Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-02-22 EC MEMOTO: Lou Ellis, City Clerk FROM: Harold J. Stitt, Senior Planner DATE: February 22, 1999 RE: 1999 Council District Reapportionment The following is the population analysis you requested as part of your review for the 1999 Council District reapportionment. The tables below illustrate the current Council District population and registered voter totals and the proposed reapportionment. The propo sed reapportionment reflects the transfer of a portion of County Precinct 107 fr9m Council Di strict 1 to Council District 2. Current Council Districts District Population Population Registered Voters Registered Voter (1990 Census) Variance (November 1997) Variance (15% - (+/-5%) highest to lowest) 1 7 ,778 f-1-5.87% 5,051 23.92% 2 7,396 +0.67% 3,843 ,, 7 ,2 66 -1.10 % ~,450 .) 4 6 ,947 -5 .44% ~,700 Total 29,38 7 18,044 Proposed Council Districts District Population Population Registered Voters Registered Voter (1990 Census) Variance (November 1997) Variance (15% - (+/-5%) highest to lowest) 1 7 ,227 -1.63 % ~,683 10.40 % 2 7 ,947 +8.17% ~,211 3 7 ,266 -1.10 % ~,450 4 6 ,947 -5.44% ~,700 Total 29 ,387 18 ,044 The process of reapportionment in Englewood is problematical because of the need to meet City Charter requirements as well as State Statute requirements. The City Charter requires that the difference in the number of registered voters is not to be greater than 15 % between the district with the highest number of registered voters and the district with the lowest number of registered voters. On the other hand, the State Statutes require that the difference in population between districts be within a+/-5% range of the ideal district size. The ideal district size is simply the City population divided by the number of districts. The proposed reapportionment is not an ideal solution. However, given the difficult task of balancing registered voter totals against population, it provides a reasonable solution. Also complicating the process is our reliance on the ten years old 1990 Census figures. The City's current population is estimated to be approximately 32,000. Unfortunately , this estimate is not broken down to the block level. This leaves us with the 1990 Census as the only source of detailed population data. Using the 1990 data however, effectively under-represents the population by as many as 3,000 residents. Without the resources to do our own census and with the 2000 Census just a year away, the most reasonable approach is to adjust the Council Districts only as much as necessary to bring them into compliance with the City Charter and State Statutes. Any major reapportionment should be postponed until the 2000 Census figures are available . Redistricting ~ Charter requires that we look at redistricting every 4 years and that the reapportionment be in place six months prior to the November 2, 1999 election. (which would be May 2, 1999) ~ We base redistricting on : ~Charter requirement # of registered voters should vary no more than 15% between the highest and lowest district ~State Statute requirement population of the districts should vary no more than 5% between the highest and lowest district ~ I was asked to look at the possibility of restructuring Districts 1 and 2, but it does not work at this time. ~ Before Counci I tonight is the Election Commission's recommendation, whereby County precinct 107 would be split at Cornell Avenue and the top half would be in District 1 and the lower half would be in District 2. The Election Commission feels this scenario is the least disruptive to voters. ~ We try not to split within County precinct lines, but sometimes it can't be helped. ~ Election Commission rationale -doesn't make sense to reapportion entire City based on 1990 Census figures. (Refer to notes on Harold's memo) Current estimate -COE population 32,000 (1990 census -29 ,387) ~which means we are missing about 3,000 people ~can identify certain areas, e.g Greenwood Pointe apartments and area where Doug Clark lives, however, there are other factors to consider ... births, deaths, in migrating, out migrating ... EW" Council's feedback ... how agreeable are you to this scenario??