller stated she did not feel the Council should lead people on to think that the Council would listen and act on this issue when nothing would happen, since the Council was not in any position to make changes that night in the budget cuts that the Council had 2/11/80--1 (\ already approved. If members of the Council wished to hear more public testimony on the matter~ the entire issue of budget cutting should be reopened, rather than taking on one issue at a time, which would not result in a balanced budget by the end of the fiscal year. She felt that affected departments should be notified of the possibility of alternative budget cuts and their exact nature. Ms. Schue indicated she shared the concerns with the other members of the Council, but felt the citizens should be allowed to make their presentation. . ( Mr. Obie stated that there is an obligation of the Council to listen to the citizens at some time, and in an orderly fashion. He expressed agreement that this issue should be placed on a future agenda. Mr. Obie also requested that Mr. Henry provide the Council with alterna- tive cuts in lieu of swimming pools, so that all would be aware of the consequences of the alternatives. He recommended having this issue placed on a future agenda and having adequate publicity and adequate information, and,he expressed appreciation to the citizens who appeared at the meeting. Mr. Delay noted that at least three separate issues are involved: 1) long-term plan regarding Jefferson Pool; 2) errors may have been made in the process of identifying the budget cuts; and 3) viable alternative cuts must be presented in lieu of the approved budget cuts. He had suggested to citizens that they present written testi- mony to the Councilors which would be included in their packets for study over the weekend, but he noted that no testimony was in the packet so they had no more information than before. e Mr. Lieuallen stated he did not encourage citizens to come to the Council meeting tonight in the hopes of their being able to testify; rather, he had tried to convince people that tonight's Council meeting was not the appropriate forum. Ho~ever, he indicated that a response must be made to their request and that, although the issue could not be resolved tonight, the presentation could be made. Mayor Keller indicated that it would highly inappropriate to support the motion. He stated it is always in the best interests of the City that both sides be heard. Sunday closures at the Library also are unpopular, but those decisions had to be rendered to balance the budget. There are no alternatives, such as deficit spending, since the voters approve the budget and the Budget Committee is operating under great hardships as they try to deal with expanded services and less funds. When the recommendations for the rotating pool closure and Sunday closures at the Library were presented, the Council was sensitive that these would be controversial. He reaffirmed the position that it would be highly inappropriate to deal only with the pool closures, but would be supportive of advertising e 2/11/80--2 ~ the public hearing. Mayor Keller also invited citizens to participate in the bUdget process, which is the appropriate forum for determining budget priorities. He noted appreciation for letters and concern. He expressed his hope that this motion would be defeated and a public hearing would be scheduled. Roll call vote; motion failed 5:3, with Councilors Delay, Haws, Miller, Obie, and Smith voting no; Councilors Hamel, L~euallen, and Schue voting aye. Mayor Keller asked whether Councilors would like to schedule a public hearing to discuss this issue. The meeting was disrupted by comments from an unrecognized speaker; Mayor Keller temporarily adjourned the meeting for 10 minutes to restore order. Ray Broderick, 1375 Corum Avenue, stated that a discussion with Mayor Keller during the recess indicated that the Council would uphold its decision not to hear testimony during the meeting, and that a public hearing on the matter would be scheduled for the February 20 Council meeting which would give more time for consideration of the proposal he had presented to the Mayor. He also indicated the group of citizens would like to be heard before that time. ce Mayor Keller clarified the rationale for scheduling the group on February 20: A meeting with the Eugene Renewal Agency is scheduled for the Council following the February 13 Council meeting. With a full agenda as well, the Council will probably be going until about 4 p.m. that day. He is scheduling the public hearing on this matter for February 20. He also cautioned that there would be a designated time allotted for testimony and recommended that the group designate speakers to voice the concerns of the entire group. Mr. Broderick stated his appreciation for the discussion with Mayor Keller. He also stated that his understanding from talking with Mr. Henry was that the pools could be reopened at any time based upon new information and expressed hope that this could happen prior to the February 20 hearing. Mr. Obie requested that alternative budget cuts be available for consideration at the February 20 Council meeting. Mayor Keller stated that he had instructed staff to have the item placed on the February 20 agenda and to have alternatives available. In response to Ms. Miller's question as to whether the hearing would be only on the pools, Mr. Henry suggested that the hearing be limited to the pools and park, programs, not the entire matter of the approved budget cuts. She indicated that she also would like a staff presen- tation of alternative budget cut proposals at that meeting. e 2/11/80--3 ( B~ Scobert Case Mr. Henry indicated he had that day received a letter from Judge Douglas R. Spencer, regarding the Scobert case. He announced that Judge Spencer had ruled in the City.s favor for the following reasons: the City of Eugene did not violate the public meetings law, since it was not the convening of a governing body of the City; the Whiteaker Council is not a board, department, commission, council, bureau, committee, subcommittee, advisory group, or any other agency of the defendant, the City of Eugene. The meeting was not the convening of the governing body of the Whiteaker Neighborhood Council. The Executive Session of the City Council held July 20, 1979, did not involve a violation of the public meetings law by the City of Eugene because the Council had voted unanimously to go into executive session for an announced and identified purpose: to consider park land acquisition. The Executive Session was limited to that purpose as allowed and required by ORS 192.660. C. Patterson Towers ( Mr. Henry announced that, as a result of the effective defense of the City's ordinance, and the wisdom of the Hearings Panel in granting the conversion exemption to the Willamette Towers, Willamette Towers, Inc., which had also sought to convert Patterson Towers, has withdrawn from that intent, is about to withdraw from Federal court, has withdrawn from State court, and has withdrawn from Land Use Board litigation. This has resulted in a considerable savi~gs and prevented a lengthy litigation for the City. He feels the Task Force can proceed with development of the ordinance and the Patterson Towers residents can be more relaxed. Mayor Keller also expressed his appreciation of the fine job done by the City Attorney.s Office. II. MAHLON SWEET FIELD MASTER PLAN UPDATE (MEMO DISTRIBUTED) Mr. Henry introduced the topic and referred to the plan which the Council and community had previously received. The Airport Commission had reviewed the report and made recommendations, and the Planning Commission, with respect to land use, had made recommendations. He noted that the first presentation would be made by the airport consultant who prepared the report. Mr. Shelby, the Director of Aviation, would report regarding the proposed runway location and the land use process around the airport, and' Mr. Talbot, chairman of the Airport Commission, and FAA staff were also available to testify. He introduced Mr. A. J. Parry, who would be making an illustrated presentation of the Master Plan. Mr. Parry stated that in the report the Plan would be 95-percent financed by a joint effort between the FAA and the State of Oregon. He compli- mented City staff on theit excellent cooperation. He also mentioned that their firm had also been involved in the update of the Plan. 2/11/80--4 e e e c. Mr. Parry listed some of the conclusions the consultants had reached: 1) maximum capacity of the airport's existing runway would be reached in the period 1980-1985, and an additional 3,200 feet north-south general aviation runway would be required by the end of that period (he showed an illustration of this with a chart); 2) area problems for the public and for the tenants already exist in the terminal building; and 3) by the year 2000, the indication is that 400-plus aircraft will be based at the ai rport. Mr. Parry noted the first recommendation is to construct a general avia- tion runway 3,200 feet long and 75 feet wide. In the 1972 Airport Master Plan, they had recommended a location for this runway which was approved by the FAA and the City Council. The location in the Update is basically in the same position. Additional aircraft parking areas for based aircraft need to be developed; architectural plans should be prepared for terminal (e expansion with construction to begin at the earliest possible date. Short- term and long-term automobile parking should be expanded. The main auto- mobile access road, Douglas Drive, should link Greenhill Road with the terminal into a loop to the parking areas. An additional automobile rental parking area should be provided south of the terminal building adjacent to the baggage claim area. Discussion with the FAA should be initiated to upgrade andlor relocate the air traffic control tower. A new fire/crash/rescue station should be built. To be implemented at the earliest possible date, in conjunction with Lane County, should be the Airport Safety Zoning Ordinance (Appendix A of Update). Closure of Greenhill Road is recommended in the future. Pages 837 and 838 of the Plan recommend that the land in the vicinity of the airport be included in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan. Mr. Shelby noted this update had been presented to the Council on February 6, 1980. He stated the problems they were faced with were: 1) what land uses should take place within the environs of the airport; 2) whether Mahlon Sweet should be included in the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Plan; 3) the basis for determination of the location of the runway and whether the additional information would cause this to be changed. He stated that this is a $17.5-million developmental Plan to the year 2000, of which $4.4 million of the work has been accomplished, leaving approximately $13.1 million, of which approximately $3.8 million will be the "City'S share." Also, the Economic Feasibility Study conducted by the consultants indicates that the airport will continue to be self-sustaining. He noted that the Airport Commission recommended that the Plan be approved. Mayor Keller opened public hearing on the Mahlon Sweet Field Master Plan Update. Those speaking in favor: Dan Childress, 1845-1/2 University, architect, private pilot, stated that the airport provides a very good transportation service which also brings non-Eugene monies }nto the airport. He felt separation of the runways for general and private use to be critical. He also noted that keeping the area near the airport an open space is beneficial for safety, aesthetics, and growth. e 2/11/80--5 c RaY Costello, 3040 25th Street SE, Salem, identified himself as the a~sistant administrator of the Oregon Aeronautics Division and Director of Planning for the aviation system. He noted that the agency endorses the Plan, particularly in respect to planning for land use in the vicinity o~ the airport. Mdrk Beisse, FAA, Seattle, represents FAA planning for Oregon. He noted the FAA had participated in this study and that they commend City staff (~specially Planning and Airport commissions) for their work. This precise Plan will be used for determining funding eligibility of this project and helping with facility design, providing an excellent basis for management of the airport. He said the Plan provides the best solutions available. He stated they would approve this Plan as proposed, subject to continued work on land use compatibility. He encouraged Eugene, in conjunction with Lane County, to adopt land development controls based on this Plan. This action is a prerequisite to FAA.s funding this program. The airport and airway development requires action including the adoption of zoning ordinances to restrict the use of land in the vicinity of airports to activities compatible with the airport operations. He stated they are pleased with the planning and development, but cautioned that following through with development and ensuring compatibility of land use is essential. c, Melba Barnes, 29943 Awbrey Lane, stated the Plan seemed very well planned, but she was concerned that the sewer area would be placed at the end of the runway and that it would be hazardous to the public. Those speaking against: Vernon D. Gleaves, 975 Oak Street, attorney on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Elbert Drake, property owners at the northeast quadrant of Greenhill Road and Airport Road, asked that a memo that had been distributed under separate cover, dated January 30, 1980, subject: Mahlon Sweet Airport Update Plan, be entered into the public record. He also stated his feeling that this is more than a facilities plan, but rather a land use plan and that the consultants. report indicated the compatible uses for this area would not be restricted to airport land. He further indicated that the Drakes' land (presently zoned AV) is also prime development land. He also stated there was an apparent lack of concern about the hazards for residential development and the Drakes. residence for planes flying above the Drakes' residence, and that there seemed to be an exclusion on devel- opment granted to the City on non-airport required development in and around the airport, which he claimed was in violation of antitrust laws. He stated if the City is to infringe on the air space over the Drakes' land and develop the airport in this manner, it has a duty to acquire and pay for the land. He also submitted that the City should not be developing its own land use plan, but rather involving Lane County in this process, and that the Plan is therefore invalid. He added that the Plan does not include the State's Land Use Planning Goals. He also questioned the Plan's being predicated upon road vacation, which might or might not happen. ~ 2/11/80--6 e e e ~ Tom Hunton, 92194 Purkeson Road, Junction City, farmer, spoke against the Plan wlth regard to the closure of Greenhill Road. He stated that the 1972 Plan recommended a taxi-way over Greenhill Road. He feels that agriculture is a compatible use but the farmers use Greenhill Road to a great extent. He also felt emergency services response would be slower if Greenhill Road were closed, and felt others would also be opposed to this change. Mike Kangas, 27607 Royal Avenue, Carl E Hunton, 28390 Milliron Road, Junction City, Joseph Heitzman, 5390 Barger Avenue, and Ruby Ringsdorf, 28781 Bodenhamer Road, were all opposed to the Plan for the reasons mentioned by Mr. Tom Hunton. Ray Fechtel, 72 West Broadway, identified himself as the attorney repre- senting Mr. Maxwell and Associates, and Mr. Butch Kokler, landowners in the immediate vicinity of the airport. He stated that Mr. Kokler's land is the most prime development land since it would be out of the current and proposed runways. The Maxwell land has easement of access onto the runway. Both clients have offered their property for sale to the City and would consider denial of this offer to be inverse condemnation by "down- zoning" the land to no use in lieu of just compensation. His feeling is that industrial use is a compatible use to the airport and was encouraged by the original consultant's report. He mentioned that private consultants had suggested to him that compatible uses be encouraged and it is Mr. Fechtel's feeling these uses should be encouraged on private land as well as public land. ~ Mr. Parry, in rebuttal, stated that their firm made recommendations to the City and asked that these will be reviewed by various agencies and an off-airport land use plan developed. Mr. Shelby reiterated that the closure of Greenhill Road was predicated on rerouting that road, which would probably not be necessary in Phase 1 of the Plan, and might never be needed. Mr. Talbot noted general aviation traffic was turned away during recon- struction work in the summer of 1979, and that Mahlon Sweet Airport is overloaded. Gary Chenkin, Planning, said that the State Land Use Planning Goals will be discussed with Springfield and Lane County and that land uses would not be determined during this Council meeting. He also stated that the statement regarding manufacturing was deleted prior to Planning's review of the Plan. Mr. Obie asked for clarification from Mr. Chenkin as to whether the zoning recommended in the map in the Plan would predetermine the land use. Mr. Chenkin stated that Planning uses that map for existing zoning, but that changes could be made when the Metropolitan Plan is updated. e 2/11/80--7 C'-',: i Mr. Obie asked if the Council would be committing themselves for future land use designation upon approval of the Plan. Mr. Chenkin responded that the commitment would be to a cooperative process with Lane County to d~fine airport impact areas and long-term uses for that area. Mr. Obie asked whether shopping centers, banks, and hotels would be allowed, and Mr'. Chenkin stated that those uses were pointed out as examples of compat- ible use, not necessarily recommended uses. Mr. Obie asked if adoption of the Plan during the meeting would mean agreement to those uses; Mr. Chenkin answered that since these were only examples of uses, they would not be locked into only those uses. At this point, the concerns are not on these uses at the airport) but rather on off-airport environs. ( Mr. Obie noted his uncertainty about having hotels) shopping centers, banks, etc., on airport-operated property, and wondered how he should vote due to that uncertainty. Mr. Shelby stated that banking, barber shops, and other shops and facilities are seen in many major terminals, b~t that he was unaware of any existing shopping centers at airports. He noted that it is not inconceivable that a motel complex could be located adjacent to the general aviation runway and noted some interest has been expressed along this line, although he was unsure that Eugene has reached ai growth point where it could economically support such a venture; that decision would be up to potential developers. Mr. Obie indicated support of a bank inside the terminal, but asked whether, if he supported the Plan, he might also be supporting the idea of a branch bank at the inter- section of Airport and Greenhill roads. Mr. Shelby responded that this will probably not be the case and would be conditional upon Lane County.s approval of a conditional use permit. Mr. Obie then asked if a shuttle system to a more central point relative to parking had been considered. Mr. Shelby replied that some discussion had taken place regarding a ~ulti-modal transportation system. Lane Transit District is conducting a study to try to determine the potential market for such a system, as well as the form it might take. Mr. Obie asked for elaboration regarding the closure of Greenhill Road and how this would affect transportation of farm equipment. Mr. Shelby noted that overpasses and underpasses had been considered, but that probably Greenhill Road would be closed after being rerouted around airport property, although this may not ever be necessary. Ms. Miller noted that perhaps Assumption 6 in the Plan regarding continuing availability of fuel was no longer as valid as it had been. Mr. Parry stated the report had had to be ended at some point and that fuel is a problem now, but that many shuttle systems are being considered at various airports. However, growth still calls for increased parking which might not be needed. Mayor Keller asked for clarification regarding the legality of the City.s having ~xclusive rights to develop that area. Mr. Long responded that the question was whether Federal antitrust laws would prohibit adoption of the Plan, which would probably have to be resolved in court. 2/11/80--8 e e -- ~ Ms. Miller asked what additional steps would be necessary prior to closure of Greenhill Road and what processes would be available for public involve- ment regarding the terminal expansion before that project would be under- taken. Mr. Shelby noted the steps regarding terminal expansion would involve selection of an architectural firm with which to negotiate a contract for the City's consideration. Upon execution of the contract, the chosen firm would begin to work with the City and airport clients to determine Phase 1 development. The Airport Commission is now trying to determine how to get maximum public input into that phase. After that, a bond issue or other means of financing will be suggested in order to apply for grants. ~ In response to Mr. Lieuallen's request for clarification~ Mr. Long respon- ded that the argument presented in earlier testimony was that the implemen- tation of the Plan with the kind of zoning that was discussed would render certain property unusable. He stated that if governmental action results in a situation where no use can be made of the property, the owner may be entitled to compensation, although he does not feel that is the case in this situation, nor is that question before the Council at this time. Mr. Obie suggested to the Council that the Plan not be approved during the meeting and that staff be requested to prepare memos or alternatives that would address 1) acknowledgment that the Council is not dealing with future land use designation in the Plan; 2) that Greenhill Road not be closed without provisions for solutions to traffic problems; 3) that the Plan be amended to require a subsection regarding dealing with energy problems facing commuters. He stated he was not suggesting the Plan be amended, but that the three already mentioned concerns be dealt with. Ms. Smith asked Mr. Obie if he had a time schedule in mind for resolving these concerns, and he responded, one week to ten days. Mr. Shelby stated Mr. Obie's first two concerns could be addressed within that time frame, but that the subsection on energy might take longer and be subject to negoti- ation between FAA and the consultants. Mr. Obie suggested adopting the Plan with acknowledgment that the energy concern will be dealt with in the future. Ms. Miller agreed that these concerns should be dealt with and hoped it would clarify some concerns of hers regarding controls and guide- lines for development. She also felt some of the concerns regarding the terminal expansion, such as passenger boarding methods, also needed clari- fication. Mr. Parry stated the terminal building is a schematic plan which would be discussed with the airport tenants. The current airline tenants have generally approved the concept. Ms. Smith moved that the Airport Master Plan be brought back to City Council February 25 for consideration; Mr. Lieuallen seconded the motion. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Mr. Haws left during the break. ,e 2/11/80--9 III. :ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING ( :CB 2064--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and sidewalks on Bertelsen Road from 11th Avenue to Royal Avenue (77-40). e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18572. CB 2065--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer within and adjacent to Maracott Manor; and storm sewer construc- tion from east plat boundary to 270 feet east (79-10). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18573. CB 2067--Levying assessments for alley paving between 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue from Jefferson Street to Madison Street (79-23). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18574. c CB 2068--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer in and adjacent to Harriet Park Subdivision (79-27). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18575. e CB 2069--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and storm sewer within Sagewood Subdivision (79-32). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18576. CB 2070--Levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer to serve 1st Addition to Oxbow Subdivision; sanitary sewer to serve area within 160 feet of the north boundary of 1st Addition to Oxbow; and storm sewer in Bonnie View Drive from 900 feet west of Sarah Street to existing drainage ditch approximately 100 feet east of Sarah (79-33). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The.bill was declared passed and numbered 18577. e 2/11/80--10 . - :- CB 2071--Levying assessments for paving Berntzen from Pattison Street to Concord Street (79-36). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18578. The following council bill is being held over. CB 2066--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer to serve White Oak Heights Subdivision; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the west boundary of White Oak Heights (79-11). IV. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING Levying assessments and referring to Assessment Panel February 18, 1980. CB 2075--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way in Clarey Plat and Clarey 1st Addition (78-27). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the first time and referred to the Assessment Panel for hearing February 18, 1980, with Panel recommendations to be brought back for Council consideration February 25, 1980. Motion carried unanimously. V. RESOLUTIONS A. Audit Resolution (memo distributed) Mr. Henry stated that the resolution is related to the findings of the auditors who made certain critiques and recommendations. Res. No. 3309--A resolution setting forth measures to correct deficiencies disclosed in the 1979 Audit Report and stating the period of time estimated for completion thereof. Ms. Miller asked for clarification of terms; Mr. Bill McGuire responded that a program is a group of like work units. Program-object group is a program with three or more object groups containing personnel services, materials and supplies, and capital outlay. Fund is a legal accounting breakdown used for a specific purpose. Organizational unit is a department, division, section, or work unit. The 1980-81 budget will be presented by fund and organizational unit as allowed by law. The 1979-80 budget was adopted by program and object group. Mr. Henry said that his understanding of the law is that the budget must be adopted at the fund/program/object group or program/organizational unit/object group level, and our budget was adopted at the programlobject group level. 2/11/80--11 (, Mr. Greg Klimko stated the law currently requires that budgets be adopted :at a three-level system; and the law is being changed as of July 1, 1980, so that budgets can be adopted at two levels. Mr. Delay stated that the memo described the relationship between Oregon local budget law as opposed \to practical accounting procedures and does not reflect weaknesses; and ~sked if he had properly understood the memo. Mr. Dave Dietzler, one of the auditors, responded that it was a fai r summary. Mr. Delay asked for clarification of Section 8 of the resolution. Mr. Klimko stated the audit report states that the six-month appropriation limitation for the Anti-Recessionary Fiscal Assistance Program was violated, and to correct this, all available resources have been re-appropriated in 1979-80. Mr. Obie asked to what extent expenditures were made prior to approval. Mr. McGuire gave the example of the Library parking lot land purchase when Council approved the transaction, funds were expended, then the Council approved the appropriations transfer to cover the expense. He also noted this went on in 1978-79, and will continue until unforseeable expenses can be determined prior to budget approval. He also felt the need for appropriation transfers should be able to be reduced, and that the reso- lution affecting the transfer should be brought before the Council at the same time as the request for approval of the expenditures, rather than accumulating them and presenting them every two to three months. ( Mr. Obie asked Mr. Henry what would happen if the Council decided it did not want to authorize interfund loans, such as in Sections 4 to 7 of the memo. Mr. Henry responded that all the expenditures are approved budgeted projects; the problem is that the money has to be spent before the grant can be received, which constitutes a loan. Mr. Keller asked if the resolution would have to identify the exact price. Mr. McGuire responded that he thought the Council could authorize transfer of the necessary amount without specifying the exact amount to make the purchase, which would put the City in compliance with the law. Ms. Miller asked what is being done to keep closer track of how departments are spending their budgets. Mr. Henry responded that monthly reports could be provided. Mr. McGuire said that the February report will reflect the budget cut. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt Resolution No. 3309. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B~ FAU Signal System Agreement (memo distributed) Manager identified th~s as a complete survey which relates to the total signal system, including both state highways and local streets to determine needs to upgrade and coordinate the signal system, which would be paid for mostly by federal monies. \, 2/11/80--12 e e e . e e Manager introduced Jim Hanks, who stated Phase 1 is a study and a design program to attempt to install signals at all warranted loca- tions in the city, to modify existing signals to bring the system up to national standards, and to provide a control system that will cause all strategies to be used to reduce congestion, increase fuel savings, and reduce pollution. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the outcome might be a more centralized control of the transit pattern. Mr. Hanks replied this could be especially true in the downtown core. Res. No. 3310--A resolution authorizing execution of Contract No. 7147 with the State of Oregon Department of Transportation concerning an urban system construction project. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt Resolution No. 3310. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. VI. BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS (ATTACHED TO AGENDA) Mr. Henry read Resolution No. 3311--Authorizing payment of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period January 28, 1980, through February 11, 1980. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt Resolution No. 3311. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned to February 13, 1980. Respectfully submitted, ~y)~ City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) LN:pm/CM7b1 2/11/80--13