Laserfiche WebLink
B. Work Session: Ward Redistricting <br /> <br />Jim Croteau of the Planning and Development Department introduced the item. He reported that ward <br />restricting is a routine, periodic process that occurs at the local, state, and federal level following the census. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau called the council's attention to wall charts showing the result of the 1990 ward redistricting and <br />estimated 2000 census figures for each ward. He added that final census figure would not be available until <br />June 2001. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau said that in 1991, the council made the decisions about redistricting and did not appoint an <br />advisory committee to assist in the process. The council agreed on the ward boundaries without the benefit of <br />a public hearing. Staff was recommending a redistricting process that had much more public involvement. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau requested direction on the options prepared by staff for the council decision-making process <br />(outlined in Attachment A of the meeting packet), noting the staff recommendation that the council make the <br />decision following a public input process. He reviewed the proposed process time line (outlined in Attachment <br />A of the meeting packet). Mr. Croteau also requested approval of the proposed public involvement process, <br />noting it included the provision of information, public input into the criteria to be used in redistricting, and a <br />public hearing on the options developed for redistricting. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked if the number of households rather than number of individuals could be considered in <br />redistricting. City Attorney Glenn Klein responded that the council must consider individuals rather than <br />households. Five individuals living in one household must be counted as five individuals. He confirmed that <br />included children. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor asked why more public involvement than occurred during the previous process was proposed, and <br />why the last process included no extensive public involvement. Mr. Croteau said that the issue was not <br />controversial at that time; there had been little community interest in helping the council make the decision. <br />This time, the public indicated it wanted to be involved, probably because the city had experienced 22 percent <br />growth over the past ten years, and there was a significant shift in where growth had occurred in the <br />community. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson wanted public involvement in both the criteria and the boundaries. She was pleased by the <br />staff recommendations. She said that sometimes such public processes do not yield much in the way of <br />results, and asked if the public information packets proposed by staff were what was needed. Mr. Johnson <br />anticipated that the City would start out small in producing information packets, and said the City planned to <br />target the information to citizens to accommodate the way individuals liked to access information, such as <br />through the Web or with written materials. If more packets needed to be printed, they would be. <br /> <br />Mr. Kelly supported having the council undertake the redistricting issue without the assistance of an advisory <br />committee. He endorsed the time line. He said that he thought having multiple options to consider was vital. <br />He liked the fact the options would be available in September, giving the public and council time to provide <br />input until the process ended in December. He suggested that once the council agreed on the criteria, it could <br />give staff direction on ward boundary options at the same meeting, which would compress the time line <br />somewhat. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 18, 2001 Page 7 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />