REAPPORTIONMENT TASK FORCE

MEETING NOTES

APRIL 10, 2001

METRO COUNCIL ANNEX

Members Present: Chair Monroe, Councilors Burkholder and Hosticka

Metro Council Staff: John Houser, Chris Billington

DRC Staff: Mark Bosworth, Karen Larson

OGC Staff: Marv Fjordbeck

Mark Bosworth and Karen Larson, Data Resource Center staff, presented an initial draft staff-redistricting plan (Draft Alternative A). Development of the plan was designed to show how the criteria in Ordinance 01-895 could be applied to the existing district boundaries and produce a plan. Bosworth noted that the population of the districts ranged from plus/minus two percent from the ideal district population. He indicated that some fine-tuning could be done to lower these deviations.

Councilor Burkholder asked about the nature of population data being used. Bosworth responded that the data were the official legal census data. Burkholder expressed concern about reports that the numbers for minorities and Hispanics represented an undercount. Chair Monroe noted that unless the Census Bureau modified the data that has been released, Metro must use this official data in developing its redistricting plan.

Bosworth presents the initial staff draft plan (Plan A). Highest priority equal population, plan is plus/minus 2%, can do some fine-tuning.

Chair Monroe asked about the population effects of the adjustments that he had requested between Districts 1 and 6. Larson and Bosworth explained the differences, including the shifting of the city of Happy Valley from District 2 to District 1. It was determined that the population numbers were in error and staff agreed to correct them. Chair Monroe explained that 122^nd is a logical boundary between the districts, and that his proposed changes would keep the Parkrose area within a single district. Chair Monroe notes he would have liked to have all of the David Douglas School District within District 6, but that population constraints would not allow such a shift.

Councilor Burkholder indicated that he would like to have the task force and the citizens advisory committee identify and consider certain global issues as a part of the plan development process. For example, he raised the issue of the relative importance of County boundaries and whether they should be actively considered or deliberately ignored. He expressed concern that individual Councilors should not identify with a single county. Chair Monroe responded that politically Metro must work with county elected officials. He noted that Washington County would want to retain their two seats. And Clackamas will want a seat they can call their own. He suggested that Metro must respect County and city elected officials as a constituency.

Councilor Burkholder noted that the proposed plan would shift the district mix from three urban and four suburban districts to two urban and four suburban districts. He expressed concern about the potential impact of this shift on the consideration of issues of interest to residents of the urban core of the region. Chair Monroe noted that this shift simply reflected the change in population to the suburban portions of the region.

Chair Monroe noted that the draft plan appears respects ethnic group concentrations. He asked staff if it considered ethnicity in the preparation of the plan. Bosworth indicated that staff had been directed not to consider ethnicity in preparing the initial draft and therefore it was not considered. Councilor Burkholder noted that protection of ethnic concentrations was not a criterion. Chair Monroe responded if an ethnic community had been divided, it could have resulted in criticism of, or a challenge to the plan. He noted that, as drawn, the plan does not appear to have any obvious problems that could subject it to criticism.

Aleta Woodruff, MCCI and citizen advisory committee member, expressed concern about dividing neighborhood associations between Districts 1 and 6, particularly to Hazelwood Association. Bosworth noted the difficulty in keeping all of the associations along the District 1-District 6 boundary whole and that in some cases, the geographic shape of the associations made them hard to combine while maintaining compactness and contiguity. He also noted that the Hazelwood association is currently split and would be under both the staff plan and the Monroe alternative. Chair Monroe indicated that he would continue to work with staff to address the shape of the boundary between Districts 1 and 6.

Ray Phelps, state redistricting staff, offered two observations concerning the proposed plan. First, he noted that it better reflects the political reality of the population shift from the urban core to the suburbs than does the current district configuration. Second, he cautioned that the overall deviation of four to five percent should be lowered.

The task force confirmed its public hearing dates for May 2, 3, 8 and 10 and agreed to a joint meeting with the citizens advisory committee.

Prepared by,

John Houser

Council Analyst