HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Minutes - 06/13/01 Work Session MINUTES
Eugene City Council
Work Session
McNutt Room--Eugene City Hall
June 13, 2001
Noon
COUNCILORS PRESENT: Betty Taylor, David Kelly, Nancy Nathanson, Scott Meisner, Gary
Rayor, Gary Pap~, Bonny Bettman, Par Farr.
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
Mayor Torrey called the meeting to order.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to adjust the order of the agenda
by putting Item B first due to its time-sensitivity.
Mr. Kelly suggested that Item B could be addressed in less than one-half hour, giving the council
time to more fully discuss ward redistricting.
Mr. Pap~ noted that he had to leave at 1 p.m. and preferred to retain the existing agenda.
The motion failed, 6:2, Ms. Bettman and Ms. Taylor voting yes.
A.Work Session: Ward Redistricting
Jim Croteau of the Planning and Development Department introduced the item. He called
attention to the council meeting packet, which included the input from the recent public forum on
the criteria for ward redistricting. A videotape of the forum was provided to the council. Mr.
Croteau also called attention to materials distributed at the meeting, which included a matrix of the
criteria suggested by various groups as summarized by staff, a memorandum from Lane Council
of Governments staff to Mr. Croteau entitled 2000 Population Distribution by Eugene Wards, and a
memorandum from Mr. Croteau and Keli Osborn of the Planning and Development Department to
the mayor and council entitled Information on Registered Voters by Precinct.
Mr. Croteau anticipated that, after the council agreed on the criteria, staff would return with ward
boundary options.
Mr. Croteau noted the staff recommendation for Option 1, to adopt the staff-recommended criteria.
The criteria were as follows, not in rank priority but with the higher priority criteria near the top of
the list and the lower priority criteria near the bottom of the list:
1. Wards should contain equal population within a reasonable range (+/- 5 percent).
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 1
Work Session
2. Plan for expected growth in Eugene in the next ten years. Faster growing wards
should be drawn to be undersized in population and slower growing wards drawn to be
oversized. This will reduce to some extent the disparity in ward populations during the
coming years.
3. Division of the recognized neighborhood organizations boundaries should be avoided
to the greatest extent possible.
4. Where practicable, use geographic features such as rivers, large open spaces, parks,
and major transportation systems to define ward boundaries.
5. While acknowledging that there have been significant population increases the last ten
years that will require major shifts in ward boundaries, make incremental changes and
attempt to respect existing ward boundaries and configurations to the extent possible.
This criterion is not meant to be used to specifically protect incumbents.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to adopt Option 1 as the criteria to
be used as a guide in preparing ward redistricting options.
Ms. Taylor said she was not willing to adopt the option as presented. She preferred to change the
population range to three percent. She did not want to consider future growth in the redistricting
process because of uncertainty about where growth would occur, and preferred incremental
changes rather than drastic changes to the ward boundaries.
Ms. Bettman thanked staff for gathering the public input, saying there had been a good public
process around the issue. She was happy that the council would receive a range of boundary
options based on the criteria selected, and believed each option would reflect a different
combination of criteria and different weighting of the criteria with the goal of equalizing the
population distribution throughout the wards.
Mr. Rayor arrived at the meeting.
Ms. Bettman supported the staff recommendation given the range of criteria before the council.
She said the combination of criteria was fair, simple, and not unduly restrictive. Ms. Bettman also
thought the criteria fairly addressed the major issue of concern to the community in that they did
not prejudice existing incumbents.
Mr. Meisner discussed what the criteria meant to him, saying none were absolutes and all were
guidelines, as evinced by the word "consider." He preferred wards that were closer in population,
saying the population range of five percent and three percent both seemed large to him. He
thought anticipating growth would be a challenge, noting that predictions made about growth in
1990 did not come true. Mr. Meisner said contiguity made sense but it was a guideline that would
be challenging to implement, as evinced by his own ward's boundaries. He would consider
geographic features and transportation facilities as possible boundaries, but not on an absolute
basis. Mr. Meisner questioned how "communities of common interest" would be defined. He did
not think his ward could currently be considered a community of common interest. Regarding the
issue of incumbents, he said that it could be a guideline but again, he did not want the criteria to
be a mandate.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 2
Work Session
Ms. Nathanson said that many of the complaints the council received regarded unequal
representation. That would be addressed, but the issue was how it would be addressed. With
regard to anticipating growth, Ms. Nathanson said that during the last decade three influences
complicated that issue: topography (hills), water, and trees. There were also wetland and
waterway issues that affected where growth occurred. She said there may be other geographic
and environmental issues as well, and hoped to hear from staff if there was anything new on the
horizon that might have a similar influence over the next decade.
Ms. Nathanson said that many citizens appeared to feel disenfranchised because of the current
ward boundaries, noting that her own ward reached to an area past Roosevelt Boulevard, which
was quite a distance from the remainder of the ward. She thought it was important for the council
to pay attention to that sentiment. She quoted from a citizen offering input, who called for
aggressive change to address current inequities between ward populations, and said that
suggested to her that incremental change was unlikely to be enough, and that the residences of
current councilors were not evenly scattered across the city.
Mr. Farr said that the most important criterion to him was that regarding anticipated growth. He
did not want to see the same kind of inequity that had arisen over the past ten years to occur
again, and since the City knew where growth would occur he thought that could be addressed
adequately. He said that geographic features were important in dividing wards. Currently, citizens
felt disenfranchised because of the way the community had grown. He said that the current
situation was just not equitable.
Mr. Pap8 concurred with the majority of Ms. Nathanson's remarks regarding the criteria.
Regarding equity of population and anticipated growth, he agreed with Ms. Taylor about the three
percent differential but questioned whether the City would do better at predicting where growth
occurred in the future. Mr. Croteau responded that staff had undersized the faster-growing wards
at the time of the last redistricting and did not use the full five percent, plus/minus range. He said
that in spite of that, the future wards could still end up "out of sync," but having some play in the
plus or minus range could help to minimize the impact of disparate growth that occurred in the
community
Mr. Kelly thanked staff for using "Samoan Circles" at the public forum and said he hoped the
approach would be used in the future at other forums. He was comfortable with the staff-
suggested criteria, although he had some changes to propose. Referring to Criterion 4, he said
that the phrase "use where practicable" was not clear. Staff had indicated to him that it meant
"feasible." He wanted to have alternate wording regarding the criteria to ensure it was not
considered an absolute mandate.
Mr. Kelly addressed the issue of incumbency, saying his only concern with the proposed criterion
was that it did not address incumbents, and he wondered if, by omission, it forbid the staff from
thinking about it. Mr. Croteau did not think staff were precluded from considering incumbency. He
added staff selected the text carefully because the issue was of high concern to citizens. Staff
was recommending incremental change, but acknowledged that because of community growth,
redistricting could result in fairly drastic changes by the time the process was complete. He said
that staff did not want citizens to think the criterion was a placeholder to be used to protect
incumbents. It was not meant to move incumbents out of their wards or to keep incumbents in
place.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 3
Work Session
Mr. Kelly endorsed the text in Criterion 5 as adequate to address the issue. Regarding Criterion 2,
he said he did not feel strongly about the issue, but if the most one could undersize a ward was
three percent, there was no way to address 40 percent growth.
Mr. Rayor agreed with the five percent differential in Criterion 1 and did not think that it would be
easy to reduce. He thought it would also be useful in accomplishing the second criterion. He
wanted to consider neighborhood boundaries to the extent possible, noting some were quite large
and did not share commonalities from boundary to boundary. He thought geographic boundaries
should be considered, saying that neighborhoods and geography were generally what defined
cities. He thought that Criterion 5 was well-written.
Mr. Rayor said that square wards were not the answer to redistricting because such a
configuration did not ensure commonalities between residents. He thought that the criterion
"danced around" the issue of incumbency, as it should. He said that redistricting was a ten-year
plan that should look to the future. He did not support an approach that meant his ward was
redistricted in such a way to include his house to maintain his incumbency.
Mayor Torrey termed the redistricting process a political decision. He thought the process a very
important time for each councilor to set aside their personal interests and to act for the future.
Mayor Torrey said that the council also needed to look at the issue of incumbency. He suggested
as a possible solution that all councilors and the mayor run for election on the ten-year
anniversary of redistricting to avoid the issue of who could run. Everyone would live somewhere
in the city. He did not want the decision to be based on a councilor's personal interests, but on
the best interests of the community.
Mayor Torrey was concerned about political advantages created by ward redistricting. He
suggested that councilors consider election results in the past to make sure it was acting in the
best interests of the citizens. He said that if the council wanted to cross the river, it needed to
consider crossing the river along its entire length, not just in one ward. Should there be eight
east-to-west wards? He thought that was reasonable.
Mr. Meisner believed that whatever the council did regarding redistricting would be construed as
political. He said that council could adopt any set of criteria, which could result in 1,000 possible
maps. He wanted to capture a picture of the community at a point in time to ensure equal
representation. He questioned whether the five percent range could withstand a court challenge.
Mr. Meisner did not want a criterion that protected incumbents or one that was designed to
eliminate them as he thought either a blatantly political approach.
Regarding Criterion 3, Mr. Meisner noted the many neighborhood groups that were part of Ward 7.
He did not think there was a single intact neighborhood group in his ward.
Mr. Kelly thought it important to have intact neighborhood association boundaries within wards to
the degree possible and hoped the criterion would improve the current situation. He said that the
less division there was, the easier it was for councilors to attend neighborhood association
meetings on a regular basis.
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to reword Criterion 4 as follows:
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 4
Work Session
"If other criteria are satisfied, it is preferable for a ward boundary to use a
geographic feature, such as rivers, large open spaces, parks, and major
transportation systems."
Ms. Nathanson was unsure she could support the amendment given that the other criteria to be
satisfied were unknown at this point. She thought each must be considered in context of the
others, and the text of the amendment suggested the criterion was lower in priority than the
others.
Mr. Farr did not support the amendment because he thought observing geographic boundaries
was crucial to redistricting. He agreed with Ms. Nathanson's summary of the impact of the
amendment. He noted that all households in his ward were in the Bethel School District 52, and
asked Mr. Croteau if there was any discussion of school district boundaries as a factor. Mr.
Croteau said that staff considered school district boundaries, but they were not specifically
named. He suggested that the development of the criteria was not an exact science, and said
that along with the criteria, staff would use other tools, such as school boundaries, State
legislative boundaries, etc., in developing boundary options.
Mr. Farr thought it important for one councilor to represent the households in School District 52.
Mr. Pap8 agreed with Ms. Nathanson and Mr. Farr, saying the amendment would put the criterion
in question in priority below other criteria. The use of the words "where practicable" allowed for
staff flexibility to integrate the criterion with the others.
Mr. Rayor questioned whether the amendment made much of a difference. He said that the
underlying concept was that wards needed to be about the same size.
Ms. Bettman supported the amendment. She was also concerned about the term "practicable,"
which she interpreted as 'where it could be practiced," elevating that criterion in priority. She
would have preferred "consider geographic features" because it gave staff the opportunity to
balance those factors with the other criteria. She did not to see the river to be used as an
absolute boundary between wards because she believed it would result in a north Eugene and a
south Eugene, and she was concerned about rhetoric pitting the two areas of the community
against each other. She wanted to preserve the diversity created by wards that crossed the river.
She asked if councilors in opposition to the amendment would be supportive of the phrase
"consider."
Ms. Taylor said that she did not think people were that different on one side or the other of the
river. She did not think the river needed to be a barrier. She liked the term "consider," and further
suggested that sides of a street be considered; for example, she thought both sides of a long
street such as Alder Street should be in one ward.
Mayor Torrey thought that the staff recommendation already accomplished what Ms. Bettman
wanted to accomplish and asked Mr. Croteau for confirmation. Mr. Croteau suggested that the
"devil was in the details," noting that staff preferred "consider" to the language in the amendment.
Mr. Kelly withdraw his amendment. Ms. Bettman withdrew her second.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 5
Work Session
Mr. Kelly, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the word "use" in
Criterion 4 to "consider."
Mr. Rayor said there may be occasions where natural boundaries such as the river needed to be
crossed. He felt the flexibility provided in the amendment was good because he questioned
whether the population on the north side of the river was sufficient for two wards. He thought
there would be a ward spanning the river "no matter what."
Ms. Nathanson referred to the City Club report on the topic, which suggested two important
principles were to set ward boundaries consistent with important topographic features and in a
way that helped citizens identify their electoral ward. She thought people had mental maps of
where they live in the city, and it was important to keep that in mind. She indicated support for the
change in wording, with the clarification that the criterion was not last in priority. Mayor Torrey
determined from Mr. Kelly that he was not proposing to place the criterion below the other criteria
in importance.
Mr. Fart indicated acceptance of the reworded amendment. He added that the current ward
structure led to the current Planning Commission; he had tried for many years without success to
get someone from other than the southern part of Eugene to serve on the commission.
The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mr. Pap~ wanted to have both mathematical fairness and the appearance of fairness. He agreed
with Ms. Nathanson that people had a picture of their neighborhoods in mind. He thought the
1990 council erred in its redistricting effort by making decisions that created the current anomaly,
and the current council had to make drastic changes to bring things back into balance.
Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to amend the motion by deleting the
following phrase from Criterion 5: "...make incremental changes and
attempt to respect existing ward boundaries and configurations to the extent
possible" and replacing it with: "...be prepared to make drastic changes in
setting ward boundaries."
Mr. Fart supported the motion. He thought the community needed to be prepared to make some
drastic changes to correct the imbalances that existed.
City Manager Jim Johnson pointed out to the council that the criteria were ranked in priority order
and the last criterion would have less priority than the criteria that proceeded it. Thus, making
incremental changes had a Iow priority in terms of the remainder of the criteria. He thought, given
the population changes in the community and the criteria above Criterion 5, it would be difficult to
make just simple, incremental changes.
Mr. Fart acknowledged Mr. Johnson's comments, but said that he feared the criterion would be
used at the council table as an argument for incremental changes.
Ms. Bettman said the council wanted fair redistricting and equal populations in the wards. She
thought it implicit that staff would have to make whatever changes were needed to achieve equity.
She did not think the community at large was interested in drastic or radical changes, and cited
the Oregon State Legislature's criteria regarding the use of existing political boundaries where
practical as a criterion for redistricting. She did not support the amendment.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 6
Work Session
Ms. Taylor said that incremental change was a very important criterion for her. She thought those
in the community who were politically active and cared enough to run for office should not have to
go through another election right away. She called for keeping the council representation as it
was while attempting to be equitable in population.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Kelly, moved to extend the time for the agenda
item by five minutes. The motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Ms. Nathanson asked staff for a recommendation for a wording change to the criterion that
reflected that incremental change was preferred, but that drastic changes might be necessary in
some cases. She did not want to see wholesale changes made to the boundaries because of the
use of the word "drastic."
Mr. Kelly thought the first sentence in the criterion addressed Ms. Nathanson's concern.
Responding to request for comment from Mr. Meisner, Mr. Pap~ indicated disagreement with Mr.
Kelly.
Mr. Meisner opposed the amendment as too political and because it called for wholesale changes.
Mr. Pap~ indicated that he would have preferred to eliminate Criterion 5 altogether, or make it
neutral.
The amendment to the motion failed, 6:2; Mr. Pap~ and Mr. Fart voting yes.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Pap~, moved to extend the time for the item for
five more minutes. The motion passed, 7:1; Mr. Kelly voting no.
Ms. Taylor moved to delete Criterion 2. The motion died for lack of a second.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Mr. Meisner, moved to change the range in Criterion
1 from five percent to three percent.
Mr. Meisner said that plus or minus five percent was a discrepancy of ten percent and he thought
a ten percent variation too much.
Mr. Kelly noted that all the groups offering recommendations to the council suggested a range of
three percent.
Ms. Bettman requested staff comment. She thought in some cases staff might need the
discretion provided by the five percent figure, and thought staff would strive to minimize the
deviation. Mr. Croteau noted that each one percent deviation equaled 217 people, not a large
number. He said that the staff was advised by the City Attorney that it was very easy to justify a
five percent plus/minus deviation in the courts. He did not think staff would necessarily use the
five percent in every case, but it gave staff flexibility to oversize and undersize wards and to follow
geographic or natural boundaries in developing ward boundaries that made sense
Mayor Torrey opposed the motion because he wanted staff to have flexibility.
The motion failed, 6:2; Ms. Taylor and Mr. Meisner voting yes.
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 7
Work Session
Mr. Pap~ continued to be concerned about the text in Criterion 5.
Mr. Pap~, seconded by Mr. Fart, moved to amend the motion by deleting the
phrase "and attempt to respect existing ward boundaries and configurations
to the extent possible." The motion failed, 6:2; Mr. Fart and Mr. Pap~ voting
yes.
The main motion passed unanimously, 8:0.
Mr. Pap~ left the meeting.
B. Work Session: Instant Runoff Voting
Responding to a question from Ms. Taylor, City Attorney Glenn Klein clarified that the way the
council would put a ballot measure on the ballot was to adopt a resolution. The draft resolution in
the meeting packet was not yet ready for adoption, but was prepared for council review and
feedback.
Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to direct the City Manager to
return with a ballot measure for the September 2001 ballot authorizing instant
runoff voting.
Mr. Kelly suggested that the council eliminate the sentence in Section 1 of the draft resolution that
read "Instant runoff would not be used until expressly authorized by State statute." He thought the
council would have a clearer statement of voter intent if there were no caveats placed on the
measure, and he thought it would be difficult to garner support for the measure if its future were
dependent on action by the legislature. He thought if the sentence was removed and the ballot
measure passed, the State Elections Division might have a change of head. If the elections
division did not have a change of head, the council need not spend money to defend the measure
from a State challenge.
Mr. Klein clarified that because the measure would be a charter amendment, staff did not think the
council would have the choice not to defend it. He said the council had discretion about how far
to take the issue, and estimated it would cost the City $25,000 to $50,000 to defend the measure.
Mr. Rayor requested the status of instant runoff voting legislation in Salem. He also suggested
the council should be forwarding the recommendations of the Citizen Charter Review Committee
to the voters at one election. Mr. Johnson said the State Senate would be holding a hearing on
HB285, and the City was testifying in favor of the bill if the amendments were favorable because
of the council's vote in support of instant runoff voting. The County Elections Clerk advised the
City that its adoption of instant runoff voting would require consistency with State statutes and
could also require new software and new voting machines. The current version of HB285 at the
legislature indicated that instant runoff voting could be used at the City's expense. The City
opposed that provision. Regarding Mr. Rayor's question about forwarding the committee's
recommendations at one time, Mr. Johnson clarified that this was the only pending
recommendation, but he anticipated there would be more. The committee wanted the method to
be available for the May 2002 primary.
Mr. Meisner said the Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations had taken no position on
the bill related to instant runoff voting at the State legislature because it had not seen the
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 8
Work Session
proposed amendment. He noted that committee's concerns about the cost issue. He indicated
agreement with Mr. Klein that the council would have to defend the measure unless the State
acted otherwise. He was not supportive of dropping the sentence in question.
Mr. Farr agreed with Mr. Meisner's remarks.
Mr. Johnson, in response to a question from Mr. Rayor, said that the measure was focused on the
mayor and council only, but could be amended to include Eugene Water & Electric Board
commissioners as well.
Ms. Nathanson asked if staff had talked to Eugene Water & Electric Board staff about the change
proposed. Mr. Johnson said that no discussions had occurred. Ms. Nathanson believed that was
a mistake. Mr. Johnson pointed out that the resolution did not mention the utility now, and said
staff could initiate discussions.
Ms. Bettman shared Mr. Kelly's concerns about the sentence in question. She asked if the
expense of defending the resolution would be offset by a decrease in the cost of runoff elections.
She suggested that the council postpone action on the motion until it had clarification of what
available avenue would allow the use of instant runoff voting.
Mr. Klein recommended the following text be added to the third sentence in Section 1 of resolution
to address the concerns expressed by councilors: "...and shall state when instant runoff voting
shall first be used." The last sentence could then be deleted.
Ms. Bettman endorsed the recommended text change.
Mayor Torrey believed the council would support the motion, and expressed disappointment that it
was not willing to look at other methods of election, such as at-large elections. He was willing to
proceed because of the discussion the council had about ward redistricting. He thought many
people were interested in instant runoff voting because they did not believe they were adequately
represented today because of population discrepancies.
Mr. Kelly also endorsed the City Attorney's recommendation for the text change. He did not think
the council was precluded from future discussion of the issue raised by Mayor Torrey.
Responding to a concern expressed by Mr. Rayor, Mr. Johnson clarified that the council was not
yet acting on the resolution, which it would adopt a later date.
The motion passed unanimously, 7:0.
The meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
James R. Johnson
City Manager
(Recorded by Kimberly Young)
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 9
Work Session
MINUTES--Eugene City Council June 13, 2001 Page 10
Work Session