CC Minutes - 09/10/01 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Pap~ liked the Indigo, Orange, and Green scenarios. Given the number of issues that existed in the River Road/Santa Clara, he thought it important to have that area in one ward. He noted that was nearly accomplished in the Green scenario. Mr. Croteau responded that during the process of scenario development, staff found there was not enough population to have two complete wards on the north side of the river. Either Ward 4 or Ward 5 would have to cross the river. He said that staff preferred to keep River Road/Santa Clara in one or two wards rather than in three wards. He said that the issue was of concern to residents of River Road/Santa Clara. He said that staff also thought it important to give the community choices, and to let the community to see all the options. Mr. Fart also commended staff's work. He thought it important to keep the Bethel School District within the boundaries of Ward 6 as he thought it a positive thing for the school district to be represented by one councilor. That meant island annexations in the River Road area should be in Ward 7. He agreed that wards 5 or 4 must cross the river, and endorsed the approach taken in the Violet scenario, which seemed equitable in terms of keeping neighborhoods and like areas of the city together. Mr. Rayor said that he had heard people comment there should be an equal number of adults or registered voters in each ward, but the law required the council to only take population into account. He acknowledged the likely need to span the river with a ward. Regarding Ward 1 as shown in the Indigo scenario, Mr. Rayor said that the extension of the ward at Chambers Street beyond 7th Avenue was an example of an area that would be difficult in terms of constituent services. He thought the ward populations could be equalized without creating awkward appendages to wards. Mr. Kelly agreed that a variety of scenarios was good, but thought that the Indigo scenario was too "out of whack" with the criterion of incremental change when possible. It was one scenario he could see dropping. Mr. Kelly thought the Violet scenario did a good job of providing equity. Mayor Torrey agreed with Mr. Pap~ that River Road/Santa Clara should be kept together. He said that area needed its own representation. Mayor Torrey called for better geographic distribution of councilors. He said the current system was not appropriate. He did not want to take away the option of geographic redistribution. Ms. Nathanson said that the people she represented in the Bethel area were unlikely to identify with the remainder of Ward 8, and in some of the scenarios that boundary extended even further into the Bethel area. She asked Mr. Croteau for comment on that. Regarding the south hills, she pointed out that under some scenarios there were two, not three, councilors who would represent the south hills. She noted issues related to transportation, topography, erosion, fire danger, etc., specific to that area, and asked Mr. Croteau for comment on that as well. She also asked how existing census boundaries influenced how ward boundaries were drawn. In response to the latter question, Mr. Croteau said that the smallest unit for which population could be calculated was one census block. That was defined as an area surrounded by streets. In suburban areas, a block was not necessary square. It was not always possible, particularly at the fringe, to add a small area of population. Regarding Ms. Nathanson's questions about the Bethel and south hills areas, Mr. Croteau noted that each new ward would have approximately 17,237 people, equivalent to two cities the size of Cottage Grove. He said that the growth in wards meant that it was difficult to maintain a ward that felt like a neighborhood. Mr. Croteau said it was not always possible to include in a ward what councilors might consider their neighborhoods. MINUTE--Eugene City Council September 10, 2001 Page 6 Work Session