Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/22/1980 Meeting , M I NUT E S Eugene City Council e September 22, 1980 Adjourned meeting of the City Council of the City of Eugene, Oregon, was called to order at 7:30 p.m., September 22, 1980, by His Honor Mayor Gus Keller in the City Council Chamber, with the following councilors present: Betty Smith, Scott Lieuallen, Brian Obie, Eric Haws, D. W. Hamel, Gretchen Miller, and Emily Schue. Councilor Jack Delay was absent. 1. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Concurrent Annexation/Rezoning 1. Property located on the east side of Laurel Hill Drive, south of Chandler Street from County AGT Agricultural, Grazing, and Timber- Raising to City RA Suburban Residential District (Max Ansola) (A/Z 80-3) (map distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this annexation/rezoning was heard before the Planning Commission on August 5, 1980, and they recommended approval with a 5:0 vote. He introduced Jim Croteau, Planning Department, to provide additional information. e Mr. Croteau stated that Tax Lot 301 is occupied by a single-family residence and is AGT-zoned. The application has been reviewed in regard to the LCDC Statewide Goals and Guidelines and to the Metro- politan Plan, and it is within the urban growth boundary. No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. - Max Ansola, 2166 Elysium, stated that he agrees with the staff report and would answer any questions. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Res. No. 3419--A resolution forwarding recommendation to the Boundary Commission for annexation of property located on the east side of Laurel Hill Drive, south of Chandler Street to the city of Eugene and Lane County Metropolitan Wastewater Service District. e 9/22/80--1 , Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the annexation as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of August 5, 1980, be adopted by reference . thereto; and that the resolution be adopted. Ms. r."iller reiterated Planning Commissioner Thwing's comments, and said this does not set a precedent for the 123 acres abutting this property. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. CB 2192--Authorizing rezoning from County AGT Agricultural, Grazing, and Timber-Raising District to City RA Suburban Residential District for property located on the east side of Laurel Hill Drive, south of Chandler Street. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of August 5, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Council Bill 2192 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be e approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18701. B. Rezonings 1. Property located east of Coburg Road and south of Centennial Boulevard from PL Public Land to C-2 Community Commercial District for portions of Tax Lots 2700 and 2702, and from C-2/PD to C-2 for Tax Lot 2801 (City of Eugene: Centennial Boulevard) (Z 80-22) (map distributed) Mr. Henry stated that this is a housekeeping item. He introduced Mary Briggs, Planning, to provide additional information and noted that on August 59 1980, the Planning Commission recommended appfol/al with a 5-0 vote. Ms. Briggs stated that this change in zoning is initiated by the City of Eugene. It will bring the zoning into conformance with current usage of the land and surrounding property. This property consists of three tax lots within the Willamette Greenway and would require condi tional use permits to redevelop. e- 9/22/80--2 No ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes - and minutes were entered into the record. . Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, publiC hearing was closed. CB 2193--Authorizing rezoning from PL Public Land to C-2 Community Commer- cial District for portions of Tax Lots 2700 and 2702, and from C-2/PD to C-2 for Tax Lot 2801 located east of Coburg Road and south of Centennial Boulevard. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting the rezoning as set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of August 5, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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. Council Bill 2193 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 18702. e 2. Property located south of 7th Avenue, north of the Amazon Channel, east of Beltline Road from M-3 Heavy Industrial District to M-2 Light Industrial District (E. Nolan Scheid) (Z 80-14) (map distributed) Mr. Henry noted that this matter was heard before the Planning Commission on July 8, and approval was recommended with a 3:1 vote. He introduced Ms. Briggs to provide background information. Ms. Briggs stated that this is a privately initiated request for property located within the West Eugene Industrial Area and is part of the area covered by the Bethel-Danebo Refinement Plan. Abutting property is zoned M-3 with the exception of property to the south which is zoned C-2/PD. The City has initiated a similar zone change request for 600 acres in that area. Mr. Henry asked if, in the Planning Commission meeting today, this property was included in the M-2 zoning recommendation for surrounding area. Ms. Briggs responded that it was. Mr. Henry noted that this had been the reason for the concern and the reason for the vote in the Planning Commission. Mr. Lieuallen asked if this is part of the comprehensive zone change. Ms. Briggs stated that this is a privately initiated zone change request, but it is included in the City-initiated . zone change request also. The Economic Development Committee had made a recommendation to the Planning Commission for these zone changes. 9/22/80--3 I Mr. Obie noted that he would abstain from this item because the applicant is a relative of his. No other ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were noted. Staff notes and minutes . were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened. James Weathers stated that he is in the process of buying this property and was available to answer any questions. He i sin agreement with the staff report. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2194--Authorizing rezoning from M-3 Heavy Industrial District to M-2 Light Industrial District for property located south of 7th Avenue, north of the Amazon Channel, east of Beltl ine Road. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that findings sup- porting, the rezoning dS set forth in Planning Commission staff notes and minutes of July 8, 1980, be adopted by reference thereto; 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 ~ith Mr. Obie abstainin~. Council Bill 2194 was read the second time by council bill number only. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be e approved and given final passage. Ro 11 ca 11 vote; a 11 counc i1 ors present voting aye with Mr. Obie abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18703. C. Sign District Boundary Changes (SDBC 80-1, 2, 3) (map distributed) 1. Sign district designation to Highway-Oriented Sign District to extend 200 feet from the centerline of Franklin Boulevard, changing to Industrial Sign District for the remaining area for property located east of Interstate 5, on the south side of Franklin Boulevard (SDBC 80-1) 2. Sign district designation to Industrial Sign District for property located north of Judkins Road, west of Henderson Avenue (SDBC 80-2) 3. Sign district boundary change from Highway-Oriented District to Residential District for property located on 3rd Avenue between Van Buren and Jackson streets (SDBC 80-3) Mr. Henry noted that these are extens ive changes and the areas affected are in the vicinity of Franklin Boulevard and on 3rd Avenue. He introduced Jerry Jacobson, Planning, to provide background information and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of this item with a 4-0 vote on July 8, 1980. . 9/22/80--4 Mr. Jacobson stated that in the first two cases, a sign district designation was not attached when the areas were annexed. All signs . within the area conform to the proposed designation. The third request is in the Whiteaker neighborhood, and that property includes a single-family residence. One portion of the property has been used for business parking, although the area is residential with the exception of Tax Lots 900 and 1000. Tax Lot 1900 is for property rezoned. in 1976, but the sign district designation was not changed to residential. Tax Lots 1000 and 1100 were cons idered for rezoning but the Planning Commission determined that they would retain M-2 zoning but would be residentially signed. Tax Lot 1100 was omitted by error when the designation was changed. This will correct that error. Ms. Miller stated that the Planning Commission has said that the City would try to notify the County regarding sign district desig- nations, and asked if this had been done. Mr. Jacobson responded that it had. Mr. Hamel indicated a conflict of interest in his association with Farwest Steel; no other ex parte contacts or conflicts of interest were indicated. Staff notes and minutes were entered into the record. Public hearing was opened; there being no testimony, public hearing was closed. CB 2195--An ordinance concerning sign district designation to Highway- e Oriented Sign District to extend 200 feet from the centerline of Franklin Boulevard for property located east of Interstate 5, on the south side of Franklin Boulevard (SDBC 80-1). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieua1len, 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, with Mr. Hamel abstain ing. Council Bill 2195 was read the second time by council bill number on 1 y. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye with Mr. Hamel abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18704. CB 2196--An ordinance concerning sign district designation to Industrial Sign District to start 200 feet from the center line of Franklin Boulevard for property located east of Interstate 5, on the south side of Franklin Boulevard (SDBC 80-1). e 9/22/80--5 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, \'Iith Mr. Hamel abstaining. Council Bill 2196 was read the second time by council bill number on 1 y. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye with Mr. Hamel abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18705. CB 2197--An ordinance concerning sign district designation to Industrial Sign District for property located north of Judkins Road, west of Henderson Avenue (SOBC 80-2) 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, with Mr. Hamel abstaining. Council Bill 2197 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 with Mr. Hamel abstaining, the bill was-declared passed and numbered 18706. CB 2198--An ordinance concerning a sign district boundary change from Highway-Oriented District to Residential District for prop- erty located on 3rd Avenue between Van Buren and Jackson streets (SDBC 80-3). 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, with Mr. Hamel abstaining. Council Bill 2198 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 with Mr. Hamel abstaining, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18707. e 9/22/80--6 D. Char es e memo a ac e 0 e . agenda outlines the charges that are proposed. Council has received other material 9 including the rationale and a copy of the ordinance. This was discussed at the council meeting last Wednesday. When the MWMC budget was adopted by the council, this material was included. All information received must be reconciled for agreement. The City budget included money for plant operation and the distribution system maintenance. The proposal is for a regional charge of $1.75 to cover operation of the plant and the major collection system of mains over 24 inches, a $1.30 charge for raising capital amounts which will later pay for plant operation if necessary, and Eugene's local charge which is being proposed at $1.95. The former charge was $2.50--Eugene's local charge--which would be reduced to $1.95, but the other two charges are new; $2.50 currently does not cover total costs of the sewer facilities for Eugene's public. He introduced Doug Cook9 Public Works, to provide background information and stated that the regional charge would be explained by Susan Racette, Metropolitan Wastewater Management Commission. Mr. Cook stated that this ordinance would change the "water users' ch arge"- to a "sewer users' ch arge. " The collection fee is eliminated, which had produced little revenue. The ordinance also would adopt the MWMC rates. Operation and maintenance charges for the future are estimated at this time. Any of the charges not used for operation and maintenance would go into a capital reserve fund. All costs are not presently being covered. In evaluation of the rates last January, e staff was not aware that the entire costs for staff support for MWMC needed to come out of the operations and maintenance budget of the Maintenance Division of Public Works. These costs had been previously paid out of the Engineering Division. They were about $1.20 short of covering the actual charges. These charges that are proposed would cover indirect costs for the Maintenance Division. The new budgeting system has allowed better accounting for how people spend their time on the job. The general fund had been subsidizing the sewer fund. The proposed rates are very close to those in other cities in the st ate. He showed charts to this effect. There was about a 250% average increase in charges. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the proposed fees are a flat rate. Mr. Cook responded that they are averages based on the use of 6,000 gallons per dwelling. They developed a unit charge rate which is multiplied by the average for that group. The commission would like to get to a point where they can charge for actual water consumption. Mr. Lieuallen asked how this would be measured. Mr. Cook responded that this would require re-programming EWEB's computer. Mr. Henry asked if the amount of water used would be the basis for determining charges at some point in the future. Mr. Cook responded that that would be the best. e 9/22/80--7 -- Mr. Lieuallen asked how the average was obtained. Mr. Cook responded that it was done on a curve. Mr. Lieuallen asked if this meant that . some people would pay very high rates and others would pay extremely low rates for the amount of water consumption. Mr. Cook responded that the commission would try to alleviate that in the future. Ms. Smith added that the commission hopes eventually to be able to base the charges on a user basis so that those who conserve will benefit. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the capital charge would be a permanent charge, a charge that would increase, or a charge that would be phased out. Ms. Racette responded that any money not used for operation and maintenance would go into the capital reserve fund and by 1983, it would be phased out as maintenance costs increase. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the user charge will generate excess revenue. Ms. Racette responded that in 1981, they expect to collect $3.5 million, of which they estimate $1.4 million will be available for a capital reserve fund. Ms. Racette stated that the longer it takes to construct the facility, the more expensive it will be, and it could cost as much as $10 million by 1983. In the two-year period, the user fee would provide $2.5 million in excess which could be matched by Federal grant funds. Mr. Lieuallen asked if that would be in excess of what is needed for operations. Ms. Racette responded that that was correct. Mr. Lieuallen asked why they didn't just call it a capital charge. Ms. Racette responded that they could do that, but collection might be difficult. EWEB and SUB felt it would be more convenient to carry one line item on their bills. Mr. Lieuallen asked if there are any legal objections to handling the matter this way. Ms. Racette responded -- that it was found to be legal. Mr. Lieuallen noted that this is a roundabout method. Ms. Racette stated that they only can collect fees through the user charge or through a bond election. Mr. L ieuallen stated that a bond election would be less popular, but the budget was adopted two weeks ago. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the fee increase and council adoption of their budget were the first significant shifts of responsibility to this commission. Ms. Racette responded that that is correct--that this is a step forward toward calling this a regional system. Mr. Henry stated that if the ordinance is approved, it will have to be conditional pending Springfield's approval. Both cities must approve the same set of rates. The two cities will continue to operate the plants under contract and be compensated under the rate sys tem . Public hearing was opened. Speaking in opposition: Ralph Ha~tung, 855 Seneca, stated that he is manager of Monsanto Manufacturlng, which makes glue for particle board. In December of 1979, they were paying 10 to 11 cents per thousand gallons of treatment and under the proposed rates, the fee would go up to about $1.00 per 1,000 gallons, which seems like an excessive charge, -- particulary since the metropolitan plant will not be ready until 9/22/80--8 -_..~ , 1984 and they will be paying for something that is not yet usable. He asked who would be operating the facility and stated concern that . three separate bodies would be involved. He compared this in a negative way to Tri-Agency Animal Control. The capital recovery charge is included but they have already overrun their estimated costs and he feels this matter should be brought before the voters. A metro facility was decided by vote, but he wonders if the same decision would be reached now. Corvallis has been very successful in their operation of their plant. He does not feel that the ordinance should be passed. It should be reconsidered whether Eugene should be involved in the regional system and he feels the voters should be allowed to share in this decision. Frank Sparrow, 1568 West 24th Place, stated that he has lived in this area for over 35 years. He thinks it is unjust that newly annexed areas to the city do not have to pay the fee that current users will have to pay. There has been no maintenance in his area since he has lived there. He is concerned that River Road will be annexed and use the system which citizens in Eugene have paid for. Old areas should pay less than new areas. He is a gardener and now pays $14 a month sewer charge. The new rates are based on water consumption and he will be charged unfairly because of his water use for gardening. He feels pioneers should be taken into consideration. Woodrow Spencer, 590 Stonegate, stated that he uses a septic tank and lives within-the city limits near Autzen Stadium. He asked what has happened to the money that has been paid in the last ten years and . noted that he is against the proposal. Alvin Chuman, 3465 Bardell Avenue, thinks the Chevy Chase area should be exempted. He thought there would be sewers in that area within four years, but that was in 1966. He feels they should be exempted since they have septic tanks. Ivan Davis stated that he lives in the Willakenzie area and has a sept ic tank. He has been paying $2.50 a month for nothing and would really object to paying $5.00 a month for nothing. There being no further testimony, public hearing was closed. Mr. Cook stated that those with septic tanks, under the new proposal, would be exempted from paying the users' charge until sewers were available to them. They would not pay anything until that time. It has not been determined yet what will happen to the money that has already been paid in, but they could be possibly given credit. That would be up to the council to decide. Mayor Keller asked about the systems development charge. Don Gi lman, Public Works, stated that they have a systems development tax now, but it is not designed to finance costs for a regional system, just to pay e 9/22/80--9 , for costs for sanitary sewer pipes between 8-inch and 24-inch. Mr. Henry noted that in regard to the Chevy Chase area, sewers will be available at about the time of completion of the East Bank Interceptor, ~ which will probably be January 1982. Ms. Racette noted that the facility is expected to be completed within three years and that is how the regional cost was de~eloped. It wi 11 cost more because it has taken longer. CB 2199--An ordinance concerning the sewer system; amending Sections 6.070, 7.010, 7.01~, 7.020, 7.025, 7.030, 7.035, 7.040 of the Eugene Code, 1971; adding a new Section 7.023 to that code; repealing Section 7.045 of 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, that enactment be considered at this time, and that the ordinance effective date coincide with Springfield's adoption of an identical ordinance. Mr. Lieuallen asked how long Eugene's general fund had been subsi- dizing the operation and maintenance since $2.50 does not cover expenses. Mr. Cook responded that. it had probably been since the beginning. An example of indirect costs would be the City Manager's time. Mr. Lieuallen asked if it is standard to charge time to various projects. Mr. Henry responded that it is not usually the case unless grants are It involved or there are intergovernmental agreements. Peat, Marwi ck, and Mitchell are being requested to come up with standard overhead charges for these instances. Mr. Lieuallen asked if this is a change in po 1 icy. Mr. Henry responded that it is and it is much more appro- priate that total costs should be handled by service charges although they have not been in the past. Mr. Lieuallen asked for the rationale for not including all of the charges which would go to capital projects in the capital charge. Mr. Cook responded that the commission's desire was to have the same constant user charge until the plant would be fi n i shed. They took the rate developed for 1983--$3.05--and that will produce more revenue than is needed at first. Mr. Lieuallen asked if this could be termed a contingency fund. Mr. Cook responded that it coul d. Ms. Smith stated that the commission's intent was to put some of the user money into a capital fund which puts them in a better position for matchings funds from grants. They felt it was important to have the money available so that construction would be delayed as little as possible. Mr. Lieuallen stated that if the hope is to come up with $10 million and this would provide one-fourth.of what is needed, a bond measure would still be needed. He feels this process was a mistake and could have been done more directly. e 9/22/80--10 . , Mr. Obie asked if the $1.75 charge includes a capital reserve charge. . Mr. Cook responded that it does not. Mr. Obie asked if the $1.95 charge includes a capital reserve charge. Mr. Cook responded that it does not. Mr. Obie did not feel the capital reserve charge was hidden in any other charges. Mr. Obie asked why the users' charge would be increased now when the pl anti s not fi ni shed. Mr. Cook responded that: 1) it is a change of policy in how the City calculates staff support costs; 2) that this will provide additional MWMC staff at a cost of $339,000; and 3) that there is a shift from the general fund into sewer utility fund. Mr. Obie commented that since the $2.50 monthly charge was not enough, this is the reason for the new charges. Ms. Miller asked if the $1.30 figure in capital reserve could change over the next few years from capital reserve to maintenance. Mr. Cook responded that it could. Ms. Miller asked what would happen if the $5 were insufficient for operation and maintenance expenses for any particular year and if it would be possible to use the capital reserve fund. Ms. Racette stated that the user charge is to cover operation and maintenance expenses and if that is not enough, the funds to cover these expenses would come out of the capital reserve fund. They would have to check with the State budget and audit laws to make certain that is legal. Ms. Smith noted that would be a policy decision the commission would have to make. If that were the case, they would use the funds for operation and maintenance. She did not believe that the $5 charge would be increased. Mr. Henry stated that as the plant is built it will require more people to operate it. The staff will be e about double that of the combined Eugene and Springfield plants currently. Mr. Lieuallen asked why more personnel are needed. Ms. Racette responded that this is a larger, more sophisticated plant requiring more highly skilled personnel. Mayor Keller noted that this plant will operate 24 hours per day which will have some bearing on the matter. Mr. Henry stated that the quality of output requires more personne 1 . Ms. Smith stated that the commission has not yet deter- mined who would operate the plants. The hope is that it would be contracted with existing staffs. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the $1.30 charte would accumulate the $2.5 million. Ms. Racette responded that the 1.30 is not a firm figure; it will be whatever is not needed for operation and maintenance. Less money will be available as mainte- nance costs increase. The 1981-82 amounts would total about $2.5 million. Mr. Lieuallen asked if either of the other two charges would be going into the capital reserve fund. Ms. Racette responded that the regional charge would not. Mr. Cook noted that the local charge will be to maintain the local system. Mr. Lieuallen asked if the hope is to create a $2.5 million reserve. Mr. Cook responded that that is correct. Mayor Keller noted that there is a question regarding whether River Road residents will pay their fair share. Mr. Cook stated that with the connection charge, they will attempt to offset additional costs to current residents. e 9/22/80--11 , " Mr. lieuallen indicated that he was not aware at the time the MWMC budget was before the council that the mechanism included what they . are doing tonight. He felt it would have been better to consider the budget together with the charges rather than discussing them at two different times. He would have 1 iked to have been aware since these are significant shifts and money has been allocated. He waul d have liked more input. Ms. Smith noted that the point is well taken. A public hearing was held May 28 on this issue and the council should have been alerted to that. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. Council Bill 2199 was read the second time by council bill number on 1 y. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. lieuallen, that the bill be approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; motion carried 6:1, with Councilor lieuallen voting no. The bill was declared passed and numbered 18708. II. ORDINANCES FOR SECOND READING A. Approve Hearings Panel Minutes of September 15, 1980 (distributed)-- Mr. Henry noted that the Hearings Panel was attended by Councilors Haws and Schue. Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to approve Hearings . Panel minutes of September 15, 1980. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. B. levying Assessments--Mr. Henry stated that the following council bills were read the first time September 8, 1980, and referred to the Hearings Panel for hearing September 15, 1980, and are being brought back for council consideration to levy assessments as proposed. CB 2132--An ordinance levying assessments for paving and sanitary sewer on Seneca Road from 1st Avenue to 11th Avenue (78-29). Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. l i eua 11 en, that the b i 11 he approved and given final passage. Roll call vote; all councilors present voting aye, the bill was declared passed and numbered 18699. CB 2147--An ordinance levying assessments for paving, storm sewer, and sidewalk on 25th Avenue, from 450 feet east of Cleveland Street to 800 feet east of Cleveland Street (79-38). 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 18700. .- 9/22/80--12 III. PAYMENT OF BILLS, CLAIMS, AND PROGRESS PAYMENTS (distributed) , Res. No. 3420--A resolution authorizing the pa~nent of bills, claims, and progress payments for the period August 29, 1980, through September 22, 1980 Ms. Smith moved, seconded by Mr. Lieuallen, to adopt the reso 1 ut ion. Ms. Miller asked what the $8,000 payment to Paul Marshall for career assessments was. Bill McGuire, Finance Oirector, stated that it is a program for employee training. Ms. Miller asked which employees partic- ipated. Mr. McGuire stated that he was not certain but thought that they were management employees. Ms. Miller indicated that she would like more information. Mayor Keller requested that a report be brought back. Carol Baker, Community Relations Director, stated that this was for anyone who wished to apply through their supervisors. Mr. Lieuallen asked if this was for career opportunities. Mr. Henry stated it was for employee development within the City. Roll call vote; motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned to September 24, 1980. R~SUbmitted, e- Charles T. Henr~~ City Manager (Recorded by Lynda Nelson) LN:so/CM27al -~ 9/22/80--13