Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 10/13/99 WS MINUTES Eugene City Council McNutt Room--City Hall October 13, 1999 5:30 p.m. COUNCILORS PRESENT: Scott Meisner, Pat Farr, Bobby Lee, Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Gary Rayor, Gary Pap8 (until 6:45 p.m.). COUNCILORS ABSENT: Nancy Nathanson. CITY COUNCIL DINNER WORK SESSION A. Items from the Mayor, Council, and City Manager Mr. Meisner asked for council "head nods" for a Contingency Fund request form the Wayne Morse Park Historical Corporation. The council indicated its willingness to consider the request. Mr. Meisner reminded the council that it had received copies of the application for the committee on council compensation. He asked if councilors wished to ballot for the positions or if it wished to interview. He asked councilors to let Mary Walston of the City Manager's Office know their preference. Ms. Taylor said she received a call from a constituent regarding student parties and absentee landlords. She asked if it was possible to institute regulations for rental housing to protect neighborhoods. Mr. Pap8 arrived at the meeting. Mr. Pap8 raised an issue regarding lighting of the East Bank Bicycle Path near the Valley River Village area. He asked for a report on the resolution to the problem. Mr. Kelly said he shared Ms. Taylor's concerns regarding absentee landlords. Mr. Kelly asked for council head nods on a Contingency Fund request from Willamette Repertory Theater to underwrite the patron user fee for attendees at student matinees. Mr. Johnson said that if the council believed underwriting the costs of such events was important the relevant ordinance could be changed. Mr. Kelly said the issue was somewhat time-sensitive as the company had scheduled its first matinees for the end of November or first of December. Mr. Johnson indicated he would follow up. The council indicated its willingness to consider a contingency request. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 1 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kelly expressed interest in consideration of a building height limit in the 5th Street Historic District. Mr. Farr arrived at the meeting. Mr. Rayor indicated his interest in sustainable construction methods for the library and asked to be kept informed so he could follow that work. Mr. Rayor wanted bicycle parking at the library to be very convenient for library patrons. He believed that it would bring a sense of place to the street because of the activity that would occur around bicycle parking. Mr. Rayor referred to the federal courthouse issue and his interest in knowing what mitigation measures were proposed if the courthouse was located where initially envisioned. He wanted to ensure that those mitigation measures were expanded if possible. Mr. Lee asked if the Council Committee on Homelessness and Youth could reconvene around the issue of providing employment opportunities for the homeless. He said that the City should try to address that population's gap in knowledge about available opportunities and programs. Mr. Farr, chair of the committee, and Mr. Torrey, the other committee member, indicated their willingness to reconvene. Mr. Johnson said he would soon provide the council with a memorandum regarding the Police Department's efforts in the University of Oregon area to control problem student drinking and inappropriate behaviors. He reported that the City was considering an ordinance addressing the problem of absentee landlords, and which provided for full-cost recovery of repeat visits to the same address within a 60-day period. He said the ordinance was similar to ordinances in force in Corvallis and in Berkeley, California. Mr. Johnson believed the ordinance would get the attention of absentee landlords. He clarified, in response to a question from Mr. Meisner, that the ordinance would address situations where there was a congregation of ten or more people and multiple violations of the City Code. Mr. Farr said that the two-minute speaking rule instituted by the mayor for council work sessions was perhaps workable but expressed regret that it was needed. He hoped that the council could go back to a more open meeting atmosphere that allowed councilors to express themselves, but also hoped that if that occurred councilors were aware of the time they were taking and mindful of other councilors. Mr. Torrey said he intended to maintain the rule until the issue could be revisited at the council's process session, at which time he would happy to accept council recommendations, but noted the practice of limiting speech to two minutes at a time had worked well during the previous work sessions and some members of the public had commended the practice to him as it allowed them to hear all councilors' opinions. Mr. Farr said that he had also heard those comments, but believed it was best not to cut councilors off in the middle of their thoughts, forcing them to wait for several minutes before completing their remarks. Mr. Torrey asked for assurances that five councilors would be at the October 20 public hearing on TransPlan. Ms. Taylor, Mr. PapS, Mr. Meisner, Mr. Rayor, and Mr. Lee indicated they would be present. Mr. Kelly, Ms. Nathanson, and Mr. Farr would not be present. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 2 5:30 p.m. B. Work Session: Annual Briefing and Report from the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA) Ms. Taylor introduced Barbara Cole, the outgoing director of the Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAPA). She commended Ms. Cole's work as director and said her tenure had seen improved staff morale, new agency headquarters, a heightened community profile, and a strengthened community educational effort. She noted Ms. Cole's response to a citizen's call about a field burning situation over which LRAPA had no jurisdictional authority; Ms. Cole had been able to work with the farmer and gain his agreement to postpone burning until conditions were better. Ms. Cole provided an update on LRAPA activities, describing the agency's mission and jurisdiction, noting the location of its monitoring stations throughout Lane County, and discussing local trends in air quality. Mr. Pap8 asked which monitoring station measured the highest ozone levels. Ms. Cole said that the Saginaw monitoring site registered the highest levels because ozone was a transport chemical that formed as reaction to the "urban soup" of chemicals. She said that as air drifted southward, high concentrations of ozone formed at that point. She said that particulate levels were highest in Oakridge, and LRAPA was working closely with that community because of concern that it might be in danger of violating new federal standards. Responding to a question from Mr. Rayor, Ms. Cole said that she did not think Eugene was in danger of losing federal funding because of the local transportation plan. If the area could not show conformity with the Clean Air Plan, it could not get regionally significant transportation plans approved. She did not perceive a problem with the proposed TransPlan in the short-term. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Ms. Cole confirmed that automobiles were the largest producer of ozone. She said that the Saginaw station was not close to the freeway but the cumulative emissions for the entire valley gathered at that point. She agreed with Mr. Farr that a good strategy was to decrease automobile miles traveled. Mr. Farr said that a lack of affordable housing in Eugene was driving people out of the community into small nearby communities, and they were driving greater distances, creating more ozone. Ms. Cole agreed, and suggested that increased use of telecommuting, bus pools, and van pools would help. Mr. Torrey asked what accounted for better quality of air in Eugene than in years past given that there were more automobiles. Ms. Cole attributed the improved air quality to improved auto technology and new federal standards regarding emissions. Mr. Torrey asked Ms. Cole if she would characterize the representation from City of Eugene as appropriately balanced. Ms. Cole said yes. The council thanked Ms. Cole for her presentation. C. Work Session: Toxics Right-to-Know Program Funding MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 3 5:30 p.m. Glen Potter, Fire and EMS Department, presented the agenda item. He reminded the council of the Court of Appeals decision invalidating the current fee basis for the program. He said that three funding options for the program had been developed by the Toxics Board, and it had forwarded those options, outlined in the meeting packet, to the council. Meanwhile, Mr. Potter said, the Appeals Court had remanded the case back to the Lane County Circuit Court for final disposition. He reported that the Circuit Court had not yet given the City any specific guidance on the fee basis, or about those portions of the charter amendment were invalidated by the Appeals Court finding. He said that the City would like to have that direction, and if the council concurred with the staff recommendation that the City ask the court for the direction, staff would return for further discussion of the proposed options. Mr. Johnson suggested the council have some discussion on the options so staff could begin some preliminary work needed. The three options before the council were: 1. Afl Eugene businesses in the 2000-3999 SIC codes and meeting the lO-employee threshold pay a per-employee fee, with an exemption for those using zero hazardous substances in manufacturing. 2. Fund the program with General Funds. The fiscal year 1999 budget was $113,366, and the fiscal year 2000 program budget is $112,351. 3. Fund the program 50 percent through fees as described in Option 1 and 50 percent via General Fund support. Ms. Taylor favored Option 1. She did not think the General Fund should pay for the program. Mr. Farr asked if any local companies had a large number of employees but just used a small amount of chemicals. He was concerned about unfair distribution of the cost of the program, and cited Burley Bicycle Manufacturing as an example of his concern. Mr. Potter said that he had not done research on the issue but believed that there are such companies. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Potter confirmed that the threshold for participation in the program was ten full-time equivalent positions. Mr. Farr asked what happened in 2003, when certain portions of Oregon House Bill 2431 take effect. Mr. Potter said that the fee would be capped at $2,000 per employer, the City would be required to ask the State to assume control of the program, and the City "would be required to hold public hearings on the list of regulated chemicals. Mr. Kelly hoped that future legislatures acted in a manner that was more consistent with the intent of local voters. He wanted to stay close to the voters' intent in passing the charter amendment so he supported Option 1 until a future legislature allowed the City to charge on a quantity basis, which he believed was the fairest approach. Regarding the potential for unfair distribution of costs raised by Mr. Farr, he suggested that it was more inequitable to ask the general populace to pay those costs and it was a matter of "balancing those unfairnesses." Responding to a question from Mr. Kelly, City Attorney Jerome Lidz said a remaining technical step was the entry of a declaratory judgment by the Circuit Court specifying which portions of the MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 4 5:30 p.m. charter amendment were invalidated by the Appeals Court decision. He said that the process should not be a lengthy one. Mr. Pap8 asked if the City's program was additive or cumulative to other programs or totally separate, requiring entirely different reporting. Mr. Potter said Eugene's program was unique in that it included a materials balancing accounting component and no other programs had such a requirement. Companies are required to report their inputs and outputs of hazardous substances in specific categories so those totals balance for each chemical. He said that there was overlap with other programs as to the chemicals reported. Mr. Pap8 asked if the City had attempted to combine requirements to reduce the reporting burden. Mr. Johnson said the charter amendment established the nature of the program, and neither the City Council or staff could change it. Mr. Pap8 asked if anyone had done a study to determine whether there was a relationship between the number of persons employed by a company and that company's toxic output. Mr. Potter said no. He concurred with a statement by Mr. Pap8 that the voters probably intended those who used the most chemicals to pay the most, but added that the Appeals Court had now ruled that the voters' intent was at odds with State law. Mr. Meisner concurred with Mr. Kelly's remarks. He was not interested in an option that included General Fund support. He said that the number of employees was not a perfect correlation to use but was as fair as could be devised at this point given the existing State law and the Appeals Court decision. He hoped that citizens would work for legislative candidates who respected local government's wishes. Mr. Rayor said the fact that the program was the result of a charter amendment gave it a much higher priority for him. He said that to keep the trust of the voters the council should stay close as possible to the intent of the voters. For that reason, he supported Option 1. He thought the board had done as a good a job as possible in trying to meet the spirit of the amendment. Mr. Lee did not think that the council had a choice given the language in the charter amendment, and said he would support Option 1. Mr. Torrey said that several companies had indicated to him that they would sue over the fee structure. He recalled debate about the issue when the charter amendment was initially placed on the ballot. He had not believed the program should have instituted by a charter amendment but instead should have been established by ordinance because then it would have been easier to make small needed changes. However, Mr. Torrey said that the voters were in support of the toxics right-to-know law and he had supported the program because of the principle of local control. Nonetheless, he did not think legislative relief was in sight. Responding to a question from Mr. Farr, Mr. Lidz confirmed that the basis of the fee could be changed in the future. He added that the charter amendment was not valid under State law insofar as it incorporates a quantity threshold for fees, although that quantity threshold was valid for the purpose of reporting. Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Lee that the council had no choice but to adopt Option 1 if the charter was being interpreted correctly, or seek a charter change. Mr. Lidz said that the court decision MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 5 5:30 p.m. made it clear the City could not collect fees from the same group that the charter required to report; the question then becomes, how close can one stay to that intent? Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Lidz if the City could legally use General Fund dollars to support the program. Mr. Lidz said probably so, but the answer would depend in part on the rationale the council used if it made that choice. Mr. Johnson asked if the council wanted further research into other approaches to the fee basis. Mr. Kelly said further investigation into other options for the future was fine, but not at the cost of being able to fund the program in the coming year. Councilors Rayor, Lee, Taylor, and Meisner concurred. Mr. Meisner observed that he did not hear the council expressing interest in General Fund support for the program. Ms. Taylor agreed. Mr. Fart did not support a fee based on employees because of his concern that in extreme cases it could result in loss of jobs. He asked how many companies would be affected by Option 1. Mr. Potter estimated the number at approximately 125 more companies than were currently in the program, and noted that there were currently 50 in the program. He indicated he would provide a list of potentially affected companies to Mr. Fart. Mr. Lee asked if the board had discussed other ways to assess the fee. Mr. Potter said that discussion took place in the past. The board selected number of employees because it was relatively easy to verify and because it recognized a loose correlation between number of employees and ability to pay, if not hazardous substance use. No other option was discussed at length. Responding to a question from Mr. Lee about next steps, Mr. Lidz indicated that first the City would attempt to reach agreement with the interveners and plaintiffs on the judgment and then would resubmit a proposed judgment to the Circuit Court. In the case of a disagreement, the court would set the matter for a hearing. Mr. Johnson suggested that the council direct him and Mr. Lidz to have a discussion about other funding options with the Toxics Board. The council agreed that Mr. Johnson and Mr. Lidz should meet with the board. D. Work Session: Report from Council Committee on City Hall Alternatives Mr. Kelly provided an update on the work of the Council Committee on City Hall Alternatives. He noted the committee meeting schedule and said that the committee had invited two citizens, John Lawless and Carolyn McGuigan, to sit in on meetings. Mr. Kelly asked the council to review the committee's charge in light of the fact that the General Services Administration (GSA) was asking the City to give it a clear indication it was prepared to work out an agreement if GSA choose the City Hall site. That led the committee to discuss potential alternatives. The council, with the exception of Ms. Taylor, who noted her ongoing opposition to such council committees, concurred with Mr. Kelly's summation of the revised charge. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 6 5:30 p.m. Mr. Kelly asked the council to provide the committee with personal or constituent input via e-mail. Mr. Torrey questioned the quorum requirements for the committee. City Attorney Glenn Klein said that since the meeting was a meeting of the council committee, and it was legally noticed, other councilors could attend as members of the public but could not vote. Councilors attending as members of the public could speak if called up by the committee. Mr. Johnson cautioned the council against the possible public perception that a small majority of councilors was meeting in committee guise and deliberating toward a decision. Mr. Kelly noted Ms. Nathanson's suggestion that the Budget Committee discuss the issues being addressed by the committee at its meeting on November 15. Responding to Ms. Taylor's concern about the committee approach, Mr. Rayor said that the committee's work was moving quickly and it was taking a broad-brushed approach to the issues involved. He said no decisions were being made on behalf of the council. Mr. Fart said that he was grateful the committee was willing to take on the work involved and thanked Mr. Kelly. Mr. Pap~ agreed with Mr. Fart and said that the committee would bring back its recommendations to the council. Mr. Lee said he preferred that a committee address the many complex issues involved and help clarify the decision points before the council. Mr. Kelly asked the council to look at the bullets in Ms. Nathanson's memorandum and provide input to the committee. Mr. Lee believed that all the functions discussed in the committee's discussion outline should be located in the downtown area. Mr. Meisner said he hoped part of the committee's function could be citizen education about the distinction between the federal courthouse and the federal building. Mr. Pap~ left the meeting. Mr. Torrey believed that the council needed to reach a decision about the committee's recommendations in a shod time frame. He said that if the council wished to preserve the existing City Hall, he was sure the GSA would not select the site. Mr. Rayor suggested the council be kept informed of the committee's progress by the staff work products from each committee meeting. He said he would like to ask GSA what it specifically intended to do on the site selected, which he believed would inform and reassure citizens about the impact of the building. He also suggested that the City could request concessions from the GSA, such as more parking or the building's on-site orientation. Ms. Taylor said that the council should know more about how much it would cost to replace the existing City Hall. She agreed with Mr. Rayor about the potential of specific information mitigating some of the issues that were raised by citizens. She also expressed concern about the cost of halting repairs on City Hall and suggested a comparison of how much would be spent if the repairs were completed as opposed to the cost of postponing them. Ms. Taylor did not want to sell the Sears building because it could serve as offices or a new city hall at a later date. Also, MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 7 5:30 p.m. she suggested, the City could forego the fourth floor of the new library since it would not be used anytime soon. Responding to Mr. Rayor's remarks, Mr. Torrey said that in every discussion the City had with the GSA, GSA staff had been adamant that the entire block selected would be used for the courthouse, that no retail activity would take place at street level, that it could not mitigate parking loss, and that the parking on the property would be for certain courthouse employees only for security purposes. Mr. Torrey asked if the council was hearing opposition to the use of the City Hall site from its constituents. Mr. Kelly said that he had received e-mails expressing concern about cost, but not in opposition to the site. Ms. Taylor said she heard comments about the cost, and believed once people realized the cost there would probably be more such comments. Others had asked her why it had to be at either of the locations under discussion. Mr. Torrey said the GSA favored the locations under consideration for security reasons, and a delay in timing to consider additional sites would threaten the project's funding. E. City Council Response to the Motion Adopted by the Eugene Human Rights Commission Regarding Hyundai Semiconductor of America Mr. Torrey indicated he was not prepared to accept a motion during the meeting because he had received only one week's notice of the agenda item, Ms. Nathanson, who was out-of-town, was not aware the item was on the agenda, and he did not think it was appropriate to rush to judgment on the issue. He asked if the council had a process for the agenda item. Mr. Kelly said the Human Rights Commission had requested feedback prior to its October 19 meeting, and when he and Mr. Meisner had noticed the item was not on the schedule, requested that it be asked that the item be placed on an agenda. He believed that Ms. Nathanson was aware of the issue, and indicated he would appeal Mr. Torrey's decision if he ruled a motion related to the issue out of order. Mr. Kelly also asked that Ron Chase, author of the resolution, be permitted to speak. Mr. Farr asked if two councilors could place an item on the agenda. Mr. Johnson said that it required three councilors. Mr. Farr asked who the third councilor was. There was discussion of which other councilor supported the agenda item. Mr. Rayor indicated his support for placing the item on the agenda was inferred rather than solicited. He confirmed, in response to a question from Mr. Farr, that he had not been asked to support scheduling the agenda item. Mr. Farr believed that the item was out of order. Mr. Kelly said that one way to add an agenda item was through the City Manager. He had discussed the item with the manager and had offered to secure the support of a third councilor; Mr. Johnson indicated that was not necessary as he was sure that Mr. Kelly could do so without a problem. He said that it was scheduled for today because he believed the Human Rights Commission's request for feedback should be respected Mr. Farr criticized the manager for not seeking a third councilor to sponsor the item. Mr. Johnson apologized, and said that he had believed it would not have been difficult for Mr. Meisner and Mr. Kelly to find a third councilor, so he had agreed to schedule the item. Mr. Farr indicated he understood but continued to be disappointed. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 8 5:30 p.m. Mr. Fart said that discrimination is abhorrent and any discriminator should be brought to task. He said he had been an employer and personnel director and was proud of his record of nondiscrimination. He was also a member of the Human Rights Commission but was not present at the meeting during which the issue was discussed. Mr. Fart asked how much discussion time was spent on the item during the commission meeting. Mr. Johnson indicated about 15 minutes were devoted to the item. Mr. Fart said that during that discussion no competing viewpoints were considered, and he suggested that the commission be directed to reconsider the action. He believed that the resolution was based on a political viewpoint and had no precedent. Mr. Lee said the council could do a better job in addressing process and could only function well as a body when councilors trusted each other. He said that councilors should communicate more. He noted that Mr. Fart was the council's liaison to the Human Rights Commission and should have some input into the scheduling question. Mr. Lee said that the Hyundai issue was about more than just Hyundai. He spoke as a Korean American citizen, and said that the Human Rights Commission could help the community better understand cross-cultural issues such as those involved in the Hyundai issue. He said that there were differences in the way companies from different countries behaved. Mr. Lee suggested that if he was to judge his father from American values, he might call him a racist, but Oregon was on the Pacific Rim and the world was getting smaller all the time. He suggested that writing a resolution was the easy part; the hard part was understanding how to work together as a community. He believed the resolution was well-intended but did not serve the public well. Mr. Lee suggested that the council ask the Human Rights Commission to help the community better understand the cross-cultural issues all citizens faced. He wanted to participate in that discussion. Mr. Meisner said he was unwilling to put his "head in the sand" over the issue. He said that discrimination was wrong, and this was not the first time the Human Rights Commission had spoken out on the issue. Mr. Meisner said that in this case, the commission had directly transmitted its resolution to the council for action. He added he would have relied on the council's liaison to the commission but the resolution had come to the council independently, and it was to have been accompanied by a letter from Mr. Farr expressing his opposition. Mr. Meisner moved, seconded by Mr. Kelly, to adopt the following resolution: Whereas: The City of Eugene has a strong, abiding commitment to civil rights and to eliminating illegal discrimination. Whereas: The City of Eugene was a sponsor of an enterprise zone through which corporations receive property tax waivers in exchange for creating jobs. 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. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 9 5:30 p.m. 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). Whereas: The trial judge has upheld that verdict and entered judgment against Hyundai Semiconductor of America. Whereas: Discrimination in hiring is materially relevant to and contradictory to the purpose for which the property tax waivers were granted. Whereas: Hyundai Semiconductor of America continues to deny the aforementioned discrimination hiring practices, and has in fact responded by attacking their accusers and others supporting the verdict. Be it resolved that the City Council of Eugene, Oregon condemns the discriminatory hiring practices employed by Hyundai Semiconductor of America as found by the Superior Court of Orange County, California. Be it resolved that the City Council of Eugene, Oregon directs the City Manager to do all the City can to ensure that companies, including Hyundai Semiconductor of America, that are found to have committed illegal discrimination in Eugene do not receive property tax waivers, other tax breaks, or any form of public assistance. Mr. Torrey said that he would not accept the motion and ruled it out of order. Ms. Taylor moved, seconded by Mr. Lee, to appeal the decision of Mayor Torrey. The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. Farr voting no. Mr. Farr did not intend to vote on the motion. He said that two councilors were absent, and one had no knowledge of the item and the other had departed the meeting not knowing that the motion was to be offered. Mr. Kelly believed that the motion was carefully worded and was specific only to discriminatory practices, rather than condemnation of the company as a whole. He believed that the rules under which the Human Rights Commission and council operated had been followed and said that if all councilors had be present for each vote the council's process would be extended considerably. Mr. Lee said that the council often made motions that absent councilors were not aware of. He said that the council must make a decision on the motion and move on. The most important issue for him continued to be cross-cultural communication. Mr. Lee did not think the resolution was significant, but it needed to be followed up with actual and meaningful ideas. Regarding the issue of discrimination by the company, Mr. Lee said that if Hyundai made a mistake the Human Rights Commission should be working with Hyundai to help it resolve and overcome those problems. He believed Hyundai had made mistakes and should be penalized for them, but also believed that the State should have done a better job in determining how such problems should be resolved. He preferred to focus his energy on how to move forward. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 10 5:30 p.m. Mr. Rayor said he would have preferred to postpone the vote given that it appeared there was some irregularity in the manner in which it was scheduled and so all councilors could vote. He was not willing to vote no on the motion because he believed the California court had reached the right conclusion. Mr. Rayor said that while it was not the council's job to pass judgment over private companies, Hyundai had received considerable public assistance to locate in Eugene and provide discrimination-free jobs, and if Hyundai had followed the law with due diligence the council would not be having the discussion. Addressing Mr. Farr's concerns, Mr. Rayor said that he did not want a situation where a councilor felt that someone had "pulled a fast one." He added that he had not been aware that the item was to be on the agenda. Mr. Torrey asked if the Human Rights Commission had invited Hyundai to present its side of the issue. Mr. Johnson ascertained from a member of the commission present at the meeting at which the resolution was adopted that Hyundai was not invited to do so. Mr. Torrey said that the council was on record as being opposed to discrimination of any type. He said that if anyone believed that a councilor opposing the motion on the table supported discrimination, they were "absolutely out of line." Mr. Torrey said that he believed that there those who participated in the Human Rights Commission meeting who were prejudiced against Hyundai. He believed that the commission should have provided an opportunity for Hyundai to present its point of view. He said that the Human Rights Commission had done itself a disservice through its actions. Mr. Farr cited the last paragraph of the resolution and asked if supporting the motion meant that the council was directing the City Manager to ensure that Hyundai did not receive any future property tax waivers and, if so, did the motion represent a fair and deliberative process by which to do so? Mr. Meisner said the resolution states that companies that are found to have discriminated would not receive property tax waivers, and the company was found to have done so by a jury decision, upheld by the trial court, in a very conservative county. He added he understood why the commission did not invite one party only to the lawsuit to present their case. Mr. Meisner said that the commission had been acting at the council's behest and had carried out the council's direction to investigate the case. Mr. Farr reiterated that the motion directed the City Manager to make sure that Hyundai did not get tax waivers in the future, and he did not think that what the council was doing represented a fair and deliberative process. Mr. Kelly offered a friendly amendment to the resolution, accepted by Mr. Meisner, as follows: Be it further resolved that the City Council of Eugene directs its Human Rights Commission to address cross-cultural issues and problems in the community. Mr. Johnson suggested that the council might wish to seek legal counsel about the implications of the motion should it pass. MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 11 5:30 p.m. Mr. Lee suggested that the council seek legal advice about the motion for the purpose of due diligence. He reiterated that he had not even been aware of the fact a motion regarding the issue would be considered at the meeting. He would have preferred to have tabled the motion to a future meeting. Mr. Torrey called for a vote on the motion. The motion passed, 5:1; Mr. Fart voting no. The meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, James R. Johnson City Manager (Recorded by Kimberly Young) MINUTES--Eugene City Council October 13, 1999 Page 12 5:30 p.m.