CC Minutes - 07/21/99 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

somewhat awkward and probably needed to be adjusted, but he did not know at this time if the Senate bill addressed that issue. Mr. Rayor supported the motion, saying that it was not right for the State legislature to short-circuit the tax assessor's investigation. He said that the actions being taken locally were being taken on the basis of current State laws, and it was not right to adjust those laws now. Mr. Rayor said that any other time it would be perfectly appropriate to propose such changes, but the timing of the legislation put the City in an awkward situation. Ms. Nathanson offered a substitute motion, explaining she had attempted to craft something that the entire council could support. She was concerned that a vote on the motion on the floor would be considered a "litmus test vote," which she considered regrettable, because a vote in opposition to the motion did not represent a vote in favor of discrimination. Ms. Nathanson said her own concerns about the motion were based on what was practical and what could actually happen. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, that the Eugene City Council opposes the A-3 amendments to Senate Bill 245 with a position of Priority 1 Oppose, and recognizes that this last-minute legislation is not fully understood by the State legislature, and the necessary administrative rules are unknown. Mr. Meisner said that the motion was problematic for him in that the "specific excluded the general" as it did not reflect the council's concerns about local control. Ms. Nathanson said she had intentionally used "and recognizes that" rather than "because" to avoid the implication the last-minute nature of the legislation was the only reason for the council's opposition. Mr. Fart said that if Hyundai was discriminating it deserved to lose its tax credits. He believed the entire council was opposed to discrimination and would not tolerate such activity. Mr. Fart said he still opposed the motion given the short time the council had to deliberate about the issue. He added that he believed no matter the action taken by the legislature, the City had other mechanisms to address discrimination at Hyundai. Mr. Kelly said that he thought his suggested motion was a "no brainer," requiring no more than five minutes of council time, and he was distressed that had not been the case. He indicated acceptance of Ms. Nathanson's substitute motion, with the deletion of the final clause. Mr. Torrey suggested as a substitute sentence, "and other government entities." Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Pap~ accepted both suggestions, and the motion was reworded as follows: Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Pap~, that the Eugene City Council opposes the A-3 amendments to Senate Bill 245, with a position of Priority 1 Oppose, and recognizes that this last-minute legislation is not fully understood by the State legislature, and other government entities. Mr. Torrey and Mr. Fart indicated support for the amended motion. The motion carried unanimously, 6:0. B. Work Session: Repeal of the 1986 Alton Baker Park Master Plan MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 21, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m.