Laserfiche WebLink
2. Plan for expected growth in Eugene in the next ten years. Faster growing wards <br /> should be drawn to be undersized in population and slower growing wards drawn to be <br /> oversized. This will reduce to some extent the disparity in ward populations during the <br /> coming years. <br /> <br /> 3. Division of the recognized neighborhood organizations boundaries should be avoided <br /> to the greatest extent possible. <br /> <br /> 4. Where practicable, use geographic features such as rivers, large open spaces, parks, <br /> and major transportation systems to define ward boundaries. <br /> <br /> 5. While acknowledging that there have been significant population increases the last ten <br /> years that will require major shifts in ward boundaries, make incremental changes and <br /> attempt to respect existing ward boundaries and configurations to the extent possible. <br /> This criterion is not meant to be used to specifically protect incumbents. <br /> <br /> Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to adopt Option 1 as the criteria to <br /> be used as a guide in preparing ward redistricting options. <br /> <br />Ms. Taylor said she was not willing to adopt the option as presented. She preferred to change the <br />population range to three percent. She did not want to consider future growth in the redistricting <br />process because of uncertainty about where growth would occur, and preferred incremental <br />changes rather than drastic changes to the ward boundaries. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman thanked staff for gathering the public input, saying there had been a good public <br />process around the issue. She was happy that the council would receive a range of boundary <br />options based on the criteria selected, and believed each option would reflect a different <br />combination of criteria and different weighting of the criteria with the goal of equalizing the <br />population distribution throughout the wards. <br /> <br />Mr. Rayor arrived at the meeting. <br /> <br />Ms. Bettman supported the staff recommendation given the range of criteria before the council. <br />She said the combination of criteria was fair, simple, and not unduly restrictive. Ms. Bettman also <br />thought the criteria fairly addressed the major issue of concern to the community in that they did <br />not prejudice existing incumbents. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner discussed what the criteria meant to him, saying none were absolutes and all were <br />guidelines, as evinced by the word "consider." He preferred wards that were closer in population, <br />saying the population range of five percent and three percent both seemed large to him. He <br />thought anticipating growth would be a challenge, noting that predictions made about growth in <br />1990 did not come true. Mr. Meisner said contiguity made sense but it was a guideline that would <br />be challenging to implement, as evinced by his own ward's boundaries. He would consider <br />geographic features and transportation facilities as possible boundaries, but not on an absolute <br />basis. Mr. Meisner questioned how "communities of common interest" would be defined. He did <br />not think his ward could currently be considered a community of common interest. Regarding the <br />issue of incumbents, he said that it could be a guideline but again, he did not want the criteria to <br />be a mandate. <br /> <br /> MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 2 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />