REAPPORTIONMENT TASK FORCE

MEETING NOTES

MAY 3, 2001

GRESHAM

Members Present: Chair Monroe, Councilors Burkholder and Hosticka

Metro Council Staff: John Houser, John Donovan and Chris Billington

DRC Staff: Mark Bosworth, Karen Larson

OGC Staff: Marv Fjordbeck

This meeting is the second 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.

Gresham Mayor Charles Becker. Mayor Becker made several brief observations concerning the proposed plans. He was ambivalent regarding the placement of the city of Happy Valley in District 1 or 2. With regard to Alternative B, he questioned whether the northwestern boundary of District 1 should extend west of I-205. He noted that Maywood Park and Parkrose do not have much of a community of interest.

Kari Chisholm—Reapportionment Citizen Advisory Committee Chair (CAC). Chisholm spoke in favor of Alternative C, which was developed by several members of the CAC. He argued that to promote a regional outlook on the part of elected Councilors, council districts should include as broad a geographic and jurisdictional mix as possible. He encouraged the Council to avoid using county and other political boundaries as district boundaries. He also urged the Council to create districts that combined both urban and suburban constituencies.

Bill Loomis—Pleasant Valley. Mr. Loomis testified in support of Alternative B. He noted that the eastern portion of Clackamas County within Metro’s boundaries (Happy Valley, Damascus, and Pleasant Valley) is similar in nature and represents an area of significant potential growth in the near future. Because the area will be facing similar significant land use and infrastructure issues, the entire area should be included in a single Council district.

Prepared by,

John Houser

Council Analyst