Item A: River Road/Santa Clara Transition Project

Home Browse Search

census which reduced the number of Council wards in the area from three to two, but in the normal course of events would not undertake another change until after the 2010 Census. A large scale annexation in the neighborhoods that brought in a significant number of new citizens to the City could merit a “mid-decade reapportionment. The City could under such circumstances elect to reapportion the wards prior to the next census, using results from 2000. The current wards contain approximately 17,500 persons per ward so it would have to be a very large annexation, for example all remaining unincorporated territory in River Road. The current in-City areas of River Road and Santa do not have enough population to establish wards coincident with neighborhood boundaries. Advantages: Makes neighborhood access to elected officials “simpler”; allows the neighborhoods to speak as “one voice” to “one elected representative”. Challenges: “One person, one vote” requirements and population distribution and numbers may not make re-apportionment as described herein feasible ? Option No. 2: Community Organization Recognition - The City has provided “limited” recognition to the River Road and Santa Clara Community Organizations, even though these two organizations also represent a substantial number of non-City residents. Presently, “limited recognition” means that City funding for public information and newsletters is pro-rated based on the percentage of in-City residents in the neighborhood, and the City does not provide staff or financial support for any Community Organization outreach activities or supplies. The City might want to consider full (or fuller) Community Organization recognition for Santa Clara and River Road even though the neighborhoods are not fully annexed (simply as a good will gesture if nothing else). The City could also consider lowering the threshold for full community organization recognition. Advantages: Treats the two neighborhoods as full (or fuller) members of the larger City community, which over time they are expected to become; builds goodwill. Challenges: May raise equity issues with other Community Organizations that already represent fully annexed neighborhoods ? Option No3: Expand Community Organization Responsibilities – . The City could examine ways to further “empower” Community Organizations by sending a variety of City policy and program decisions to the Community Organization for review and recommendations Advantages: Gives the local neighborhood a more direct voice in a variety of City decision- making actions; could attract a wider variety of citizens to serve on community organization boards and participate in meetings Challenges: Would have to be a policy applied City-wide to community organizations; adds another step to City decision-making processes (and potentially one than could take a long time to complete); any community organization recommendations would be advisory (which could add to discontent if recommendations aren’t followed); may be practically difficult to sort out issues that are appropriate to refer to the community organizations ? Option No. 4: Sustain Existing Special Districts – As noted above and elsewhere in this White Paper, both neighborhoods have a number of localized special districts – parks, fire, and water – . that still provide important services within the communityThis circumstance is probably an important contributor to the continued strong sense of community in both neighborhoods, even as incorporation and development changes the areas from rural to urban/suburban. Please see specific transition and heritage options regarding these districts (and Advantages and Challenges) elsewhere in this White Paper. 18 River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper DRAFT 11-24-05 Service provider Review