REAPPORTIONMENT TASK FORCE

MEETING NOTES

MAY 2, 2001

OREGON CITY

Members Present: Chair Monroe, Councilors Burkholder and Hosticka

Metro Council Staff: John Houser, John Donovan and Pat Weathers

DRC Staff: Mark Bosworth, Karen Larson

OGC Staff: Marv Fjordbeck

This meeting is the first of four scheduled public hearings on the proposed redistricting plans. Plan proposals available at this meeting include: 1) Draft Alternative A—the original staff plan, 2) Draft Alternative B—the Monroe alternative to the staff plan, 3) Draft Alternative C—a proposal developed at the request of the reapportionment citizens advisory committee. Those testifying were given an opportunity to address any of the proposed plans as well as address any other redistricting issues of interest to them.

The following is a summary of the testimony that was received.

Ted Kyle—MCCI Chair, representing himself. He noted that all of the proposed plans would work, but that he personally favored Alternative B. He encouraged the task force to consider county lines and neighborhood association boundaries when finalizing its plan. He noted that the city of Happy Valley will grow to the east and therefore it would be appropriate to place it in District 1, which covers the eastern portions of Multnomah and Clackamas Counties. He also urged the task force to keep Oregon City, Gladstone, and West Linn together in the same district.

David Powell, City Attorney, representing Lake Oswego. Mr. Powell presented a letter on behalf of the Lake Oswego Mayor and City Council. He indicated that the city could support either Alternatives A or B, but that Alternative C was unacceptable because Lake Oswego does not share a community of interest with downtown Portland and other portions of the city that would make up a majority of the district. Powell argued that Lake Oswego should be part of a district that includes other adjacent Clackamas County cities with which it does have a community of interest.

Ed Gronke—private citizen. Mr. Gronke spoke in support of Alternative A. He urged that Happy Valley be included in a district with other Clackamas County cities with which it shares a community of interest. He also noted that that Happy Valley was involved with a water district that served the area to the west rather than the east of the city. He expressed concern about Alternative C because it did not recognize Clackamas County communities of interest. He spoke in opposition to any plan that would blur county lines.

Dick Jones—private citizen. Mr. Jones spoke in favor of Alternative B. He noted that Happy Valley needs be placed in District 1 because its future lies in growth to the east toward Pleasant Valley.

Martha Waldermere—Sunnyside United Neighbors. Ms. Waldermere expressed concern that both Alternative A split a school district and two neighborhood associations in northern Clackamas County. She urged that the county line be used as the Metro district boundary in this area. She criticized Alternative C because it divides Clackamas County among too many districts.

Prepared by,

John Houser

Council Analyst