Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 02/07/00 Work Session MINUTES Eugene City Council Work Session McNutt Room--City Hall February 7, 2000 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, Nancy Nathanson, Pat Fart, Scott Meisner, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap~. Mayor James D. Torrey called the meeting to order. A.Work Session: Charter Amendment Proposal--Eugene Water & Electric Board Telecommunications Authority Mike Dyer, Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) President, introduced board members Dorothy Anderson, Sandra Bishop, and Peter Bartel, EWEB General Manager Randy Berggren, local counsel Jim Deason, and EWEB staff Jim Arglossa, Ken Beeson, Tom Buckhouse, Marty Douglas, Cathy Hamilton. Mr. Pap~ arrived at 5:35 p.m. Mr. Dyer said that EVVEB hoped to construct a publicly owned telecommunications system to reach everyone in the community. The network would be an expansion of the utility's existing fiber optic base core system that currently loops through town. Mr. Dyer described EWEB's proposed system and noted its intent to construct additional capacity to recover its costs by transporting content for private providers. The system would be an open platform system. EWEB would structure the system so that it had few barriers to entry, making the system of use to all and allowing access by multiple providers. Mr. Dyer acknowledged the work done by the City on telecommunications issues, and said that EVVEB's system would be consistent with the City's vision and policies. Mr. Dyer said the board believed the system was an integral aspect of its ability to compete in the future. As the information age moved forward, it was important that all citizens have access to what was quickly becoming crucial to modern commerce. Mr. Dyer said the quickest way to make those connections to all was through a publicly owned and managed system operated in the interest of the public. Mr. Dyer said that EVVEB had been advised by its legal counsel that it would be prudent to obtain telecommunications authority before progressing further with discussions with potential development partners. The board believed that authority was best granted through an amendment to the City Charter specifically broadening EWEB's authority from the provision of energy and water services to the provision of telecommunications services. He acknowledged that the authority could be granted through an intergovernmental agreement between the City and EWEB, but the board believed charter authority was preferable because it provided voters MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 1 Work Session with an opportunity to speak, and it would give EWEB flexibility in designing telecommunications business arrangements. Mr. Dyer asked the City Council to authorize placing a ballot measure amending the charter to give EWEB telecommunications authority on the May ballot. Should EWEB be granted the authority, it would not diminish the City's telecommunications authority. He invited questions. Ms. Nathanson said she strongly supported EWEB's proposal because telecommunications infrastructure was fast becoming a needed utility. She asked if EWEB would seek outside expertise before it negotiated with content providers. She also noted that the provision of content was not excluded in the charter language proposed by EWEB, and asked Mr. Dyer to clarify EWEB's intent. Mr. Dyer said that the board had taken the position that EWEB was not a content provider, and would not be in the cable, Internet, or telephone business. Others would provide content. Responding to Ms. Nathanson's first question, Ms. Beeson anticipated that the development partner ultimately selected by EWEB would have expertise in the field, and that EWEB would probably hire multiple consultants to work with it on the effort. Mr. Kelly also supported the proposal as described in the council meeting packet. He questioned why the authority sought by EWEB could not be fine-tuned somewhat to allay his concerns about EWEB as a content provider. He suggested that EWEB add a third sentence to section 44(1) of the charter that read "Services that are not related to energy would be provided by private companies as partners with or subcontractors to EWEB." Mr. Deason observed that technology and services were evolving much faster than the law, and federal and state regulators were playing "catch up" in understanding how those services and technologies fit into regulatory classifications. He said that while there was some distinction in the law between transporting content and providing it, there was no guarantee the distinction would remain valid as technology evolved. Mr. Deason said that he believed that Mr. Kelly's suggested revision, while clarifying some situations, could also lead to challenges regarding what is an actual energy service versus what was a telecommunications service. He had recommended that EWEB seek broad authority to be prepared to take advantage of services and technologies not available yet. Mr. Kelly noted concern on the part of industry regarding the distinction. City Attorney Glenn Klein believed that the council could include language including the distinction noted by Mr. Kelly in a charter amendment. Mr. Berggren added that the courts would eventually determine the limits of EWEB's authority as the law was defined over the next few years. Mr. Farr perceived the proposal as a step in providing telecommunications services to all citizens. He asked how the infrastructure being installed by AT&T differed from the infrastructure contemplated by EWEB. Mr. Beeson said that EWEB's system would be an advanced, modern, high-speed band system that would be located as close to the customers as possible. The infrastructure would be owned by the community, and it would have community oversight. Mr. Fart asked to what extent the system competed with AT&T, and if it would be subsidized by other EWEB operations. Mr. Dyer said that the service would not be subsidized, would not subsidize other services, and would be self-sufficient. Mr. Beeson added that the system would be open to multiple interested service providers. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 2 Work Session Mr. Farr asked if EWEB had heard any testimony from AT&T regarding the proposal. Mr. Dyer said no. Mr. Pap8 said that he shared the concerns expressed by others regarding the potential of EWEB as a content provider. He was sorry that the City Council had not had time to form a charter review committee to examine what EWEB was permitted to do, and "what we want it to do" in the future. He regretted that review had not occurred prior to the proposal being submitted to the council. Mr. Pap8 asked if the system contemplated by EWEB could be installed by the private sector. Mr. Dyer said yes. Mr. Pap8 asked when private companies would be likely to be attracted to the Eugene-Springfield market. Mr. Dyer said that "no one was knocking on the door." Private companies were operating in large urban centers with dense populations where they could optimize the revenue per mile of system. Mr. Pap8 suggested that over time, like cellular telephone service, smaller communities would receive service. Mr. Dyer said it was possible, but installing such a system was a huge investment totaling $70 to $80 million, and he did not see it happening in the near future. Mr. Pap8 said that if EWEB could provide a service the citizens needed that would not be provided by the private sector, he could support the proposal. He asked if EWEB would consider selling the system to the private sector at some future point. Mr. Dyer responded that he did not think the current board would sell the system, as one of the underpinnings of the project was public ownership. Mr. Berggren added he assumed any decision to sell would be referred to the public. Mr. Pap8 asked how a future board could be bound to a promise of noncompetition in the provision of content. Mr. Dyer said that no one could bind the actions of a future board, but he believed the campaign for the charter amendment would be clear as to the board's intent, and he would consider it a breach of the public trust if EWEB acted otherwise. Responding to a question from Mr. PapS, Mr. Klein confirmed that the City could extend the requested authority through a memorandum of understanding (MOU) without the need for a charter amendment. He said that EWEB's legal counsel believed including the authority in the charter would provide a greater defense for EWEB's construction of the system. He disagreed, but acknowledged that the issues involved had not been litigated. Mr. Beeson added that EWEB believed it would be more difficult, from a business perspective, to work with a development partner to put together the most effective structure with an MOU approach. Mr. Meisner supported the proposal as consistent with the City's telecommunications policies. He wanted the kind of universal access a public system would provide. However, he shared Mr. Kelly's concerns about the provision of content. He said EWEB was asking for a charter amendment so broad that it "very clearly does" authorize the provision of content. Mr. Meisner referred to the report prepared by EWEB entitled The Telecommunications Question and said that while it stated decisions to provide content would not be undertaken without intense community involvement and discussion, it did not state a vote would be taken. He said that EWEB should be clear that it was requesting the authority to provide content. Mr. Meisner said he was disturbed that "level of honesty" was not present in the materials prepared by EWEB. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 3 Work Session Mr. Meisner asked what would happen if there was insufficient revenue to support repayment of the bonds. Who backed them? The ratepayers? The City? He said that was not clear in the materials before the council. Responding to Mr. Fart's questions, Mr. Meisner said he did not think AT&T was likely to provide service to every household in Eugene or line space to its competitors. Mr. Meisner noted a general concern expressed by what he termed the "computer community" regarding EWEB's ability to construct a system in a timely enough fashion that it was not obsolete before it was in place. He asked EWEB to consider how it would guarantee that it could complete the system in a timely fashion. EWEB staff indicated that EWEB intended to use project revenue bonds, nonrecourse back to the utility. EWEB would go to the investment community with an investment grade business plan and market analysis and convince the investors the revenues would be sufficient to pay debt service and operating costs. If EWEB could not do so, it could not go forward. Mr. Rayor asked if AT&T bought TCl to reach all households in Eugene. Mr. Dyer did not know. Mr. Rayor asked if EWEB would continue to participate in the Fiber Optic Group. Mr. Berggren said yes. Mr. Rayor encouraged EWEB's continued participation and cooperation in that effort. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor regarding the letter submitted earlier that evening from US West requesting that the City conduct a public hearing on the proposal, Mayor Torrey said that he would advise that course of action. Ms. Taylor favored the EWEB proposal and was unconcerned about the potential provision of content. She said she had been contacted by citizen Orval Etter earlier that day, who also favored the proposal but urged more public involvement. Mr. Etter also indicated to her his belief that EWEB had the authority to proceed without a charter amendment. She asked Mr. Dyer what EWEB would do if it put the issue to a vote and it failed. She disagreed with Mr. Kelly about the need for more specificity in the charter amendment. She compared the charter to a constitution, saying it should contain principles and not specific details. She trusted future boards and voters to do what the citizens wanted. Mr. Lee commended EWEB for being visionary in its approach to service delivery. He said that gray areas would continue to surface as technology evolved and the law changed. Mr. Lee encouraged EWEB to pursue the charter amendment if board members were confident about the proposal. He believed the issue was one of confidence on the part of the organization since the future was so unclear. Mayor Torrey cautioned EWEB about what it included in the charter amendment. He believed that such amendments were intended to be specific. Mayor Torrey supported a public hearing to provide a history of legislative intent. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to direct the City Manager to prepare a resolution for the City Council calling an election in May 2000 on a charter amendment authorizing EWEB to engage in telecommunications activities. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 4 Work Session Ms. Nathanson believed that the only way the community could realize reliable universal access to the Information Highway was through a public utility. She said that private providers could provide access, but without a regulatory mechanism the City could not force a provider to serve every household and business in Eugene. Ms. Nathanson noted that a City Council goal called for community access to the full range of telecommunication services at reasonable rates. She did not want to see neighborhoods bypassed, because access to the Information Highway would help residents with education, employment, health care, and daily life. Ms. Nathanson supported the motion. She said that if the community wanted choices and competitive pricing, and if the council believed some competition was better than no competition, wanted access for all neighborhoods, and wanted to avoid bundling of services that priced people out of service and limited choices, it should support EWEB. She said the proposal did not exclude anyone from the market. Mr. Kelly agreed with Ms. Nathanson's statements and said that the open access model being proposed by EWEB was unlikely to be duplicated by a private provider. However, the private provider could take advantage of the existing infrastructure to provide services to residents. Mr. Kelly said he would like to see EWEB's legal counsel work with Mr. Klein on language that addressed the issue of content versus transport. He said that the issue may determine his stand on the charter amendment. Mr. Meisner concurred. He said he would support the motion, but he would not be able to vote to place the charter amendment on the ballot unless the text was revised. Mr. Kelly suggested that the election would be the "ultimate public hearing" for the charter amendment. He supported a public information campaign by EWEB. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Mr. Rayor, to amend the motion by calling for a public hearing on February 14, 2000. Mr. Lee termed the public hearing a due diligence issue. Mr. Rayor supported the motion and amendment, and asked that EWEB be provided with a copy of the letter sent by US West. Ms. Taylor favored the motion but wanted a hearing to include the possibility of an approach other than a charter amendment. The motion to amend passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Fart said he hoped that at the public hearing EWEB could address the question of potential conflict of interest and potential legal challenges raised by US West in its letter. Ms. Taylor moved to amend the motion to direct that the City Manager bring back a method to implement the proposal without a charter amendment. The motion died for lack of a second. The amended motion passed unanimously, 8:0. The council took a five-minute recess. The council reconvened and sang "Happy Birthday" to City Manager Jim Johnson. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 5 Work Session B. Work Session: Discussion of the October 13, 1999, Council Motion Concerning Hyundai Mr. Lee distributed a draft resolution for consideration by the council. The council reviewed the resolution, which Mr. Lee labeled Alternative G: Whereas, the City of Eugene has adopted a Human Rights Ordinance at Eugene Code Section 4.613 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color~ sex, national origin, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, source of income, and disability; and Whereas, the City of Eugene was a sponsor of an enterprise zone through which corporations receive property tax waivers in exchange for creating jobs, and Whereas, Oregon statutes require that local laws be foflowed by those companies receiving property tax waivers when locating and doing business within an Enterprise Zone, and Whereas, Hyundai Semiconductor of America has constructed a factory within the West Eugene Enterprise Zone and is receiving property tax waivers through the Enterprise Zone program, and Whereas, the Superior Court of Orange County, California, has found that Hyundai Semiconductor of America committed illegal discrimination in their hiring for their factory in Eugene, Oregon (Case #778959), and Whereas, the trial judge has upheld that verdict and entered judgement against Hyundai Semiconductor of America, and Whereas, Hyundai has decided to appeal this decision and, as such, it has not been legally concluded that Hyundai has engaged in discriminatory hiring practices in violation of California statutes; and Whereas, discrimination in hiring is materially relevant to and contradictory to the purpose for which the property tax waivers were granted. Now, therefore, I move that: 1. The motion adopted by the council on October 13, 1999, as mentioned in the background section of the cover memorandum for this agenda item, is hereby rescinded. 2. The City Council condemns afl forms of discriminatory hiring practices and expresses deep concern about Hyundai's actions as found in the lower court decision in California. 3. The City Council affirms the findings and purposes of the Eugene Human Rights Ordinance described in Section 4.613(1) and (2) of the Eugene Code and condemns any form of discrimination as described in the code. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 6 Work Session 4. The City Counci/ directs the City Manager to notify the County Assessor of any discrimination comp/aint found to be justified under Section 4.645(3) of the Eugene Code, or State and federa/ /aws, against a private company/ocated in the city's Enterprise Zone and receiving a property tax waiver under existing State/aw. 5. The City Council directs the City Manager to report back to the council once Hyundai 's appeal of the Superior Court's decision had been completed. 6. That the City Council directs its Human Rights Commission to address cross- cultural issues and problems in the community. Mr. Lee moved, seconded by Ms. Taylor, to accept Alternative G. Mr. Farr asked if the Human Rights Commission was involved in the preparation of the alternative. Mary Feldman of the Human Rights Program indicated the entire commission received the alternative but had not had an opportunity to discuss it. The Human Rights Commission Agenda Committee met on February 4, and Mr. Lee and Mr. Johnson had attended the meeting and discussed the alternative with the committee members. There were some reservations on the part of the committee that the entire commission had not discussed the subject. Mr. Farr said that given the lack of commission discussion, he did not think it was prudent for the council to take action at this time. Mr. Farr moved, seconded by Mr. PapS, to table the motion until sometime after the Human Rights Commission had the opportunity to take public input and review the alternative. The motion failed, 3:5; Mr. PapS, Ms. Taylor, and Mr. Farr voting yes. Mr. Meisner expressed appreciation for the resolution and for clearing up questions raised about the prior motion. He said that the resolution affirmed the findings and purpose of the Human Rights Ordinance. While it was a weakening of the previous motion, he believed it was a meaningful statement. He supported the motion. Regarding Mr. Farr's suggestion that the resolution be considered by the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Kelly pointed out that the council was merely revisiting its own action of October 13. He did not feel a need for commission review given that fact. Mr. Kelly concurred with the remarks made by Mr. Meisner. Mr. Lee said that the resolution was an attempt to reach a compromise. He suggested that the issue before the council was one of leadership, urged the council to amend the resolution if necessary and to move on to other business. Ms. Nathanson appreciated Mr. Lee's comments regarding compromise. However, she had concerns about the multiple features of the resolution and the fact that it singled out Hyundai. She said if the point behind the resolution was to establish a practice for staff regarding the need to explore violations that occur in the Enterprise Zone, the resolution should not single out one MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 7 Work Session company. She believed the resolution would be a stronger policy statement if it was neutral. She questioned what the phrase "found to be justified" meant. Mr. Pap~ questioned the purpose of item 5 in the resolution. He suggested that any report should go to the County Assessor, who had the power to take action. Mr. Lee said that the item was included to give the City an opportunity to react to the outcome of the appeal, and since the Hyundai controversy drove the resolution, the language was retained. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Ms. Nathanson that the resolution would be improved if it was not specific to a single company. He could not support the resolution unless the reference was omitted. Mr. Rayor supported the resolution. He thanked Mr. Lee for his effort to reach a compromise. He did not think the resolution singled out a single company. Mr. Rayor said that when the trial judge found the company liable he had been concerned. He said that the City must track such cases because of the potential of future tax reductions for Hyundai due to its location in the Enterprise Zone, and he believed the citizens expected it to ensure that Hyundai followed the law. Mr. Rayor said that if Hyundai won its appeal, it was a "whole new ball game." Mayor Torrey said that if the vote on the motion was a tie, he would vote against it because of the reference to Hyundai. He reminded the council that he had been one of the original councilors who supported the passage of the Human Rights Ordinance and was very concerned about the subject of discrimination. However, he found the references specific to Hyundai to be inappropriate, and recommended that they be removed from the resolution. Mayor Torrey asked the council to remember due process and the appeal filed by Hyundai, adding that if the company lost its appeal he would do everything he could to ensure the company did not receive the benefits it was currently receiving. Mr. Fart indicated his concurrence with the remarks of Mayor Torrey. He appreciated Mr. Lee's leadership but believed the resolution was premature because the appeals process was not completed. He questioned whether another company would have been singled out in the same way, and said he did not think so because the issue of Hyundai was so politicized in the community. He stressed the diversity of the Hyundai work force and said that if the incident occurred, it was an isolated incident. Mr. Fart moved to amend the motion by revising the first paragraph to read as follows (italicized text added) "The motion adopted by the council on October 13, 1999, as mentioned in the background section of the cover memorandum for this agenda item, is hereby rescinded until the appellate court decision is rendered" and by deleting the remainder of the text. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Kelly pointed out that rather than condemning Hyundai, the resolution expressed "deep concern" about the court decision. He did not think the resolution was "all about" Hyundai, suggesting it was both a specific and general motion. It affirmed the City's commitment to opposing discrimination and mentioned the Hyundai case because the council was not acting in a vacuum. A resolution that mentioned no company would be a prospective act in the absence of any history. In response to Mr. Fart's remarks, Mr. Kelly said that he would act the same if the company was different. He was a user of computers and it would be hypocritical of him to say MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 8 Work Session that RAM chips should be manufactured somewhere other than Eugene. His concern was about specific hiring practices. Mr. Lee said that if the council was passing an ordinance, he would be persuaded by the argument regarding the need for neutral language, but the resolution before the council was nonbinding. He had preferred not to mention a specific company, but had been willing to compromise on the issue. Mr. Pap8 said that he had no problem with the "Whereas" statements in the resolution because they were factual. He was somewhat sensitive to the issue because the companies he had been involved with had faced charges of discrimination, only 2 of 45 of which were sustained, and 1 of the 2 overturned on appeal. For that reason, he believed it was inappropriate to act until the appeals process was completed. He also felt it was inappropriate to single out Hyundai when the principles involved should apply to all companies that discriminate. For that reason, he opposed the sections of the resolution specific to Hyundai. Mr. Pap8 noted that 21 discrimination complaints had been filed against the City of Eugene over a five-year period (1994-1999). Fourteen were closed with no evidence or jurisdiction; four were withdrawn; and three had "other" dispositions. He said that there could also be "runaway" juries. Mr. Pap8 said that could be errant managers working for a company; while that did not eliminate the company's liability for the actions of such individuals, he did not think the entire organization should be condemned. Ms. Nathanson said she was proud of her vote in favor of the Human Rights Ordinance, because it was the right thing to do. She believed she had done the right thing in her vote to sunset the Enterprise Zone. Because of the purpose of the zone, which was to create employment, Ms. Nathanson was particularly disturbed by charges of discrimination against Hyundai. She said she would like to be able to vote for something. She felt she was on the right side of the issue--against discrimination and against granting tax waivers to companies that violate the law. Because of that, she proposed to divide the question. Ms. Nathanson moved, seconded by Mr. Farr, to divide the question by including "Whereas" statements 1, 2, 3, and 8, and "Therefore" statements 1, 3, 4, and 6 in one motion, and "Whereas" statements 4, 5, 6, and 7, "Thereas statements" 2 and 5 in a second motion. The vote on the motion to divide the question was 4:4; Mr. PapS, Ms. Nathanson, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Farr voting yes, and Ms. Taylor, Mr. Rayor, Mr. Meisner, and Mr. Kelly voting no. Mayor Torrey cast a vote in the affirmative and the motion passed, 5:4. The separated motions follow: MOTION Whereas, the City of Eugene has adopted a Human Rights Ordinance at Eugene Code Section 4.613 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, source of income, and disability; and MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 9 Work Session Whereas, the City of Eugene was a sponsor of an enterprise zone through which corporations receive property tax waivers in exchange for creating jobs, and Whereas, Oregon statutes require that local laws be foflowed by those companies receiving property tax waivers when locating and doing business within an Enterprise Zone, and Whereas, discrimination in hiring is materially relevant to and contradictory to the purpose for which the property tax waivers were granted. Now, therefore, I move that: 1. The motion adopted by the council on October 13, 1999, as mentioned in the background section of the cover memorandum for this agenda item, is hereby rescinded. 3. The City Council affirms the findings and purposes of the Eugene Human Rights Ordinance described in Section 4.613(1) and (2) of the Eugene Code and condemns any form of discrimination as described in the code. 4. The City Council directs the City Manager to notify the County Assessor of any discrimination complaint found to be justified under Section 4.645(3) of the Eugene Code, or State and federal laws, against a private company located in the city's Enterprise Zone and receiving a property tax waiver under existing State law. 6. That the City Council directs its Human Rights Commission to address cross- cultural issues and problems in the community. MOTION 2: Whereas, Hyundai Semiconductor of America has constructed a factory within the West Eugene Enterprise Zone and is receiving property tax waivers through the Enterprise Zone program, and Whereas, the Superior Court of Orange County, California, has found that Hyundai Semiconductor of America committed illegal discrimination in their hiring for their factory in Eugene, Oregon (Case #778959), and Whereas, the trial judge has upheld that verdict and entered judgement against Hyundai Semiconductor of America, and Whereas, Hyundai has decided to appeal this decision and, as such, it has not been legally concluded that Hyundai has engaged in discriminatory hiring practices in violation of California statutes. Now, therefore, I move that: MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 10 Work Session 2. The City Council condemns afl forms of discriminatory hiring practices and expresses deep concern about Hyundai's actions as found in the lower court decision in California. 5. The City Council directs the City Manager to report back to the council once Hyundai 's appeal of the Superior Court's decision had been completed. Mr. Meisner said he would support both motions but believed passage of the first motion without the second motion indicated the council was willing to have a "completely spineless Human Rights Ordinance." Ms. Taylor agreed. Mr. Farr said he would support the first motion. As an employer, he was proud of his record of nondiscrimination and had never had a discrimination complaint. He said the motion allowed him to affirm his commitment to nondiscrimination. He continued to be opposed to naming Hyundai in the resolution because the appeal process was not complete. Ms. Nathanson disagreed with Mr. Meisner's statement that the motion did nothing, saying the motion directed the City Manager to report violations to the County Assessor and directed the Human Rights Commission to work to address cross-cultural issues and problems. She agreed with Mr. Pap8 that it was not within the City's power to actually do anything; the City could neither prosecute the company nor withhold tax waivers. The motion represented everything the council could do. Mr. Kelly expressed disappointment the question was divided. He said that passing the first motion without the second motion signified that when there was no specific issue under consideration, the council was all for nondiscrimination, but when a tough, upsetting, specific situation arose, the council would "eventually get around to doing something." Mr. Kelly said that the second motion was specific but did not generally condemn an organization. The motion expressed deep concern about Hyundai's actions as found in the lower court decision. Mr. Pap8 moved, seconded by Ms. Nathanson, to amend motion 1 to direct the City Manager to report back to the council on any decision with regard to discrimination in an Enterprise Zone. There was discussion of the wording of the motion. Because of a lack of time, Mr. Pap8 withdrew his motion and Ms. Nathanson withdrew her second. Motion 1 passed unanimously, 8:0. Mr. Meisner said he found it interesting that whenever the council discussed a particular company, "that was political, and it was resisted." He said that the court case had been so heavily reported in the community the council had an opportunity to respond regarding its concern about the actions as found by a court. Mr. Meisner believed that there was a significant part of the council that wanted to ignore the issue. He thought it was important to make a statement about the situation, and to be specific. He supported motion 2. Mr. Farr reiterated that he would not support motion 2. He believed the motion set a dangerous precedent, and he feared that the community would expect the manager to bring forth every act MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 11 Work Session of discrimination in hiring by any entity within the city receiving tax funding of any form if it passed. Mr. Pap~ said that if the council was concerned about discrimination in general, it should "clean up its own house first." He questioned why the council would single out Hyundai, agreeing with Mr. Fart that the City would then be obliged to seek out any business that discriminates. Mr. Lee continued to believe that the motion represented a compromise because many harsh statements had been removed from the original resolution. He believed the motion was based on facts, although he acknowledged the concerns of councilors in opposition. Ms. Taylor believed that the tax waiver made all the difference in the situation. She said that the City could not regulate everyone, but when a company received a tax break it promised to live by certain rules that might be more strict than otherwise. She believed that there had been violations of environmental regulations for which Hyundai should have lost its tax waiver. Mayor Torrey said that the City was governed by the laws in place, not the laws as individuals would prefer. He did not support the motion, and stressed the need for the City to treat all companies consistently. The motion passed, 5:3; Mr. Fart, Mr. Pap~, and Ms. Nathanson voting no. Ms. Nathanson indicated she wished to switch her vote and join the majority. Her initial intent was to avoid combining policy with references to a specific company. While she continued to think it wrong to single out an individual business, she did not want to be misinterpreted as not being concerned about discrimination. The final vote on the motion was 6:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Johnson City Manager (Recorded by KimberlyYoung) MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 7, 2000 Page 12 Work Session