Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Meisner also opposed the motion. He said that the City was giving up an opportunity to <br />provide substantial economic development assistance to other companies. He did not understand <br />that. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor said he had nothing to add to his comments of March 11. He supported the motion. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor also opposed the motion, agreeing with the comments of Mr. Kelly, Ms. Bettman, and <br />Mr. Meisner, saying it was outrageous that the council was giving money to one company when <br />there were many other unmet needs in the City, including transportation funding. She was very <br />upset that the council was contemplating the action. She said the amount involved was small to <br />the school districts and the company, but it was money that the City could use and only part of <br />what it needed. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson pointed out that Hynix would be getting less than half of what it originally <br />requested from the City in terms of the exemption. She thought the agreement reached was a <br />good one, and noted the inclusion of performance guarantees in the agreement that were not <br />present before, about which she was very happy. She supported the motion. <br /> <br />Mr. Fart acknowledged the concerns of those in opposition to the motion but said he was not yet <br />convinced that $350,000 was not a lot of money; he suggested it could perhaps fund 15 teachers, <br />which was a big impact. He had also not been convinced that the presence of Hynix was not <br />good for the remainder of the business community, including small businesses. He thought the <br />agreement would work to the benefit of both the company and community. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap~ did not perceive having Hynix pay taxes of between $1.5 million and $1.2 million as a <br />corporate giveaway. He said he had spoken to some school principals and the chair of the 4J <br />School Board, who did not perceive the money as being insignificant, and they were excited to <br />receive the money. He supported the motion. <br /> <br />Mayor Torrey recalled testimony offered to the council when the company came to Eugene in 1995 <br />that the jobs created by Hynix would not be high-paying jobs. He said that the average <br />compensation provided to its employees by Hynix was among the highest in the community. The <br />council also heard testimony the company would not be environmentally sensitive, but its reporting <br />to the Toxics Right-to-Know program argued against that. Mayor Torrey did not think the council's <br />action would affect Hynix's future in the community, but he thought the council's action could <br />impact the decision of other companies about staying in the community. He said that although the <br />City's original agreement with the company did not state that it would give the company the tax <br />incentive if its employment rate went down, the City had not stipulated anything about requiring <br />companies not to take advantage of improved technology that might reduce the number of <br />employees needed. Mayor Torrey said that in the event of a tie, he would vote in favor of the <br />motion. <br /> <br /> The vote on the motion was a 4:4 tie; Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Farr, Mr. PapS, and <br /> Mr. Rayor voting yes; Mr. Meisner, Ms. Taylor, Mr. Kelly, and Ms. Bettman <br /> voting no; Mayor Torrey cast a vote in support of the motion, and the final <br /> vote on the motion was 5:4. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 13, 2002 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />