HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem B: Ward Redistricting - Criteria
ECC
UGENE ITY OUNCIL
AIS
GENDA TEM UMMARY
Work Session: Ward Redistricting - Criteria
Meeting Date: June 27, 2011 Agenda Item Number: B
Department: Central Services Staff Contact: Keli Osborn
www.eugene-or.gov Contact Telephone Number: 541-682-5406
ISSUE STATEMENT
Every 10 years, the Eugene City Council adjusts council ward boundaries to accommodate population
changes and shifts – thereby helping ensure equal protection under the laws. This work session provides
an opportunity for the council to review public input on ward boundary criteria and determine which
criteria will guide the creation of new ward boundary scenarios.
BACKGROUND
Based on the 2010 U.S. Census data, Eugene’s population totaled 156,222 – which means that each of
the eight wards should have approximately 19,528 residents to assure equal representation across all
wards. Current population distributions and demographics are included in Attachment A.
In a work session on February 14, 2011, the council discussed options for Eugene’s ward redistricting
process and possible boundary criteria. During the April 27 work session, the council concurred that it
would oversee the ward redistricting process. The council also generally agreed on the proposed process
and timeline, although it was noted that some councilors would like the process to be completed as early
in fall 2011 as possible because potential candidates for positions on the Eugene City Council and
Eugene Water & Electric Board may begin filing on September 8, 2011.
Outreach
One step in ward redistricting is to agree on criteria that will guide how ward boundaries should be
redrawn. Based on the council’s February 14 and April 27 discussions, a list of possible criteria was
generated. Throughout May and June, staff collected feedback from councilors, the public and interested
parties on the proposed criteria, as well as other suggestions. Outreach techniques included:
Online and paper survey – Spanish and English
FAQs (frequently-asked-questions handout) – Spanish and English
City of Eugene public website and social media
Meetings with individual councilors
Presentations to groups including the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, Neighborhood
Leaders Council and League of Women Voters
Radio, television and newspaper coverage
Interested parties list – email updates
Information packets
\\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110627\S110627B.doc
Neighborhood newsletter articles
Informational open house, June 9
A summary of the feedback is included in Attachment B.
Criteria
Population range – Providing for wards of equivalent populations provides for equal representation, but
can limit flexibility when attempting to reconcile other criteria. The results of redistricting generally are
believed to support fair representation, accountability and greater responsiveness from elected leaders
when wards or districts are closer in population size.
Accounting for anticipated growth – On the one hand, “sizing” wards for anticipated growth might help
equalize representation over time. On the other, predicting future growth with certainty is impossible.
Most feedback received supports working with the most recent and reliable numbers available. The chart
below provides a snapshot of growth by ward, and reflects U.S. Census figures from 2000 and 2010.
Ward Total Population Ward Populations Population change (#) Percent
2010 2001
1 17,597 17,617 -20 ---
2 17,705 17,699 6 ---
3 21,003 17,768 3,235 18%
4 19,215 16,799 2,416 14%
5 20,047 16,572 3,475 21%
6 21,603 17,266 4,337 25%
7 19,449 16,829 2,620 16%
8 19,603 17,343 2,260 13%
Grand 156,222 137,893
Total
Incremental versus substantial changes – A small majority of survey respondents prefer “starting over”
when drawing ward boundaries, though others lean toward keeping ward boundaries closer to their
current configuration to maintain continuity for residents and elected officials alike. When preparing
draft scenarios, staff expects to bring a mix of options in order to satisfy other criteria – giving council a
chance to weigh the merits of different approaches.
Incumbent elected officials – Staff received advice to develop scenarios that neither protect incumbents
nor specifically target current officials to redistrict them “out” of their wards. Incumbents often want to
keep the same voters with whom they have built up name recognition and goodwill over time, and some
voters also like to maintain their relationships with existing officials. Yet, the City Council could be
open to criticism if redistricting to keep councilors and EWEB commissioners in their current wards
were made a top priority.
Geography, and other neighborhood or ward features – Geographic boundaries can divide the population
into different neighborhoods or communities, keeping a compact group of residents or voters together.
But, following some geographic boundaries may fragment communities of interest or other groups of
\\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110627\S110627B.doc
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
RELATED CITY POLICIES
The Eugene Charter provision related to redistricting is general and states:
Section 33. Wards.
The council shall divide the city into wards and redefine the boundaries thereof
as necessary to accord persons in the city the equal protection of the laws. No person may vote at a
city election in a ward other than that in which he or she resides.
The Eugene City Code includes the following:
2.692Elections – Wards
. The city council shall by resolution divide the city into eight wards, but
neither this requirement nor any action pursuant to it disqualifies, or shortens the term of office of, a
member of the council or the Eugene Water & Electric Board.
Adopted Council Goals and Outcomes include:
Effective, Accountable Municipal Government - A government that works openly, collaboratively, and
fairly with the community to achieve measurable and positive outcomes and provide effective, efficient
services.
•Transparent and interactive communication
•Public engagement that involves the community broadly
•Stronger partnership between government entities
COUNCIL OPTIONS
The council may identify one criterion or several criteria to guide new ward boundary scenarios, or may
ask for additional information or time for deliberations.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends the following criteria or guidelines:
A population range difference of three percent, plus or minus, among wards
not
Work with 2010 U.S. Census data and do assume potential growth
Develop scenarios without consideration of protecting incumbent elected officials
Develop scenarios that consider geographic and neighborhood features, and strive for relative
compactness and contiguity, without rigid adherence to these characteristics
Provide demographic information with scenarios to support consideration of potential impacts
SUGGESTED MOTION
Move to accept the City Manager’s recommended criteria for developing ward scenario options.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Current Populations Distributions and Demographics
B. Summary – Feedback on Ward Redistricting Criteria
\\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110627\S110627B.doc
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Staff Contact: Keli Osborn
Telephone: 541-682-5406
Staff E-Mail: keli.m.osborn@ci.eugene.or.us
\\Cesrv500\cc support\CMO\2011 Council Agendas\M110627\S110627B.doc
Attachment A – Ward Populations & Demographics
City of Eugene Council Ward Populations
Ward Total Population Target Population Percent difference from equal population by ward
1 17,597 19,528 -9.9%
2 17,705 19,528 -9.3%
3 21,003 19,528 7.6%
4 19,215 19,528 -1.6%
5 20,047 19,528 2.7%
6 21,603 19,528 10.6%
7 19,449 19,528 -0.4%
8 19,603 19,528 0.4%
Grand Total 156,222 156,222
City of Eugene Council Ward Demographics
(Percentages are based on each ward’s population)
Eugene Council Wards
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total
Population 17,597 17,705 21,003 19,215 20,047 21,603 19,449 19,603 156,222
1,393 841 1,027 1,072 1,166 2,176 2,265 2,267
Hispanic or Latino 12,207
(7.9%) (4.8%) (4.9%) (5.6%) (5.8%) (10.1%) (11.6%) (11.6%)
16,204 16,864 19,976 18,143 18,881 19,427 17,184 17,336
Not Hispanic or Latino 144,015
(92.1%) (95.2%) (95.1%) (94.4%) (94.2%) (89.9%) (88.4%) (88.4%)
14,584 15,304 16,722 15,839 17,068 17,678 15,419 15,436
White Alone 128,050
(82.9%) (86.4%) (79.6%) (82.4%) (85.1%) (81.8%) (79.3%) (78.7%)
Black or African American 255 164 267 333 226 210 249 252
1,956
alone (1.4%) (0.9%) (1.3%) (1.7%) (1.1%) (1.0%) (1.3%) (1.3%)
American Indian and Alaska 144 112 89 131 130 235 243 184
1,268
Native alone (0.8%) (0.6%) (0.4%) (0.7%) (0.6%) (1.1%) (1.2%) (0.9%)
487 561 1,931 1,026 787 470 367 581
Asian alone 6,210
(2.8%) (3.2%) (9.2%) (5.3%) (3.9%) (2.2%) (1.9%) (3.0%)
Native Hawaiian and other 23 22 48 49 35 66 55 43
341
pacific islander alone (0.1%) (0.1%) (0.2%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.3%) (0.3%) (0.2%)
59 48 34 39 35 26 45 22
Other race alone 308
(0.3%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.2%) (0.1%) (0.2%) (0.1%)
652 653 885 726 600 742 806 818
Two or more races 5,882
(3.7%) (3.7%) (4.2%) (3.8%) (3.0%) (3.4%) (4.1%) (4.2%)
Total Population Age 18 and 14,840 14,341 19,593 15,661 15,951 16,404 15,911 15,033
127,734
over (84.3%) (81.0%) (93.3%) (81.5%) (79.6%) (75.9%) (81.8%) (76.7%)
Data source: U.S. Census Bureau Redistricting PL 94-171, Regional GIS
1
Attachment B – Public Feedback
1
Attachment B – Public Feedback
2
Attachment B – Public Feedback
3
Attachment B – Public Feedback
1.Do what's right for the citizens not for the politicians or special interests!
2.I recall Eugene in the 50's; Seneca-Jones wet deck west of Garfield: Amazon Park the garbage dump;
Central Oregon - Pacific Rail shunting logs - loads across Blair-River Road traffic connection north;
Diamond Agripak serving the valley north
3.Please don't gerrymander this city up to suit your desires. There is a fair way to create equal population
centers ...your job is to find it. Do not cater to special interest corporations. The people of this city are
your first priority. Their descendants are your second.
4.While major roads and natural features sometimes make natural dividers, care should be taken. I-5 is a
divider, but River Road is a natural "spine" with a cohesive community spanning each side of the road.
5.Use census tract and block boundaries as much as possible to enable easier monitoring and analysis of
changes in demographics of each ward over time.
6.offficials should represent their entire district not just some
7.Santa Clara is now split into two wards by River Road. However, River RD is the common feature
connecting Santa Clara to the rest of the city. The Willamette river, Belt Line and NW Expressway are
the common geographic and man-made barriers that separate Santa Clara's interests from the rest of
the city. If these natural and man-made boundaries are too small for a single ward, including the River
Road neighborhood or extending Santa Clara to Hwy 99 makes more sense than splitting the Santa Clara
neighborhood into two as it is now. I have more in common with the parent across River Road who's
child attends the same school as mine than I do with residents of Coburg RD and Norkenzie, which have
more in common with the Cal Young and Good Pasture neighborhoods than mine.
8.If our area is in Eugene, why is our high school in Junction City? We would be better served if we were
in the Santa Clara District. However, we seem to be represented by the Bethel District. This area is not
our area. Therefore, we have little or no representation. In the last election, we were not given
pertinent information. All we received was the tax measure for the Eugene Schools.
9.I do not see a GIS solution. We are paying for a GIS team, lets put them to work. We need the 8
geographical centers (loci). We need the optimal distribution of houses to wards that minimizes the
total distance from each loci as proposal 1. We need the optimal distribution of houses to wards that
minimizes the total travel distance between each loci and the houses in it as proposal 2.
10.Only seven changes are needed: .4% from Ward 8 to Ward 7 7.6% from Ward 3 to Ward 2 1.7% from
Ward 1 to Ward 2 10.6% from Ward 6 to Ward 7 1.6% from Ward 5 to Ward 4 1.1% from Ward 5 to
Ward 7 11.7% from Ward 7 to Ward1 Resulting in no deviation from the ideal district size - except for
difference due to rounding. There is simply no justification for deviating from the ideal by more than .1
of 1% for any new Ward.
11.River Road/Santa Clara portions of Ward 7 with wards 5 and 6 than they do with the area east of
Chambers and south of the river.
12.Eugene's wards seem to be excessively homogenous, politically and culturally. Maybe it's time to
consider adopting the system used by the city of Springfield and the Eugene School District, where
councilors are elected by all voters, rather than by voters who reside in their respective wards. Would
such a change require voter approval of a charter amendment?
13.Consider re-drawing the neighborhood associations at the same time. They are of massively different
sizes as well and do not always reflect current population "neighborhoods".
4
Attachment B – Public Feedback
14.Keep it simple, don't make it contumacious, and don't make there have to be a new election due to
potential changes in councilors or commissioners. Make it really, really, streamlined; Eugene can handle
anything more dramatic.
15.I am open to and favor a city-wide election for either every council seat; or, a 4 seat city wide election
and 4 wards elected for a term of six years each.
16.Major roads, school districts, and potentially neighborhood associations would offer some guidance.
Using perceived interests, socio-demographic info, etc. seems like a dangerous path to take.
17.I thought there was software that would draw boundaries to ensure that wards are of equal size. Seems
like a good starting place. Would not like to see gerrymandering.
18.Keeping communities of interest together, where possible, but without creating wildly zig-zagging
boundary lines
19.Keeping wards in tact because of present elected officials should not be a consideration.
20.Wards need to have as even of a mix as possible of socio-economic populations. Diversity is very
important. Specifically, one of the slowest growing areas in town (Ward 2) which also tends to coincide
with the Southeast Neighbors has not had a new Councilor or Neighborhood Association President in my
adult life (I am not very young). This is a strong sign of a mono-culture that needs to be more diverse.
5
Attachment B – Public Feedback
1.4J construction/investment location
2.What ways the ward process can be skewed to allow for special interest groups to prosper. By dividing
up or by grouping certain areas together, you can either allow or disallow all voices to be heard. Do
your job.
3.It would be interesting to hear why last time this process was done, the least desirable scenario was
chosen. How will the City prevent political/financial interests from unduly influencing the process this
time as well?
4.Existing demographic information within each ward (age, race, gender, income, etc.), other existing
boundaries (census, school district, etc.) overlaid to facilitate understanding of overlaps/gaps, identify
schools/stores/other locations of interest/attractors.
5.Make certain that recently annexed areas and potential annexed areas are properly represented by
being attached to adjacent areas that have the same interests. This is not the case in our area. We feel
very much the "stepchild" in Eugene, however, we pay Eugene taxes.
6.considering any political reality is tantamount to gerrymandering. There is no politically based scheme
that cannot be found to be detrimental to another group. We need a completely technocratic method
that is transparent.
7.My preference would be for the current boundaries to stay the same as much as possible.
8.It would be nice if someone could explain how on Earth Ward 4 could have grown by less than the city-
wide average over the last few years - with all the new development in the Chase Garden and Crescent
areas. Likewise, how could Ward 3 have grown faster than the city-wide average when there has been
next to no new housing starts in within the boundary. Did the census just do a much improved job of
counting students south of the river will doing a lousy job of counting them north of the river? Or did
one or both of these two wards start off with a large deviation from the ideal-sized district last time
around?
9.Precinct by precinct populations to help with comments on which precincts should be part of which
wards.
10.How people voted in the last election in the different wards.
11.pros and cons to proposals-notes or gist, not details
12.Show general age and income levels and how each ward will have a diverse mix of our population.
13.The City should be promoting involvement through the Neighborhood Services staff and the
Neighborhood Leaders Council.
6
Attachment B – Public Feedback
Public Comment:
Received: May 12, 2011
From: Paul Conte
WARD 1 REDISTRICTING
Ward 1 will need to be increased in area; however, it also needs realignment to reflect neighborhood
association boundaries and the natural neighborhood community geography. The following are
recommendations:
OVERALL OBJECTIVES:
1.Include the entire population of the Jefferson Westside Neighbors (JWN) and the Friendly Area
Neighbors (FAN) within Ward 1.
2.In addition, include as much as possible of the Far West Neighborhood (FWN) in Ward 1.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS:
1.Align the EASTERN boundary of Ward 1 south of 18th Ave. with the Friendly Area Neighbors (FAN)
boundary. This is just a minor adjustment for consistency that I don't believe will affect many residents.
2.Maintain the current EASTERN boundary along Willamette St. between W. 13th and 18th Aves.
3.Maintain the current Ward 1 boundary along W. 13th Ave from Willamette St. until the Ward 1
boundary turns north again.
(Note that some neighborhood association maps _incorrectly_ show the JWN boundary along this
segment of W. 13th Ave. as not including the tax lots on the south side of W. 13th Ave. The JWN
Charter, however, defines the boundary as running down W. 13th Ave. and including these tax lots.)
4.At a minimum, align the Ward 1 EASTERN boundary north of W. 13th Ave. with the eastern boundary of
the JWN (along Lawrence St.) See also #6, below.
5.Increase Ward 1 by adjusting the entire WESTERN boundary to incorporate all of the Far West
Neighborhood.
6.If additional area is necessary for Ward 1, align the EASTERN boundary from W. 13th Ave. to W. 7th Ave.
along Lincoln St., which is the natural boundary between "downtown" and "Westside."
If only a portion of this additional area needs to be included in Ward 1, create a "bump out" from
Lawrence St. to Lincoln St. incorporating the blocks between W. 8th and W. 11th Aves. (more or less)
because these blocks are definitely part of the historical "Westside" neighborhood and have a close
affinity with JWN areas to the west.
7.a) If additional area is necessary for Ward 1, incorporate western areas of downtown by extending the
Ward 1 EASTERN boundary northward along Willamette St. to the extent necessary.
b) If a reduction in Ward 1 area (from actions 1 through 5) is necessary, adjust the WESTERN boundary
to exclude the southernmost areas that are west of Chambers St.
8.For adjustments not covered by these recommendations, please consult with the JWN and FAN
neighborhood boards, as well as boards of other neighborhoods that may be affected.
7
Attachment B – Public Feedback
Public Comment:
Received: May 18, 2011
From: League of Women Voters
In response to the survey questions presented to the board by City Staff, the League of Women Voters indicated
support for the following criteria:
Each ward should have about the same number of people within a range of +/- 3 percent.
The size of the wards should not be changed to account for expected changes in the number of people
living in them. This could create inequities now without guaranteeing equity will be attained in the
future.
Ward boundaries should change as little as possible.
The council should redraw ward boundaries without considering where current elected officials live.
Ward boundaries should be drawn to keep groups with potentially similar interests together
Wards should be as compact as possible.
Geography and natural features like the river, railroad tracks, and major roads or bridges should be used
to guide ward boundaries.
Geography and natural features may make more sense as dividing lines between wards.
Their highest priorities among these criteria included:
Each ward should have about the same number of people within a range of +/- 3 percent.
The size of the wards should not be changed to account for expected changes in the number of people
living in them. This could create inequities now without guaranteeing equity will be attained in the
future.
The council should redraw ward boundaries without considering where current elected officials live.
Wards should be as compact as possible.
Lower priority was given to:
Ward boundaries should change as little as possible.
Ward boundaries should be drawn to keep groups with potentially similar interests together Geography
and natural features like the river, railroad tracks, and major roads or bridges should be used to guide
ward boundaries.
8
Attachment B – Public Feedback
Public Comment:
Received: June 6, 2011
From: Jim Hale
Dear Mayor and Council –
I’m unable to attend Thursday’ open house on redistricting, but….
As Ed Russo reports, it may be “impractical” for each new ward to have exactly 19,548 residents. But it
is entirely practical, in this age of computer driven maps and census results, for the population each
ward to be within, say, one tenth of one percent of the ideal (or plus or minus 20).
If the city staff say that is impractical, that is just political rubbish or ordinary inertia.
Important questions to ask about this process might be:
How in the heck did it come to be that Ward 4 grew at LESS THAN the city-wide average rate when
there has been so much development in the Chase Gardens and Crescent area?
Did Ward 4 start out short of people last time?
How did Ward 3 grow FASTER than the city-wide average rate – when it has had next to zero new
building starts?
Did it start out long last time?
Or did the census just do a much improved job of counting students south of the river this time?
If so, why didn’t they do the same great job north of river?
The city doesn’t need a lot of high-minded discussion about principles to be used overall in this
process.
The Council merely needs to direct staff to make seven changes:
Move the .4% excess in Ward 8 to Ward 7.
Move the 7.6% excess in Ward 3 to Ward 2.
Move a number (1.7%) from Ward 1 to Ward 2 to get Ward 2 up to the ideal.
Move the 10.6% excess from Ward 6 to Ward 7.
Move 1.6% of the excess from Ward 5 to cure the shortage in Ward 4.
Move 1.1% of the excess from Ward 5 to Ward 7.
(The above changes would leave Ward 7 over by 11.7 per cent and Ward 1 short by 11.6%).
Move the resultant excess in Ward 7 to Ward 1.
The above changes place seven wards at the ideal, leaving Ward 1 over by +.1% (a difference due
only to rounding in the starting percentages).
None of these changes would necessarily jeopardize the residency of any councilor or commissioner.
It is neither rocket science nor difficult politics. Nor should it take up a lot of staff time.
9
Attachment B – Public Feedback
Public Comment:
Received: June 17, 2011
From: Laura Potter, Director of Business Advocacy, Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce
Mayor and Council,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding redistricting criteria. The Eugene Area Chamber of
Commerce considers redistricting in Eugene to be an important issue because it both affects and reflects the
constituency’s voice by ensuring that representation is equal among all our population. We were involved in
this process ten years ago and have reviewed that criteria as well as the proposed criteria form the League of
Women Voters. You’ll find our criteria below is similar.
The Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce proposes the following criteria be considered when establishing
boundaries for wards:
Equality of population—wards drawn to have less than 3% variance in total population. Where such a
variance is necessary, wards with the greater potential for population increase should include a lesser
population than those with less potential growth.
Contiguity—wards composed of adjoining land with as near a 1:1 ratio between length and width as
possible
Geography, natural and existing boundaries—attention given to obvious natural features, such as rivers
or large open spaces
Communities of interest and natural groupings—wards drawn to represent groups sharing similar
interests.
Transportation links or barriers—consideration given to the way transportation link s or barriers affect
the common interests or the sense of community of residents
We appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing our testimony.
10