REAPPORTIONMENT TASK FORCE

MEETING NOTES

MAY 8, 2001

BEAVERTON CITY HALL

PUBLIC HEARING

Members Present: Chair Monroe, Councilors Burkholder and Hosticka

Metro Council Staff: John Houser, Chris Billington

DRC Staff: Karen Larson

OGC Staff: Marv Fjordbeck

This meeting is the third 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. Councilor Burkholder also introduced a new alternative at this meeting. 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.

Councilor Burkholder presented a new draft proposal (Draft Alternative D). He noted that the new alternative is based on Alternative B with a shift in population between Districts 5 and 6. Alternative D would shift the portion of proposed District 6 that is north of I-84 to District 5. To compensate District 6 for this loss of population, Alternative would move the portion of proposed District 5 that is west of the Willamette River between Highway 26 and I-5 from District 5 to District 6.

Burkholder noted that the principal purpose of the change would be to preserve an existing strong community of interest between the portion of northeast Portland north of I-84 the would otherwise be in District 6 with the adjacent areas of North Portland that would be in District 5. He also noted that there is a community of interest among the state legislative districts in the affected area that would be preserved if the entire area were in District 5. He indicated that he had been in contact with community leaders in the area who support the change. The population deviation following the change would be no greater than the other alternatives under consideration.

Mr. Houser explained the process by which he and Ms. Larson worked with Councilor Burkholder to produce Alternative D. He noted that it appeared that I-5 and Highway 26 would serve as natural physical boundaries on the west side of the Willamette River. He noted that Highway 26 currently serves as the boundary between District 5 and District 7. He indicated that the current District 7 represents areas on both sides of the Willamette River. Mr. Fjordbeck indicated that he felt that the new alternative would be legally defensible.

Chair Monroe encouraged staff to notify the affected neighborhood associations concerning the development of this new alternative plan. Mr. Donovan indicated that it would be immediately placed on the Metro website. Chair Monroe also asked that they be contacted by phone or fax.

Chair Monroe indicated that following the May 10 hearing the task force would deliberate and make its recommendation. Chair Monroe asked staff to outline the process and timeline by which a plan adopted by the Council could be challenged. Mr. Fjordbeck indicated that be believed that a challenge could be made in circuit court within 30 days of adoption by any citizen from within the Metro boundary. It would be the intent to resolve any challenge prior to the first date of filing for the office.

Betty Attebury, Westside Economic Alliance. She indicated that she had not intended to testify. She indicated support for the proposed district boundaries in Washington County. She supported the idea of using county lines as boundaries where feasible.

Prepared by,

John Houser

Council Analyst