Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/28/1980 Meeting - ...._ _ ,... ....._.u._ M.n...... _ .... "..,.... M I NUT E S (_ EUGENE CITY COUNCIL July 28, 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., July 28, 1980, in the City Council Chamber, Eugene, Oregon, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Jack Delay, D. W. Hamel, and Gretchen Miller. Councilors Eric Haws and Emily Schue were absent. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. 8th/10th Contraflow System (map distributed) Mr. Henry stated that the 8th/10th Contraflow System is a part of the T-2000 Pl an. He introduced Jim Hanks, Traffic Engineering, to provide background information. Mr. Hanks stated that when the T-2000 Plan was adopted, it had included contra- flow on 8th connecting to a future transit station at 8th and Willamette. This C- had been met with some controversy. The City conducted a downtown transportation study which recommended modification of the downtown transportation system: the 8th/10th Contraflow System. Mr. Hanks indicated the system on the map. Buses will travel in the opposite direction from automobile traffic on 8th, Charnelton, and 10th streets. Maj or bus transfers will take pl ace on 8th and Wi 11 amette and on 10th and Olive. The purpose of the contraflow is for buses to load and unload passengers without their having to cross streets and to provide wider sidewalks and covered walkways. The Planning Commission, the Downtown Develop- ment Board, the Lane Transit District, and the Eugene Renewal Agency all endorse this plan. The funding will be through the Urban Initiatives Program. Dan Irving, LTD, stated that he has guidelines for the funding application, ellglblllty, categories, and objectives available for the councilors. The cities of Bellingham and Seattle have received Urban Initiative grants for similar projects. It is anticipated that one should apply early, as there will be more applications than funding available. Bob Loomis, Downtown Development Board and LTD Board, stressed the urgency of the project. This grant would be in the amount of $2.7 million, with matching funds coming from the community. The community's share would be approximately 20 percent, or $540,000. LTD would be funding approximately 50 percent of that amount, with the remaining 50 percent made up in equal shares from DDB, ERA, and the City. (e 7/28/80--1 Mr. Delay asked if the contraflow system would be standing in the way of the Refinement Plan for the University area. Mr. Hanks responded that it would not e C and that they would work well together. Ms. Miller asked if anyone had asked the County about possible participation in the funding and noted that there was a possibility of road monies available. Mr. Hanks noted that this had not been done as of the last work session. Mr. Irving stated that they had not yet asked the County. Ms. Smith stated that a request had been made earlier at the work session by the council to contact the County and she would like to see it pursued. Mr. Loomis stated that they have not approached the County on this project due to negotiations on the Park and Ride Program. Since the contraflow project is downtown and would largely benefit the downtown area, they had not pursued it with the County but they could do so. Ms. Smith requested that they at least ask the County, but in such a manner as not to jeopardize other projects. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve the contra- flow concept and to instruct staff to initiate Urban Initiative Grant application. Mr. Lieuallen cautioned that although the project would not begin immediately, they were com~itting the City to approximately $91,000 and care should be taken in the future to set this money aside for the project. Mr. Hanks noted that the project preparations could begin soon, but the money would not be spent until the next fiscal year. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e ( B. Consideration of Permanent Street Closure of Ruskin Street, North of Dove Lane (memo distributed) Mr. Henry introduced Joe Hessler, Public Works, to provide background information. Mr. Hessler stated that this closure was implemented after a petition was submitted by residents. They received no calls in opposition to this closure, only calls in support. Ms. Miller asked how closure of this street would affect emergency vehicles service. Mr. Hessler responded that vehicles with high clearance, such as pickups, could get over the barrier. The other option would be to have the bike path blocked and drivers of emergency vehicles could cut the bolts, if necessary. To provide "emergency vehicle access" means all traffic is prevented but bikes and emergency vehicles. Public hearing was open; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to recommend permanent closure of Ruskin Street, north of Dove Lane. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. l e 7/28/80--2 h_ h_. ' '~ .... . .-~ _. ---_.. -..,-.. --,--~- -'..~- C. Paving of Acorn Park Street (memo distributed) (_ Mr. Henry stated that the paving would be from the bridge across the Amazon Channel to West 11th Avenue. He introduced Don Gilman, Public Works, to provide background information. Mr. Gilman stated that this project would consist of a 36-foot-wide street and there could be a traffic light installed in the future. This resolution would authorize preparation of plans and calls for bids. Public hearing was opened. Jim Counce, US Bank Trust, stated that he represented property owners at 3144 West 11th Avenue. He said they have been negotiating on this project. He questioned the necessity of widening only the area north of the bridge but not south of the bridge. He asked what the City plans to do with the 17 lots south of the channel adjacent to the bridge which it owns. There being no further,testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Hanks responded that on the south side, it is 18-20 feet wide now and the bridge is 36 feet wide, allowing a left-turn pocket. Cars could veer off going north and go into the channel if it were not widened. There is not transition room as there is on the south side. Mr. Gilman stated that the City-owned property is land that was acquired when the Amazon Parkway West was a viable proj ect . There are no definite plans for the property of which he is aware at this time. (. Mr. Obie noted that Mr. Counce seemed to be concerned about the assessment of the wider streets and asked if the assessment woul d be part or all of the widening. Mr. Gilman responded that the assessment would be for the full width since it is considered an industrial street. Res. No. 3403--A resolution authorizing street paving on Acorn Park Street from West 11th Avenue to Amazon Channel (1862). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr.Lieuallen, to adopt the resolution. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. D. Airport Rate Increases (memo, minutes, staff report distributed) Mr. Henry stated that the proposals for increased rates were for flowage fee on aviation fuels, aircraft parking fees, and .ground rental rates. Th i s item has had public hearings before the Airport Commission. This would be the first adjustment in the last twelve years and it may be overdue. Mr. Henry introduced Bob Shelby, Airport, to provide background information. . 7/28/80--3 Mr. Shelby stated that inflation has increased so that the volume at the airport no longer will cover the costs and they are losing money. The greatest opposi- C tion came from the proposed fuel fees increase. He stressed this is a user e charge, not a landing fee. The original proposal would have been higher and this is a compromise proposal. This proposal, however, does not cover actual costs in some instances. The revenue is generated in many ways and they do not need to pass on the actual costs at this point. This would raise the cost approximately $4.61 per trip, or $1.50 per hour. They looked at an alternative proposal to reduce fuel flowage fees and increase parking fees and ground rental fees. He recommends the alternative proposal in the staff notes. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2179--An ordinance concerning Airport fees; repealing Ordinance No. 14635 and Resolution No. 2423; amending Section 2.440 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding a new section 2.442 to that Code; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2179 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered e ( 18685. E. Request Approval for Submission of CDBG Program Amendments a) Designa- tion of the Bethel Triangle as CD-Eligible, and b) Inclusion of the North Section of the Farwest Neighborhood with the Jefferson Neighbor- hood Improvement Program, to HUD (memos and maps distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this request is to approve submission of Community Develop- ment Block Grant Program amendments. The first amendment would be to designate the Bethel Triangle as community development-eligible; the second would be to include the north section of the Farwest Neighborhood with the Jefferson Neighbor- hood Improvement Program, to HUD. Ms. Smith asked what the role of the Active Bethel Citizens would be in this proposal and what their current status is. Mr. Farah responded that IFA's do not require an active advisory neighborhood group. The Bethel group could propose individual projects. Primarily, rehabilitative housing will be the focal point for community development funds, although the neighborhood groups could propose various projects. Ms. Smith asked that if the neighborhood group is not going to continue to operate, is there is an alternative organization that could help coordinate their project proposals. Mr. Henry stated that the thrust of the amendment is to make that area eligible for housing loans, and l - 7/28/80--4 _." .._~_"_......., ,.."," .,..r'. ---.--.- - ..-".-- ~'_.."'-'''''''' ,._-..._......~...._-'.""'.....- the Active Bethel Citizens do not need to take an active role at this time. Mr. Lieuallen noted that for NIP situations, another group is usually formed--a (e neighborhood advisory group or NAG, but it is not needed in the Bethel situation. He asked if citizens can propose IFA's. Mr. Farah responded that citizens could propose IFA's and they could approach the committee directly. Mr. Delay stated that the City staff had said that that area was eligible as a second-priority area for housing rehabilitation funding. Individual IFA projects can be funded. Ms. Miller stated that this is involving the old Bethel Triangle and there is citizen interest in developing this area. She feels they will make good use of this designation. Mr. Lieuallen noted that there are no major arterials and it is an isolated area with older homes undergoing rejuvenation. There is alack of middle-aged, middle-income residents in this area, and he feels this amend- ment would be good to assist in preserving the housing stock. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve submission of CDBG program amendments a) Designation of the Bethel Triangle as CD-eligible; and b) Inclusion of the north section of the Far West Neighborhood with the Jefferson Neighborhood Improvement Program, to HUD. Ms. Smith said that she is not questioning the need of the designation in the Bethel area, but she does want to make certain the program is administered responsibly. Mr. Lieuallen stated that if the primary program in that area is housing rehabilitation, they will have to apply through HCC. Mr. De 1 ay s tat ed that the Rehabilitation Program is well-established. They are currently renegotiating bank loan agreements to leverage CD rehabilitation funds. Ce Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. F. Public Works Bid Awards (tabulation attached) Mr. Henry noted that these bids all came in lower than they had anticipated. He introduced Don Gilman, Public Works, to provide background information. Mr. Gilman stated that the bids were opened on July 22, 1980. The first three are primarily for a new subdivision, the fourth is for a petition project, the fifth and sixth are two alleys that were petitioned, and the seventh is a storm-drainage channel, which would be funded at City cost. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve and award to the low bidders. Mr. Obie noted that he would abstain from item 3, because a relative of his owns part of that property. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously, with Mr. Obie abstaining on Project 3. e- 7/28/80--5 . ~n..._ ...._,.._.~.....~ ...._.. .__ '_~_...-""".~''''', II. METROPOLITAN GENERAL PLAN ADOPTION (memo and additional information distributed) ( " Mr. Henry stated that this plan has been adopted by Springfield and council e action is mandated by State law. He introduced Jim Croteau, Planning Depart- ment, to prov i de background i nformat i on. Mr. Croteau noted that the requested action culminates four years of work by the three metropolitan jurisdictions and their elected officials. Public hearings were held by the Planning Commission and elected officials of all three juris- dictions. The Elected Official Coordinating Committee met 14 times over a two-month period. The planning commissions and elected officials were able to reach agreement in all but about four major areas: 1) plan designation, policies, zoning and land use in the vicinity of Mahlon Sweet Field (Eugene) Airport; 2) conversion of River Road/Santa Clara from urbanizable to urban land and provision of key urban services; 3) planning participation, responsibility, and authority within the metropolitan area (jurisdictional boundary and respon- sibility); and 4) plan designation between Awbrey Lane and Enid Station Road, east of Highway 99. Springfield has adopted their plan and will consider adoption on August 4 of the revised plan that is now before the Eugene City Council. Lane County Commissioners will consider the plan on August 5, 1980. There have been seven drafts. Stan Long, City Attorney's Office, stated that since the 1990 General Plan was adopted in 1971 there have been some changes in the State system and the system now requires that plans be acknowledged. The effect of adoption of this document is that it will become the basic planning document of the city and must be (, followed in deciding land use questions, although not acknowledged by LCDC at e this time. This will require additional justification by staff. .He cautioned that the council is not at the end of this process. Mr. Farah stated that this represents a sound technical document and provides a "trace" of what has happened in the 1 ast four years. Staff recommends that the council adopt the ordinance. He indicated that there may be times the document will need to be defended, but the background information and documentation of public testimony will ease this task. This document represents a series of compromises. Ms. Miller stated that she wants the City and L-COG staffs to know that the council recognizes the effort that they have put in. The staff memo points out the four major areas of disagreement. The positions are clear where there is no agreement. Compromises were in the hope that they would arrive at one single plan. She has some concerns besides those listed on the memo: she feels the land allocations in some areas of the urban growth boundary were very lenient and they may have ended up with a larger allocation than necessary in some instances. She feels that the language may be a problem, as it is not entirely clear. They were unable to reach agreement on some critical areas and that might be why the language is "fuzzy." She feels there are problems out on West 18th Avenue in the natural areas regarding protection of endangered species. They may not have solved that 'problem, but the Fish and Wildlife Service could ( 7/28/80--6 e be asked to pursue an interest in this area. The island of confluence of the e McKenzie and Willamette rivers is a blue heron refuge and has been designated Sand and Gravel with Open Space. They may have designated too much Sand and Gravel area. She is not sure the open areas were the highest priority of people while they were working on this plan. She would like to take another look at these areas. If compromises are not adhered to by other jurisdictions, she would not feel bound by compromises which the City had to make. Mr. Delay noted agreement with Ms. Miller about working and struggling to agree. If it has to be dealt with again, he would suggest being very careful to make sure that the language is clear. In referring to Mr. Long1s comments, he said additional staff work and administrative procedures to justify compliance can consume much staff time. He questioned whether there was some other mechanism that the City Council could use to legitimize or clarify the situation. Mr. Long 5tated that he feels the Planning Department will be busy, especially where there are changes from the original plan. To approve the document now seems the best way for council to proceed. The alternative would have been to wait, but State law requires adoption. They could give a future effective date and adopt the plan. The two choices seem to be to adopt the plan and defend it if the occasion presents itself, or adopt the plan with an effective date sometime in the future. He added that if the council chooses the first option, it will need to deal with an acknowledged plan and an adopted update. Mr. Farah stated that he feels it would be better to have this plan adopted than to operate under the previous plan. Economic development strategies for maintaining an inventory of developable residential land could create problems for developers. The urban growth boundary will allow this to happen. He feels it is worth the effort to review the goals to get the community moving forward. e Mr. Delay noted that there is no shortcut. He supports adoption of this plan as the City's posture. Mr. Long stated that there is some indication that the commission will not take stringent views although the Court of Appeals has sometimes had opinions different from the commission. He feels this is an amendment to an acknowledged plan although there could be legal problems later. CB 2180--An ordinance adopting the Metropolitan Area General Plan as an update of the Eugene-Springfield Metropolitan Area 1990 General Plan; and declaring an emergency. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be read the second time by council bill number only, with unanimous consent of the council, and that enactment be considered at this time. Ms. Smith thanked Mr. Croteau, Mr. Farah, and Steve Gordon for outstanding staff work. In regard to the River Road/Santa Clara area, Mr. Lieuallen noted that last winter it was indicated that studies would be done of what options were avail- able and the costs involved. Mr. Farah responded that the draft has been prepared and is scheduled for the council in August. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e 7/28/80--7 Council Bill 2180 was read the second time by council bill number only. e Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18686. I I!. PAYMENT OF BILLS AND CLAIMS (distributed) Res. No. 3404--A resolution authorizing payment of bills and claims for the period July 14, 1980, through July 28, 1980. Mr. Obie asked if the payment to Cascade Title is the final payment. Mr. Henry responded that it is a partial payment, with First National Bank arranging an SBA loan and the City acquiring the first lien. He asked if this would be in the City's name. Mr. Henry responded that it would be in the name of NEDCO. Chris Hofmann, HCC, stated that in 1979-80 Block Grant funding, Whiteaker Neighborhood put in some money. Approximately $71,000 has been identified for this portion of the project and studies. At this time, the $34,000-35,000 would be loaned to NEDCO. It is appraised at over $90,000. Mr. Obie asked if we would have the first lien and Ms. Hofmann responded that the City would. She noted that the properties in the CD loan program are payments for rehabilitation. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. e Mr. Obie announced that he would not be attending the July 30, 1980, or August 6, 1980, council meetings. Mr. Hamel noted that he would be out the week of August 4 as well. Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, ~J City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) CTH:LN:ky/CM7a1 e 7/28/80--8 0.. _ _____ ,._..~. __~_ _._.._ ____ \ .......' DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION Bid No. S ~l. Opened: July 22t 1980 PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within Fergus Manor Subdivision and within 160 feet of the boundary of Fergus Manor Subdivision (Job #1732) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate AWARD l. Morse Bros. Contractorst Inc.------------$ 101,076.05 $ 97,494.65 2. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.-----------$ 104,055.01 $ 105,662.78 3. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------$ -0- $ 104,097.26 4. Wildish Construction Co.-----------------$ 104,493.83 $ 106,302.50 5. Kennith R. Bostick Const. Co.------------$ 104,817.80 $ -0- 6. Egge's Sand & Gravel Co~-----------------$ 105,603.10 $ -0- 7. H & J Construction--~--------------------$ 106,790.75 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted ( $121,000.00) 28' Pave $ 27.45jFF Sanita.ry Sewer San. Lat. $ 0.10/Sq.Ft. Trunk - $ 1 t400.00 $ 2t400.00 (531) San.Serv. $ 192.00/Each Stm. Swr. $ 292.00/Lot COMPLETION DATE: October 15, 1980 -te-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~---------- 2. PAVINGt SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within and adjacent to Birdnest Subdivision; and sanitary sewer within 160 feet of the east and west boundaries of Birdnest Subdivision (Job #1831) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Alternate AWARD l. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------------$ 58,425.95 $ 56,300.30 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---~-----------$ 58,914.05 $ -0- 3. Dan D. Allsup Contractort Inc.-----------$ 59,410.03 $ 59,175.92 4. H & J Construction-----------------------$ 60,513.41 $ -0- 5. Wi1dish Construction Co.-----------------$ 62,985.29 $ 63,321.42 6. Egge's Sand & Gravel Co.-----------------$ 64,301.00 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted ( $71,300.00) 28' Pave $ 34.00/FF None None San. Lat. $ 0.10/Sq.Ft. San.Serv. $ 220.00jEach Stm.Swr. $ 690.00/Lot COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 '- -~- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. Page 1 of 3 I ; f - I, . .' 3. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER within and adjacent to Nolan Industrial Park 1st Addition (Job #1676) ( Contract Cost .- Bidders: Basic Alternate AWARD 1. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.-----------$ 158.635.40 $ 158,567.04 ON BASIC 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------$ 162,423.00 $ -0- 3. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------------$ 162,490.60 $ 163,005.00 4. Kenneth R. Bostick Const. Co.------------$ -0- $ 164,951.05 . 5. Wildish Construction Co.-----------------$ 165,193.63 $ 168,228.17 6. Egge's Sand & Gravel Co.-----------------$ 166,304.75 $ -0- 7. H & J Construction-----------------------$ 168,641.50 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted ( $198,000.00) 44' Pave $ 45.00jFF San. Lat. $ 0.063jSq.Ft. Storm Sewer $ 3,350.00 $ 3,350.00 (332) San.Serv. $ 325.00jEach Stm. Swr. $1,560.00jLot COMPLETION DATE: October 1,1980 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- C 4. PAVING, SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND SIDEWALK: e Sanitary sewer and storm sewer 60 feet north of Vernon Way from Calvin Street to Arcadia Street and sidewalk on the west side of Calvin Street from Dulles Street - to 400 feet south, and paving and sanitary~wer in Calvin Street from 60 feet north of Vernon Way to 50 feet north of Dul1es Street (Job#1870/l758 ) Contract Cost Bidders: Basic Al ternate AWARD l. Wildish Construction Co.-----------------$ 60,087.99 $ 60,484.32 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---------------$ -0- $ 62,129.60 3. Dan D. Allsup Contractor, Inc.-----------$ 66,295.70 $ 65,996.09 4. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.------------$ 67,750.50 $ -O- S. Egge's Sand & Gravel Co.-~---------------$ 74,797.75 $ -0- Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted ( 70,800.00) 28' Pave $ 30.00jFF Storm Conc. Sidewalk $ 1.85jSq.Ft. Sewer - $ 5,300,00 $ 5,300.00 (332 ) Conc. Drive $ 2.75/Sq.Ft. San. Lat. $ 0.16/Sq.Ft. San.Serv. $ 350.00/Each Stm. Swr. $1,150.00/Lot l COMPLETION DATE: October 1, 1980 e --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ Page 2 of 3 \ 5. ALLEY PAVING, South half of alley between Willamette Street and Oak Street from 18th Avenue to 19th Avenue (Job #1798) aD Bidders: Contract Cost l. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------$ 7,449.15 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc.---~-------------$ 8,117.10 3. Wildish Construction Co.-------------------$ 8,548.50 Cost to Abutting Property: Cost to City Amount Budgeted ( $7,530.00) Cone. Alley $ 1.38jWFF None None $ 0.015{WSF COMPLETION DATE: September 30, 1980 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. ALLEY PAVING, Alley between 7th Avenue and 8th Avenue from Washington Street to Lawrence Street (Job #1787) I Bidders: Contract Cost AWARD l. Morse Bros. Contractors, Inc.--------------$ 18,475.78 2. Eugene Sand & Gravel, Inc~-----------------$ 18,964.65 e 3. Wildish Construction Co.-------------------$ 22,214.49 Cost to Abutting Property Cost to City Amount Budgeted ( $17,330.00) Cone. Alley $ 1.20jWFF Storm Sewer $3,740.00 $3,740.00 (531) $ 0.009/WSF COMPLETION DATE: September 30, 1980 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bid No. 5 Opened: July 24, 1980 7. STORM SEWER along Roosevelt Boulevard from Beltline Road to Maple Street (Job #1488) Bidders: Contract Cost. AWARD l. Wildish Construction Co.-------------------$ 216,376.00 2. Durbin,Construction Co.~-------------------$ 254,089.50 3. Shur-Way Contractors, Inc~-----------------$ 271,075.00 4. Marshall Associated Contractors,Inc,--~---$ 340,977.00 5. Moncon Underground Corp.-------------------$ 356,755.00 e 6. H & J Construction-------------------------$ 407,741.00 Capital Improvement Cost to City Amount Budgeted -. " . .. . . .. . ~ - $238,000.00 $ 280,000.00 (331 ) j COMPLETION DATE: December 1, 1980 Page 3 of 3