Laserfiche WebLink
4. The City Counci/ directs the City Manager to notify the County Assessor of any <br /> discrimination comp/aint found to be justified under Section 4.645(3) of the <br /> Eugene Code, or State and federa/ /aws, against a private company/ocated in <br /> the city's Enterprise Zone and receiving a property tax waiver under existing <br /> State/aw. <br /> <br /> 5. The City Council directs the City Manager to report back to the council once <br /> Hyundai 's appeal of the Superior Court's decision had been completed. <br /> <br /> 6. That the City Council directs its Human Rights Commission to address cross- <br /> cultural issues and problems in the community. <br /> <br /> Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to accept Alternative G. <br /> <br />Mr. Farr asked if the Human Rights Commission was involved in the preparation of the <br />alternative. Mary Feldman of the Human Rights Program indicated the entire commission <br />received the alternative but had not had an opportunity to discuss it. The Human Rights <br />Commission Agenda Committee met on February 4, and Mr. Lee and Mr. Johnson had attended <br />the meeting and discussed the alternative with the committee members. There were some <br />reservations on the part of the committee that the entire commission had not discussed the <br />subject. Mr. Farr said that given the lack of commission discussion, he did not think it was <br />prudent for the council to take action at this time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. PapS, to table the motion until sometime <br /> after the Human Rights Commission had the opportunity to take public input <br /> and review the alternative. The motion failed, 3:5; Mr. PapS, Ms. Taylor, and <br /> Mr. Farr voting yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the resolution and for clearing up questions raised about <br />the prior motion. He said that the resolution affirmed the findings and purpose of the Human <br />Rights Ordinance. While it was a weakening of the previous motion, he believed it was a <br />meaningful statement. He supported the motion. <br /> <br />Regarding Mr. Farr's suggestion that the resolution be considered by the Human Rights <br />Commission, Mr. Kelly pointed out that the council was merely revisiting its own action of October <br />13. He did not feel a need for commission review given that fact. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly concurred with the remarks made by Mr. Meisner. <br /> <br />Mr. Lee said that the resolution was an attempt to reach a compromise. He suggested that the <br />issue before the council was one of leadership, urged the council to amend the resolution if <br />necessary and to move on to other business. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson appreciated Mr. Lee's comments regarding compromise. However, she had <br />concerns about the multiple features of the resolution and the fact that it singled out Hyundai. <br />She said if the point behind the resolution was to establish a practice for staff regarding the need <br />to explore violations that occur in the Enterprise Zone, the resolution should not single out one <br /> <br />MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />