Item B: Ward Redistricting - Criteria

Home Browse Search

people. Certain geographic boundaries could yield wards that are less compact, and rigidly following geographic boundaries – or other features such as major streets -- may leave less flexibility to accomplish other objectives. A ward is generally considered compact if it has a fairly regular shape, with constituents all living relatively near to each other – though there can be disagreement about when a ward is compact. A contiguous ward is one where a person can travel from any point in the ward to another without crossing the ward boundary. Sometimes city boundaries are not contiguous, perhaps as a product of annexations or other actions. Water also can stymie contiguity, and can connect or divide an area. General feedback received supports considering geographic features, along with other landmarks and barriers that define neighborhoods and areas, as factors in setting ward boundaries. In addition, school attendance areas and neighborhood association boundaries were cited as other elements to consider. Additional Considerations Demographics - A community of interest is a group of people concentrated in a geographic area who share similar interests and priorities – whether social, cultural, ethnic, economic, religious, or political. Some people believe that it is best to keep communities of interest whole, so that a community of interest can have a chance to have its own councilor looking out for its interests and individual councilors feel particularly responsible to serve discrete communities. Others believe that it is best to split communities of interest, promoting greater diversity and consensus-building. How redistricting accounts for race and ethnicity also is a consideration, and it is important to avoid redistricting scenarios that have the effect of discriminating against minority communities. Staff will provide demographic information with scenarios, and attempt to identify potential implications to support public input and council deliberations. Other political bodies – Staff has received feedback to consider the relationship of city wards to wards and districts for other bodies. Two specific examples include: 1) situations in which neighbors might see the same council candidates on a ballot, but be in different Lane County Commissioner districts; and 2) the overlaps and gaps between wards for Eugene city councilors and EWEB commissioners and the EWEB service area. Next Steps The current timeline aims to establish redistricting criteria by the end of June 2011, and then begin generating boundary options for consideration. Several options will be presented to the City Council in a July 25 work session, at which time the council could choose all, some or none to put in front of the public for feedback. Staff proposes returning to the council in September, with council approval of a scenario later in September or in October. Adoption of new ward boundaries would occur by resolution. Depending on the option selected by the council, however, an ordinance may be required to modify Eugene City Code – in 2001, for example, an ordinance was needed to implement new ward terms. Even if a code change is unnecessary, staff suggests the council schedule a public hearing on one or more scenarios before taking action. The goal is to have final boundaries established in the fall of 2011 and no later than December 31, 2011. \\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110627\S110627B.doc