Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/25/1980 Meeting ,4 i e M I NUT E S EUGENE CITY COUNCIL February 25, 1980 Adjourned 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 25, 1980, with the following Councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, D. W. Hamel, Eric Haws, Gretchen Miller, Brian Obie, and Emily Schue. Councilor Jack Delay was absent. I. INTRODUCTION OF STUDENTS WHO WILL BE GOING TO KAKEGAWA THIS SPRING Mayor Keller introduced the group of students who are forming the youth delegation that will leave on April 29 to go to Kakegawa, Japan, Eugene's sister city. He thanked them for coming. II. DOWNTOWN EMPLOYEES' PETITION REQUEST REGARDING DOWNTOWN PARKING PROGRAM (Information Distributed) e Mr. Henry stated that representatives from a downtown employees' group wished to testify regarding the Downtown Parking Program. The Council enacted several new amendments which were passed regarding parking fees and violations. These actions were directed at improving the parking program and this was reviewed by the Downtown Development Board. A hearing was held in January and the program amendments went into effect in February. Mr. Henry introduced Duane Bischoff, Parking Administrator, Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, and Navarre Davis from the Downtown Develop- ment Board. Mr. Henry stated it is the staff recommendation that this matter be referred to the Downtown Development Board. Public hearing was opened. Speaking in favor of the petition: Nita Robertson, 825 East Park, stated that there is a large group of downtown employees who are unhappy in this matter. Her three major objections to the current Downtown Parking Program were that there'is a lack of available permits in the current parking areas, there should be an increase in the number of parking permits and metered lots, and that they had been provided with unworkable and unusable alternatives. She further stated there are many employees who do not live on or near a Lane Transit District route and that the current shuttle system which has been provided by the City is not a workable solution for many people. She made the following recommendations: 1) keep the free parking but place a two-hour time limit per space; 2) better busing--some of the money taken from the City's budget to police parking could be put to work helping LTD develop e 2/25/80--1 '"'-, . . better routes; 3) security for parking garages; 4) temporary permits for undersold lots; 5) reasonable rates for available space; and 6) reasonable fines for parking violations without having parking control officers ~ following employees into their place of business or to have personnel from Diamond Parking follow them to their place of work. She further stated that although others driving cars of downtown employees are not supposed . to be issued citations, if the parking control officers are unable to contact them at work they put a citation on the car without determining who the driver is; then the employee must post bail and take time off from work to appear in court on the citation. She felt that the Downtown Development Board does not address the employees' needs but their own self-interests, and that the Downtown Development District and DDB should be abolished. She questioned why the City felt they had to have control over parking. She stated if the City Council is not willing to act . on this matter it must be prepared to accept the consequences. William Ikeda, 4030 Patterson, stated that the parking fee increases are his most immediate concern, but there are other issues involved, such as the $426,000 in enforcement costs which are not cost-effective in compar- ison with the approximately $35,000 in generated revenue. He further stated he felt the parking program is being mismanaged and questioned items in the budget regarding the mall cover, the rain project, and other items. Mr. Ikeda's final comment was that he felt a citizens' committee should review this issue and make recommendations to the City Council for parking for all working in the district. There being no further testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. Ms. Schue asked for clarification regarding the figures that had been presented by Mr. Ikeda. Mr. Bischoff stated that the income of approxi- mately $100,000 generated from downtown parking is primarily from the downtown lots and from the Overpark, and covers enforcement costs but not all the lease payments. e Ms. Smith stated she is concerned with the assertion that the Downtown Development Board is not responsive to the needs of the downtown employees since they appear to not be supportive of this program. She also stated she did not feel the Council could make a decision without additional information, and she would like to know exactly what could be done to work with the citizens' group. Navarre Davis, Downtown Development Board, stated they are trying to work out a program that is best for all. He further stated that some of the information in prior testimony was not correct and suggested that any interested citizens or employees should attend the DDB meetings. Perhaps this way they could help determine how to divide 128 spaces among all downtown employees. He also stated that he would like members of the citizens' group to work with them and the DDB would listen to their concerns regarding parking and also it would provide an opportunity to clarify some misinformation. He further stated that private enterprise could not work out a program for parking such as this unless they charged $60-$70 a month for the same services. Ms. Smith stated she hoped the DDB would talk with the employees. e 2/25/80--2 e Ms. Miller stated that the most serious charge against the Downtown Development Board is that they are not responsive to the employees and the general citizenry. She expressed hope that employees would attend DDB meetings and insist on working with them. She also stated she does not know why there are no employees on the DDB; economic development is of interest to everyone. She asked two questions: 1) what do private lots charge; and 2) what is the enforcement process. Mr. Bischoff responded that the charges for private lots depend upon how close the lots are to the downtown core and that right now they are rather scarce. He further noted that prices are increasing at about the same rate as those through the Downtown Development District. Regarding enforcement, Mr. Bischoff stated that all employees are required to turn in their names and vehicle license numbers which are then entered into the computer and they attempt to determine who is using a lot or a space improperly. Once they determine that a vehicle is abusing a free space, then they must determine who is driving that vehicle. e Ms. Miller then asked how long the waiting list is to get into one of these City-controlled lots and Mr. Bischoff responded that until December, at least for the Overpark, there was no list. The quota was removed from that facility. He further noted that some lots have waiting lists but they are outside the Downtown Development District. These waiting lists can be up to two years or as short as 30 days. Mr. Haws noted agreement with Ms. Smith's concerns and further stated he did not know until recently that there was a problem. He suggested sending this group to the Downtown Development Board to see if they are unresponsive. Ms. Robertson noted that there are private enterprise lots which have no waiting lists; she uses one which costs $15 that is only two blocks from where she works. Mayor Keller noted that the downtown core area has different problems than other areas. They need customer parking, which he congratulated the DDB for providing, and employee parking. He did note that he is concerned that they might destroy what they have tried so hard to improve. Mayor Keller further noted this item has had legal challenges and it is his hope that the employees' group and the DDB will meet and work together. He further noted that the boycott of downtown merchants that the downtown employees had held was successful. He also stated the DDB had given a lot of time and energy to this situation and expressed hope that it would be he 1 pfu 1 . Mr. Ikeda asked about the boundaries of the Downtown Development District. Mayor Keller responded that there has been a good deal of lobbying trying to extend the boundaries of the Downtown Development District and this is an item they might review. Mr. Ikeda further noted that it seemed as though the parking program is quite a cost to the district. e 2/25/80--3 i Mr. Hamel felt the proposals presented by the group were very good and that the OOB should listen to the proposals. He also encouraged the : emp 1 oyees I group to go to the DDB. tit Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to refer the employees' concerns regarding the Downtown Parking Program to the Downtown Development Board. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. III. MAHLON SWEET FIELD MASTER PLAN UPDATE (Memo Distributed) Mr. Henry indicated that this resolution is to approve and accept the amended Airport Master Plan for Mahlon Sweet Field and would repeal any resolutions in conflict. He further stated that the matter had been heard at a public hearing two weeks ago and that staff had put together addi- tional information and a memo regarding possible amendments had been distributed. The three amendments could be incorporated into the Master Plan Update and the resolution has been amended. Manager introduced Bob Shelby, Director of Aviation, to discuss the amendments and indicated that Mr. Talbot was present if there were further questions. Bob Shelby stated that the staff had addressed questions which surfaced at the February 11 public hearing and that the memo that had been distributed addressed those concerns. The first concern dealt with land use designa- tions on property surrounding the airport and he stated that the plan contained a list of the types of uses that are functionally compatible I with airports, but that it is not a list of recommended uses for land surrounding Mahlon Sweet Field. He further stated the recommendations ... make no reference to specific uses or land use designations as this was ,., beyond the scope of the report. The second concern he addressed was the closure of Greenhill Road. He stated that any change in the alignment of Greenhill Road would require specific approval and action by Lane County; no closure of Greenhill Road would occur without rerouting this road. The third concern which he addressed was the potential effect of a fuel shortage on airport operations. He stated that although any forecasts regarding fuel availability or pricing are generalized, during the short- age of the 1970's, the experience was that the demand for commercial aviation services grew. He further stated that Lane Transit District is currently doing a study to determine if there is sufficient demand for bus service to the airport. Stan Long, City Attorney, in response to questions, stated the following concerns: If the plan is a land use planning document, does it adhere to State land use goals; whether or not to reopen the public hearing; and/or whether to adopt the findings, especially in regard to agriculture. He noted the chance was taken of advertising this as a public hearing in hopes that it would be reopened. Mayor Keller asked for clarification if another public hearing should be held and, if so, if a full report would be necessary. Mr. Long stated it would be fair to open it to comments for people to speak to additional findings. e 2/25/80--4 Public hearing was opened. e Speaking against the Airport Master Plan Update: Vernon Gleaves, 975 Oak Street, identified himself as an attorney repre- senting Mr. Drake, the property owner at the corner of Greenhill and Airport roads. Mr. Gleaves stated that the original notice of tonight's meeting did not appear in the February 18 newspaper, but did appear on February 19 and 20. This gave the public four days prior to the hearing and he submitted that this was an inadequate amount of time to prepare to attend a public hearing. Mr. Gleaves recommended that the update be amended so that it stated that all land within the vicinity of the airport be included, not just City-owned land. He further stated that if this is adopted, the Council would be adopting a land use plan and they would be performing land use action. He further stated there is no mention any- where of attempts to apply the State land use goals. He stated that the memo presented by Bob Shelby fails to recognize County involvement in the airport development. Discussions with the County ought to be part of the process as rerouting or closure of Greenhill cannot be done without the County either. He added that the plan is defective and the amendments do nothing to correct the problems. e Mr. Shelby noted that in this particular matter Lane County, not the City Council, has jurisdiction and final authority to make decisions regarding land use planning. He further stated that this should be a cooperative project between the Council and the Lane County Commissioners. Michael Farthing, 975 Oak Street, stated that he represented the Shephards, who own Bond Sports Center. He showed a map of the location of the proposed general aviation runway, and the location of the Bond Sports Center, which consists primarily of softball fields. He further stated that the Bond Sports Center serves a great many people who play softball and if this private company were forced to close down because of the airport, it would then be the responsibility of the City to provide softball programs for the people who are currently patrons of Bond Sports Center. He stated that he was not sure why the City objected to Bond Fields being located where they are, since most accidents occur one to two miles from the end of the runway, which would put Shasta Ballfields, owned by the City, much closer to the end of the runway. He further stated there had been no problems last year in operation of this sports center and that they do not expect any problems in the future. Mr. Farthing continued by stating that even if the Metro Plan Update is adopted and land is zoned EFU, that would still allow softball fields as a permissible activity within that zoning. Mr. Farthing stated that he felt Lane County should approve the update. He noted additional objections in regard to the closure of Greenhill Road that citizens' participation, which is Goal 1 of LCDC, had been violated; that Goal 12 states that uses such as the airport could not be on Classes 1 and 2 soils unless all other alterna- tives had been checked out. He further stated that the Council should examine what is really going on out there and see if the Bond Sports Center is filling a need. e 2/25/80--5 'There being no further testimony presented, the public hearing was closed. " e Mayor Keller called for a recess. Mr. Haws left during the break. Mr. Long stated that he believes that the Master Plan is only that, a master plan. He further noted that the suggestion is that the Council ,cannot adopt this plan and that the arguments seemed to be circular. He indicated that if this is viewed by some as a land use action then an acceptable process of adopting an exception to LCDC's goals has to be I followed. He further stated this is not a rezoning action; it is in response to Federal regulations, and if anything, it is a refinement " pl an. Gary Chenkin stated the 1990 Plan had been adopted in 1972 and did include , acknowledgment of the Airport Master Plan then being prepared. The Airport Plan now under consideration is an updated refinement of the 1990 Plan. He further stated that there are many items to be considered regarding specific off-airport uses and these should be included in the Metro Plan Update process. He emphasized that specific off-airport land uses are not currently under consideration in this adoption process. He felt adoption of the Airport Plan need not be delayed until acceptance of the Metro Plan Update. In response to the adequacy of the notice, he stated he had checked with LCDC staff and received information that the notice should be published in the paper with general circulation as soon as it was realized an exception may be considered. He further noted there was no request for any specific length of time for running this notice in ~ the paper and that it was published within their usual 15- to 5-day guideline for hearings. It did appear in Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday nights' Register-Guard. He further stated that individual notices had been mailed to people who had testified at the last hearing. Mr. Obie asked for clarification regarding the staff recommendations based on the comments made at the last hearing. He desired additional informa- tion regarding the location of private aircraft runways and stated he was not aware of the letter from Mr. Henry regarding the ball fields, but that he would look favorably toward continuation of that activity. He further stated he heard Mr. Gleaves saying one thing and the amendment saying another; at least as it is written in the memo. He did not understand. Mr. Shelby noted that in 1972, six alternative locations were considered for the parallel runway and three factors were considered in looking at each of them. Those factors were cost, environmental impact, and capa- city. He stated that because of environmental concerns, very few new airports are being built. He further stated that there is a difference in cost for the chosen runway which would make it cost about $50,000 less annually in operations. He further noted that the airspace capacity will become saturated if it continues at the current rate in about three-and- one-half years. He further stated that even if additional airports are e 2/25/80--6 e built in the area, there still needs to be adequate provlslon for training and licensing of new pilots. He also noted that the suggestion is not being made at this time that the new runway be equipped for instrument landing, but if that need should occur the easterly location does allow this. He emphasized that the selection of this location was not an arbitrary decision. Mr. Chenkin noted that two separate geographical areas are discussed in this plan: off-airport (environs) and the airport itself. He stated that the layout plan in the report (plan) includes publicly owned land. However, he did note that the report contains references to treatment of off-airport land, but does not give specific uses for off-airport land except to state that they should be compatible with the airport operation. It stops short of a specific listing of what land uses are but indicates that this should be considered in the Metro Plan Update process due to its importance. e Mr. Long stated the City is "owner" of the airport. As sponsor, owner, or operator, the Council is entitled to come to its own conclusions as to what it thinks decisions for the airport should be. However, to implement these decisions, they will need to go through the approved process and appropriate arenas, such as the Metropolitan Plan Update for off-airport uses, etc. Mr. Long further stated that the Council should be adopting the plan as sponsors of the airport. Ms. Miller stated that the ball field issue was not on the agenda for tonight, but felt it should be brought up at a future Council meeting and dealt with at that time. She further stated that she agreed with Mr. Gleaves that off-airport land uses should be worked out cooperatively between the City and County. She added that provisions for things such as airport maintenance, expansion, and operation were to be resolved as far as approving a plan tonight. In reference to land uses on the airport, she felt that the land owned by the City should be changed from agricultural to non-agricultural only by using the same criteria which would be applied to anyone else. She further stated that the City's land should be used for airport-related purposes. Also, she stated that she understood that approval of the plan does not include any approval of specific non-airport- related uses. She stated that any non-airport-re1ated proposed uses on the airport would have to come back to the Council for further considera- tion at another time and that they were not a part of this update, nor part of this plan. Res. No. 3308--A resolution approving and accepting the amended Airport Master Plan for the Mahlon Sweet Field and repealing any resolutions in conflict. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolu- tion and incorporate it into the Airport Master Plan. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e' 2/25/80--7 IV. I ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING I A. Levying Assessments The following council bill, read the first time February 11, 1980, referred to the February 18, 1980, Hearings Panel, and brought back for Council consideration to levy assess- ment as proposed. There were no appeals. e CB 2075--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and pedestrian way for Clarey Plat and Clarey First Addition (78-27) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18583. The fOllowing council bill, read the first time January 30, 1980, referred to the February 4, 1980, Hearings Panel, held over, referred to Hearings Panel February 18, 1980, was brought back for Council consideration to levy assessment as proposed. There were no appeals. 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) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be ~ approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18584. The ;ollowing council bill, read the first time November 21, 1979, as CB 2025 and had first reading again as CB 2054, January 16, 1980, was referred to January 21, 1980, Hearings Panel, and held over, referred to February 18, 1980, Hearings Panel, was being brought back for Council consideration to levy assessment as proposed. There were no appeals. CB 2054--Levying assessments for paving, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer to serve First Addition to Sweetbriar Subdivision; sanitary sewer to serve area within 160 feet of the east boundary of First Addition to Sweetbriar Subdivision; sanitary sewer and storm sewer within Sweetbriar Subdivision; and sanitary sewer to serve area within 160 feet of the southeast boundary of Sweetbriar Subdivision; and storm sewer to serve Tom's Plat (78-52) Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote. All Councilors present voted aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18585. e 2/25/80--8 v. ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT (Attached) e A. Mr. Henry stated that this matter is an adoption of findings of fact of an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to grant a variance from the off-street parking requirement for properties at 861, 865, and 873 Willamette Street. He stated that the Zoning Code Board of Appeals, at the request of the Eugene Renewal Agency, approved the variance. This was appealed to the Council and the Hearings Panel upheld the appeal. Mayor Keller indicated that there was a request from someone in the audience who wished to speak on this matter. Mr. Henry indicated that it would require a two-thirds vote of the Council for this to be allowed. Mr. Obie said he would speak in favor of holding a hearing on this matter. Two bodies within the City have disagreed, the Hearings Panel and the Zoning Board of Appeals. This issue, the relation of parking and downtown housing, is critical in achieving the objectives of down- town housing. In his opinion, the more input on this matter the better. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, that this be opened to public hearing. Mayor Keller asked for clarification if it was Mr. Obie's desire to allow the one speaker who had indicated an interest in speaking on this issue to speak, or to open the issue to public hearing at another time. Mr. Obie stated that if a public hearing was going to be held, it should be held at another time. Ms. Schue stated that although she had no objection to hearing what people had to say on this issue, it seemed to be clear-cut and involving only six parking spaces. She noted that the Council would be dealing with a request for variance for six cars and indicated that a policy does need-to be established for this sort of matter. Ms. Schue and Mr. Lieuallen both thought it would be unfortunate to set the policy by this one case, however. Mr. Lieuallen noted agreement with Ms. Schue but further stated there are a lot of people interested in this issue, as the issue includes housing and transportation, as well as parking. He further stated he could not support reopening the hearing. Ms. Miller stated that she doubted if another hearing on this one case would add a lot of additional information and felt a public hearing on the entire issue of what the relationship should be between downtown parking and housing, and how to deal with those matters would be more beneficial. However, she would listen to any people who had come to this meeting, but felt the decision should be made on this particular case at this particular meeting. Tom Slocum, 2125 Fairmount Boulevard, stated that Park Willamette Associates do not wlsh another public hearing on this matter. e 2/25/80--9 Mayor Keller indicated that a motion was on the floor and this motion would be to call for another public hearing at a future date. Roll call vote; motion failed, 4:2, with Councilors Lieuallen, Hamel, Miller, and Schue voting nay; Councilors Obie and Smith voting aye. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Obie, to allow the people present at the meeting to speak for two minutes each regarding this matter. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Tom Slocum, a partner in Park Willamette Associates, with offices at 215 Oak, stated that his firm had proposed to put housing downtown to benefit Eugene and needed to have a variance granted in order to be able to do this. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted this variance, but this variance was appealed by several parties. He further stated that because of comments made by the Hearings Panel, he felt any future efforts for appeal would be futile. Mr. Slocum felt it was unfortunate that this appeal for a variance was not upheld and what would have been housing in the downtown area now will be offices. LaVerne Edwards, 1260 President, stated that in the first hearing it was apparent to her that Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineer, was opposed to this plan. In the goals formulated last September, it was stated that downtown housing would be ideal for the handicapped, but she noted that parking would be needed for these people. She further stated that the Urban Renewal Plan says that the proposed action would not result in a shortage of off-street parking. She further stated that ~ there are many reasons present on both sides for consideration on this ~ matter. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve the Hearings Panel minutes and adopt as the Council's own the Findings of Fact submitted by the Hearings Panel of February 4, 1980. Mr. Obie asked how many parking spaces they would need to provide if it would be six small businesses. The response was 25. Ms. Smith indicated she would be voting against the motion; however, she would like the Council to look at other options at a future date. Mr. Lieuallen stated that the proper forum for dealing with this reso- lution would be in a joint meeting with the Eugene Renewal Agency and that piecemealing this matter would not be a good idea. He further stated that everyone wanted to create housing in the downtown area, but people were opposed to the mechanism of policymaking in this instance, and he felt that they should try to formulate a policy on this matter in a comprehensive fashion. Ms. Schue expressed agreement with Mr. Lieuallen and felt it was unfortunate that this issue revolved around downtown housing. She further stated that this plan was not one that required adjustments for parking, but that the plan had made no provi- sions for parking at all. She also felt that this would be setting a precedent which have a long-term effect that would be inappropriate. e 2/25/80--10 e e e Mr. Obie urged the Council members to vote against the motion. He stated he does not have enough information to make a decision on this matter. He further stated he feels that piecemealing, taking each issue as it comes up, might be the answer. He also said that the Council would need to break through some of the past hurdles and move into unfamiliar areas. He said th~t if this variance were allowed, it would not be a commitment to anything beyond the six units in the variance request. Mayor Keller asked for clarification from Mr. Obie if it was the size of the units that they were dealing with which was the real concern. Mr. Obie stated he would be more concerned if this request for a variance would be dealing with 300 units. Mayor Keller noted that everyone is working for the same thing and it seems the Council could get together on common ground on this matter. He would prefer to have staff make a report for resolution of this issue. He noted that the six units and their location are critical. Mr. Obie stated that he would like additional information before he would be willing to approve th is. Ms. Smith noted that she would like to see if other options are avail- able to be presented to the Council for accommodating the parking for these six units. She also stated she feels the Council has the oppor- tunity to start with six units, rather than deny this opportunity. Ms. Schue noted that all the Council is dealing with is the appeal from the Zoning Board decision for the proposed variance and that is why it is a difficult forum in which to reach a decision on this issue. Roll call vote; motion passed 4:2, with Councilors Obie and Smith voting nay; Councilors Lieuallen, Hamel, Miller, and Schue voting aye. VI. ADOPTION OF HEARINGS PANEL MINUTES, JANUARY 30, 1980 (Attached) Manager Henry stated that these minutes were from a Hearings Panel meeting considering an exemption from Ordinance No. 18535 for property located at 1313 Lincoln Street, submitted by Willamette Towers Enterprises, Inc., on the basis that this would have a minimum adverse effect in the condominium conversion process. He further stated that the owners have withdrawn all their litigation. He also said that the City had hired a housing counselor to assist the residents of Willamette Towers in relocating; this consultant's wages will be paid by Willamette Towers Enterprises, Inc. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve the Hearings Panel minutes and adopt as the Council's own the Findings of Fact as set forth in the minutes of January 30, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. 2/25/80--11 VIr. PAYMENT OF BILLS AND CLAIMS e Res. No. 3314--Authorizing payment of bills and claims for the period February 11, 1980, through February 25, 1980. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the resolution. Ms. Miller asked why the City is buying an organ. Mr. Henry indicated that this will be a part of the Performing Arts Center. This organ will be built in Springfield and this is the only place in the country where this kind of organ is built. He further noted that the organ builder works on a four-year cycle, building certain kinds of organs in certain years, and the kind that the City needs is being built this year. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned to February 27, 1980. ~itted' Charles T. Henry ~ City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) ~ LN:so/CM23b14 e 2/25/80--12