2025-11-07 Work Session on Community Council Boundary Review
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
2025-11-07 Work Session on Community Council Boundary Review
A work session was held to present the Planning Department's findings regarding the decennial review of community council district boundaries (Code 2.4.040). Senior Planner Tom Davis outlined the three-phase public process, which included questionnaire surveys, advisory committee deliberations, and review by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The session involved extensive deliberation on the criteria for boundary changes, specifically addressing the tension between "natural communities" and public desires for equitable representation and population balance.
Consent Calendar
- No routine consent calendar items were discussed during this work session; the meeting focused exclusively on the boundary review reports.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Ms. Subvers (Public Commenter): Expressed strong opposition to the proposed methodology and results. She noted that while 14 public comments from the Northeast Community Council requested a split due to the area being "too large" and "disjointed," the recommendations ignored this desire. She argued that the process failed to address "adequate representation" by transferring population from the University Community Council rather than addressing the natural boundary of the Dabar river or creating new councils. She stated, "I'm not really supportive of the methodology, I'm not really supportive of the results. I think it's flawed."
- Mr. Davis (Senior Planner): Clarified that community councils are independent nonprofits and the code does not authorize the assembly to break up a council without a petition from a group of residents following a specific process. He advised that the recommendation should be to support a future petition if one is formally brought forward.
- Council Member [Unnamed, likely District 72 or similar]: Expressed that the process feels like a missed opportunity to create equity, noting that the disparity in population (e.g., Northeast at 30,000 vs. Scenic Foothills being too small) creates difficulties for self-organization. They questioned if the committee considered future code parameters to allow for population parity.
- Council Member Dean: Raised concerns about the lack of a scoring rubric or quantitative scale to objectively assess boundary criteria, noting that the current case-by-case approach may lead to inconsistent results. He expressed a clear intent to propose an amendment to establish a priority scale for future processes.
- Council Member [Unnamed, regarding South Edition/North Star]: Commented on the "Valley Park" boundary study area, arguing that the current boundary divides the park between South Edition and North Star. From an equity standpoint, they supported the South Edition's position to retain the parcel, noting that South Edition is significantly "park-rich" while North Star has minimal park access.
Discussion Items
- Criteria for Boundary Changes: Discussion centered on the municipal code definition of "natural communities" (areas divided by physical/traffic barriers, common interests, or common identity) versus the implicit desire for population balance.
- Staff confirmed that population was a secondary factor used to evaluate sustainability (e.g., ability to fill officer positions or reach quorum), but not a primary driver for redistricting like in electoral maps.
- The committee identified 12 specific boundary study areas for recommendation to change. Staff noted that in most cases, the maps are being overhauled for accuracy (software updates) rather than moving lines, except for specific areas where public comment warranted change.
- Northeast Community Council Issues: Intense discussion occurred regarding the Northeast district, which covers ~30,000 people. Public comments requested splitting the area along the Dabar river, which aligns with assembly districts. The committee recommended retaining existing boundaries but suggested that if a group pets to form a new council, the assembly should support creating a new boundary along the Dabar.
- Coastline Boundary Adjustment: Staff explained the proposed shift from "mean low tide" to "mean high tide" for coastal community councils (e.g., Sand Lake). This change was recommended because the low tide line is inaccurate, fluctuates significantly with tides, and is not a usable feature. Staff clarified that DNR regulations, not the community council boundary, control leases in the tideland areas, and public notice for those areas is handled via a state online system.
- Boundary Advisory Committee Composition: Questions were raised about how the 12-member committee was formed. Staff explained that members were recruited based on geographic representation and experience. They noted that while some members were leaders of existing community councils, the committee took their role seriously and acted in the interest of the broader code criteria rather than just self-interest.
- Park Proximity and 1,000-Foot Margins: Clarification was provided that community council boundaries do not limit participation in projects nearby. Staff and Parks & Recreation operate on a 1,000-foot margin, treating all councils within that radius as equal partners.
- Timeline and Process: There was a discrepancy regarding the duration of the process. One member stated it was a "three-year process," while Staff clarified the active phase was approximately "one and a half years" since the previous reapportionment, though it is now seven years until the next mandated review.
Key Outcomes
- Recommendation Status: Staff presented a recommendation for the Assembly to consider 12 boundary study areas for change. The proposed maps (Exhibit A) generally retain current boundaries but with updated digital accuracy, with exceptions for specific areas like Valley Park (no change recommended but debated) and the Dabar river area (recommendation deferred unless a petition is filed).
- Coastal Boundary Update: A change in the legal definition of coastal boundaries from mean low tide to mean high tide is recommended to improve map accuracy and clarity.
- Future Process Improvements: Council Member Dean proposed an amendment to the ordinance to establish a "priority scale" or rubric for boundary criteria before the next phase one process begins.
- Next Steps: The Assembly is not scheduled to vote immediately; a formal public hearing and deliberation are required before any motion to adopt the boundaries can be made. Staff offered to provide data on alternative scenarios (e.g., population impacts of other boundary lines) if the Assembly wishes to investigate further.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning everybody. Today is November 7, 2025. We're here for a work session on it. 2.435 reports of community council 2.4.040. And 2.400 community council maps are here at the 10 review and adjustment of the community council district boundaries. We're on the schedule from 850 to 9.15. The first thing I will do is apologize to everybody for this early meeting. It just was impossible for us to schedule later pieces of the budget version we have been today middle. So thank you all who have made it and we will tune in for the rest of the stuff. Let's go ahead and start with the motions. Scott Myers. And Burling. Christopher Moston. On the phone, we have Ms. Baldwin Dave. I'm here. Alright, so then we'll hand the ball off to Mr. Davis. Tom DC report. Thanks, thank you, Tom Davis, Senior Planner, Planning Department. And I'll just start out by giving a brief intro to myself and several other folks who participated in this process that we're here. Secondly I wanted to just give a brief overview of the three phases of this public process. And quickly go over the criteria and then quickly check and make sure that the packet is readable to you and some key items in the package. That uh went through this process, and I don't know if Melinda Gand is the chair is able to make it yet, but uh ex officio member of that committee there will S is here and also speak to the community council uh process. The uh the list of the committee members uh is on page 343 of exhibit D1 in the packet. They were a key part of the first phase of the public process, which kicked off with a questionnaire survey that was uh received by about 10,000 people uh received about 420 responses, plus additional emails and other comments, and those public comments that came from community councils, members of the public, uh established 40 boundary study areas as part of this project. So for this round, this uh this decennial review of the community council boundaries that we based it on feedback from the public and those new community councils regarding active issues that they have. The federation helped the planning department form the boundary advisory committee and it's a geographically representative committee of community council active members and peers from uh Chiacko River from around the whole turn day on with that committee. We walked through each of those almost 40 boundary study areas, committee managed meetings like a commission, open meetings, and so community council members, members of the public were invited to comment and provide uh provide advice and information. Uh there's six meetings of that committee. We then the next phase began, the second phase was to bring the community council boundaries to the planning and zoning commission as a public hearing draft recommendations of the planning department and boundary advisory committee. We had informally uh engaged with the community council officers, so all community councils affected by any boundary proposal or public comment. Uh we had been in uh engaged with those officers with those presidents, and it was at this phase that we requested each community council that was subject to any boundary study area to provide the community council's recommendations, its position as to its boundaries in a form of a written resolution adopted by its membership. And in fact, 27 community councils provided resolutions as to their boundaries. And a few more community councils provided comments from their officers. The community council comments to the planning and zoning commission and the resolutions, those are available in exhibit uh D2, basically exhibit B is part two of exhibit D, and those are available on pages 25 through 10. In that phase two process, several more community council boundary study areas came forward. So a boundary study area that we we found just means that the area it arose from public comments and that we are going to evaluate it. So we evaluated each boundary study area. So we evaluate about 40 boundary study areas in the first days, and then during the public hearing process, an additional five boundary study merged based on public comments, public comments from Basher, public comments from Glen House, public comments for North Star, and the other folks. So all of those are available in exhibit D, and then exhibit E, we received a few more comments from community councils after the planning zoning commission process, and that's why that's separated out. The evaluation criteria are set in the municipal code, uh section 2.4.040, and those are uh that the community councils shall reflect uh natural communities and to recognize community desires as a boundaries. Now, with respect to national communities, uh the code defines that as being uh community areas divided one from another by physical or traffic barriers. So we looked for strong simple boundaries between neighborhoods that be easy for the public for members of those community councils to easily understand their boundaries, you know, yes, I'm in this area. Secondly, areas having a common interest, and third, natural communities being areas that are achieving or have common identity with respect to community desires. Community councils are not uh municipal government agencies, they are independent nonprofit organizations, and while the municipality recognizes them, they are from the grassroots, and so we do uh take uh take comments from community council general membership uh seriously, and that criteria uh was important to us. Uh we also use the questionnaires and uh other meetings, and we can go over those criteria. But lastly, just going through the packet, um I think it exhibits uh exhibit A are the maps that are recommended, the new community council boundary maps. Uh in most cases, those are the exact same boundaries as the old maps. We just have to overhaul the maps that were 22 years old and they're all the software and uh whatnot.
openpublica.com