My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 09/10/01 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2001
>
CC Minutes - 09/10/01 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 10:31:16 AM
Creation date
8/1/2005 1:50:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
1/1/2001
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Rayor's remarks. He advocated for mending what fences could be <br />mended with PeaceHealth and moving forward. <br /> <br />Mr. Pap8 reiterated that PeaceHealth may have been looking at several options, but it was mainly <br />interested in developing its north Eugene property, and did not change its direction until the <br />council acted to downzone the property on June 27. <br /> <br />B. Work Session: Ward Redistricting <br /> <br />The council was joined by Jim Croteau of the Planning and Development Department and Clair <br />Van Bloem of Lane Council of Governments for the item. Mr. Croteau said the work session was <br />scheduled to give the council an opportunity to review the five staff-developed redistricting <br />scenarios (included in the meeting packet). He invited modifications to the scenarios or council <br />suggestions for new scenarios. Mr. Croteau also asked for council concurrence on the public <br />hearing date scheduled. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau reminded the council that it had previously directed staff to prepare redistricting <br />scenarios based on council-adopted criteria. At that time, the council also approved the public <br />involvement process. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau reviewed the meeting packet materials and materials distributed at the meeting, <br />which included a listing of registered voters by scenario. He said that the scenarios included in <br />the packet emphasized different criteria, and provided a range of choices for the public and <br />council to comment upon. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau reviewed a series of maps showing five redistricting scenarios. He said that a public <br />hearing was scheduled before the council on October 22. He distributed a schedule related to the <br />agenda item. <br /> <br />Mr. Croteau solicited questions. <br /> <br />Ms. Nathanson expressed appreciation for staff's work on the scenarios. She asked if staff could <br />develop a matrix showing the scenarios and the criteria and some of the key characteristics of the <br />scenarios to the degree they matched the criteria. She suggested a rating system of 1, 2, 3. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, Mr. Croteau said that staff would accept comment from <br />the public at the public forum, but it was more of an information session than a comment session. <br />Ms. Bettman wanted to see numbers comparing existing registered voters by ward boundary. <br /> <br />Mr. Meisner said all the scenarios developed by staff could make sense. He said there was no <br />community of interest now in his ward (Ward 7); all the groups in it were very diverse. He said <br />that in the Orange scenario, Ward 5 encompassed River Road to the south, and he thought this <br />area had more commonality with VVhitaker than with Ward 5 east of the river. <br /> <br />Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Mr. Croteau described how boundaries were created, <br />which included the use of major arterials, neighborhood association boundaries, and existing ward <br />boundaries. <br /> <br /> MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 5 <br /> Work Session <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.