Loading...
2011-04-11 Redistricting MinutesREDISTRICTING COMMUNITY MEETING MINUTES APRIL 11, 2011 PUBLIC MEETING ROOM Supervisors in Attendance: Ms. Marleen Durfee Ms. Dorothy Jaeckle Staff in Attendance: Mr. Lawrence C. Haake, III, Registrar Mr. Zach Mayo, Planning Department Demographer Mr. Jeffrey L. Mincks, County Attorney Mr. Stylian Parthemos, Deputy County Attorney Mr. Scott Zaremba, Dir., Human Resource Programs Ms. Janice Blakley, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors The meeting came to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Parthemos welcomed residents to the meeting. He recognized Ms. Jaeckle and Ms. Durfee and thanked them for being present. He stated the redistricting process occurs every ten years, after the census is completed. He further stated the data provided by the census allows the county to equalize the population among its districts. He noted that the state is also in the process of redrawing both Senate and House of Delegate .Districts, as well as Congressional Districts. He stated this process will take place in a constricted period of time over the course of the next few weeks because all localities must be ready to mail out absentee ballots for the August primary elections, and the deadline for doing so is July 8th. He further stated the redistricting plans must be submitted to the United States Justice Department for approval, and they have a 60-day period in which to review the plans; therefore, all redistricting plans must be submitted by April 29th. He stated the county is trying to equalize its population through the redistricting process, noting that there has been a lot of growth over the last ten years, which has not been uniform among the districts. He reviewed the current population for each of the magisterial districts and stated the ideal population for each district would be 63,247, noting that the county can deviate a 1 maximum of 5 percent over or 5 percent under that figure. He stated the population in all of the districts is outside of the range, except for Dale, which is barely inside the range. He further stated, under federal law, the county cannot dilute the minority population in its districts with African-American representatives. He noted that African-Americans represent the Dale District on the Board of Supervisors and the Matoaca District on the School Board, so the county must ensure that racial percentages in those two districts are maintained through the process. He stated staff also tries to ensure that the districts be as compact as possible, and the property within the districts must be contiguous. He provided examples of non-contiguous and non-compact districts. He stated another factor that the county tries to take into account with redistricting is the number of people who will move from one district to another. He then reviewed the boundary lines of the areas proposed to be moved from one district to another under Plan A. He stated Plan B includes the same changes in the Matoaca, Midlothian and Clover Hill Districts and provided details of voting precincts and boundary lines proposed to be moved between the Bermuda and Dale Districts under Plan B. He reviewed current population numbers and the population numbers proposed for both Plan A and Plan B. He stated both plans increase the minority population in the Dale and Matoaca Districts. He further stated both plans meet contiguity and compactness requirements. He noted there is a greater degree of compactness in Plan A than in Plan B for Bermuda and Dale. He stated Plan A would result in 14,781 constituents moving, and Plan B would result in the moving of 42,082 constituents. He further stated the precinct boundaries are frozen by the General Assembly for three years prior to a redistricting process; therefore, the Registrar has not had the ability to readjust voting precinct boundaries to address overcrowding. He noted that there will be minimal changes in voting precincts with the redistricting process. He stated he does anticipate that the Registrar will attempt to split some of the voting precincts in the summer/fall to alleviate long lines and parking issues in the November election. He stated the Board of Supervisors will hold a public hearing regarding redistricting on April 27, 2011, at 6:30 p.m. He then opened the floor to questions. Ms. Margaret Davis, a Bermuda District resident, inquired whether the final decision would be made by the Board of Supervisors and whether the public would have input into the final decision. Mr. Parthemos stated the Board of Supervisors will ultimately make the final decision after the residents have had an opportunity to provide input on the proposed changes both at the community meetings and at the April 27th public hearing. 2 Mr. Bob Olsen inquired about the cost to create a new precinct and the number of new precincts that the redistricting plan would create. Mr. Haake responded that the cost is approximately $25,000. He stated under the current redistricting plan, there would be three new precincts. He further stated, depending upon what the state approves, there could be as many as four to ten additional new precincts. Mr. Olsen expressed concerns relative to the necessity to create additional precincts as a result of dividing up various House and Senate Districts. He inquired why the county is considering redistricting plans prior to knowing what the state approves. Mr. Parthemos stated the county does not have a choice but to proceed on April 27th because the State Board of Elections has given us an April 29th deadline by which to complete our plan. He further stated staff is anticipating that the state will complete its redistricting process in time for the county to take whatever happens into account. Mr. Haake stated the county cannot open a new precinct with fewer than 500 voters and tries not to exceed 4,000 voters in a precinct. He further stated county staff is watching the state precincts as they evolve. Mr. Parthemos stated there may be some additional reworking of the precinct boundary lines; however, under the currently proposed General Assembly plan, adjustments to magisterial district boundary lines under either Plan A or Plan B would be fairly modest. Mr. Olsen inquired about population figures in the areas that are proposed to be moved and the differences between the current precincts and the proposed new precincts. Mr. Parthemos stated staff has population numbers available on the areas that are being moved, but has not determined population numbers in all of the precincts yet because they did not want to undertake that until the boundaries were known. He further stated he would provide Mr. Olsen with population data for each of the cross-hatched areas shown on the proposed redistricting maps. Mr. Olsen stated he thinks the public would like to see those figures at the redistricting community meeting scheduled for April 14th. He expressed concerns that the county's proposed redistricting plans only come within 5 percent plus or minus of the required population and noted that the plan that he presented to the county came within one-half of a percent, although it did move a lot of people, and only 3 moved existing precincts so there would be no costs associated with it. He suggested that the county take a deeper look at the proposed redistricting plans. Mr. Casey Sowers stated it is his understanding that the goal of the redistricting process is to equalize the populations generally in all of the magisterial districts. He inquired about the rationale for moving the small area in the northwest corner of the Midlothian District to the Matoaca District. He noted that the area includes some of the oldest inhabitants of Midlothian and there is a lot of history in that area. Mr. Parthemos stated staff is attempting to equalize the population, without having to move more residents than is necessary to different magisterial districts. He further stated that keeping the area to the east of the area that Mr. Sowers has referenced in Matoaca would allow the movement of as few people as possible, but the only way to do that would be to move that "triangle" to Matoaca to make it contiguous. Mr. Sowers inquired why a decision was made to move additional residents to Matoaca rather than to Midlothian since it appears the last ten years of growth has been primarily in the Matoaca District, and additional growth in that area is still in the pipeline. He stated it might be more of a long-term solution to add more residents to Midlothian and less to Matoaca in that area and still keep both districts contiguous. Mr. Parthemos stated that could be done, but the change only impacts approximately 65 people as opposed to more than 1, 000 people east of the area, and the idea was to keep the districts more intact. Mr. Sowers noted that there are some high ultimate intended uses under the Route 288 Corridor Plan for that area and inquired how staff would anticipate population changing in the corridor in the next 10 years and whether additional residents would have to be added to Midlothian if Matoaca continues to grow at the same rate. Mr. Parthemos stated it is probable that that would be the case wherever the boundary lines are drawn. He referenced previous redistrictings and noted that prior to 2000, the trend was that Matoaca was growing to the north because that was the area of the county that had not yet developed. He stated beginning with the 2000 redistricting, Matoaca growth started to move back in the other direction, and that is a trend that he thinks will continue over time. 4 Mr. Sowers stated students in the referenced area attend Midlothian Middle School, Midlothian High School and J.B. Watkins Elementary, although they would be residents of the Matoaca District under the proposed plan, indicating that the proposal for this area is difficult for him to understand. He expressed concerns that the Board of Supervisors will be considering the plan on April 27th and must forward it to the federal government by April 29th, indicating that there will be no time for changes to be made after receiving public comment. Mr. Parthemos stated the Board of Supervisors has the ability to make refinements to the plan at the public hearing, indicating that a precedent has been set for doing so in the last two redistricting processes. Mr. L.J. McCoy inquired how staff balanced out the Matoaca and Dale Districts relative to minorities. Mr. Parthemos stated the minority percentages have grown in all five magisterial districts in the last ten years. He further stated that the areas that needed to move the most in Matoaca were the ones that are adjacent to Clover Hill and Midlothian in the northern area of the county, and the minority percentages are less significant than in some of the other areas, so moving those areas out of Matoaca and placing them in Clover Hill and Midlothian results in an increase in the minority percentages in the Matoaca District. He stated, the small area of the Bermuda District proposed to move to the Dale District has a minority population that is greater than the minority population in Dale District today, so moving that area would increase the minority percentage in Dale. He further stated moving both of the precincts will also increase the minority percentage in Dale, indicating that making those changes was fairly easy to do in terms of preserving minority percentages. Mr. Andrew McEnheimer, a Dale District resident, requested data relative to the number of minorities versus the number of non- minorities. Mr. Parthemos stated he could provide that information to Mr. McEnheimer for all of the magisterial districts. Ms. Wendy Austin, a resident of the Midlothian District, inquired whether school districts or other factors, such as cultural interaction, were used in determining the distribution of residents among the districts. 5 Mr. Parthemos stated staff does not consider school districts but does attempt not to split communities to the extent possible, although that is not always possible. Ms. Austin stated GIS mapping and projections were used for the Draft Comprehensive Plan and inquired whether the county looked into that with the redistricting proposals. Mr. Parthemos stated the county certainly does not want to move residents right now if they think they will have to be moved back in ten years; however, staff did not spend a lot of time looking at the future . Mr. Bill Hastings referenced newspaper articles four years ago that suggested moving from five to seven districts and inquired whether this was considered during the redistricting process. Mr. Parthemos stated he knows there was some discussion regarding the issue several years ago, indicating that an increase in magisterial districts would result in additional costs to the county. He further stated this would be difficult to accomplish due to the "fast-track" process that the state is requiring. In response to Mr. Hastings' question, Mr. Parthemos provided details of additional costs that would be incurred with increasing the number of magisterial districts. Mr. McEnheimer inquired which of the two plans staff will recommend to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Parthemos stated staff will not recommend one plan over another. He further stated the Board of Supervisors requested that both plans be advertised for public input, and they will make whatever choice they deem appropriate. Mr. Olsen referenced discussion at the 2001 redistricting surrounding the Davis District and stated when that district was created, population from Clover Hill and Dale Districts moved to Midlothian. He further stated he inquired at that time why 33 percent of the minority population who voted in the Dale District was being moved to Midlothian, indicating that he now sees a continuation of that with the moving of the Manchester portion of the Clover Hill District. He inquired what the minority population is in that area of the Clover Hill District proposed to be moved to the Midlothian District. Mr. Parthemos stated he could provide Mr. Olsen with that data, indicating that it would result in an increased minority percentage 6 in the Midlothian District. He further stated both the Midlothian and Clover Hill Districts must add additional residents and there is a limited number of areas that can be moved to reach the required population percentages, indicating that this was the proposal that the Board of Supervisors directed staff to advertise. Ms. Tyla Matteson, a Dale District resident, referenced Mr. Olsen's comments regarding racial movement that occurred in 2001 and inquired whether there is something similar happening with this redistricting relative to racially changing areas. Mr. Parthemos stated the Dale District is currently within the plus or minus 5 percent, and both Clover Hill and Midlothian are significantly under the required 5 percent, so residents cannot be moved out of Clover Hill or Midlothian into the Dale District without increasing problems mathematically, so it makes more sense to move residents from Bermuda, which has too many residents and is also adjacent to Dale, to equalize the population by having the Bermuda and Dale Districts trade population between the two districts. He noted that both plans increase the minority population in the Dale District and decrease the minority population in the Bermuda District, which needs to occur in light of the representation from the Dale District. He stated the plan calls for a heavily populated area in the Matoaca District to be moved to the Clover Hill and Midlothian Districts, which will equalize the Midlothian population, as well as increase its minority population, while decreasing the Clover Hill minority population. Mr. Charlie Bates inquired why the meeting is being held since, according to newspaper, the Dale District Supervisor already supports Plan B. Mr. Parthemos stated he cannot answer that question. Mr. Olsen inquired, based on Mr. Parthemos' answer to Ms. Matteson's question, what is the logic of moving the Manchester District out of Clover Hill when both the Midlothian and Clover Hill Districts need to gain population. Mr. Parthemos stated there are several different ways to approach the redistricting process, and after looking at the maps and other factors, these two plans were decided upon to bring forward for advertisement. He further stated there are other approaches that could be taken, but they would involve moving greater numbers of residents from one magisterial district to another. 7 There being no further questions or discussion, Mr. Parthemos closed the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Z Wzw _ ~ W ~ V ~ Z~Z ,~ ?~~ V R r ~- J s 0 0 J Y ~ I ~ N ~ ~+ J .d C ~ d .a d 0~~~3 r U c \ J b ~ (~ v ~ ~ rr / v y L + vJ S 1. -~. ~:J W J ' ` J ~ ~ V Q ~ 1 c 1-~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~J ~,~ 'i ~' ~ y ~ ~ CSI a _ ~ ~ ~ ~ \\ V ~/`- t ~ v ~ ~ N ~ . -'J ~ ~ C~ ~ N C~ (~ ~~? Q` ~ ~ ~ .S ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~' a ~ c7 fr ~ ~ ~ N N - ~ ~, , _ _ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ S ~~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S-- C ~ v v a J _ d Z ~ Q ~ ~ ~' ~ c ~ ~ v ~, ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ o ~ \ ~~ ~ ~ C~. J w Z Z z zw ~w U}~ F yZ ~~ ~~ V S d J s 0 0 J Y d I ~ .a •v C d d 0~~~3 ~ °v = $ v ~ S ~ W d ~ a J G ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V - ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ Q ~ ~~ i ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ .~ i~d ~L _" H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 v a \ ~ ~ ~ a_ v ~ ~_ tq N L U a ad ~ ~' 4 ° ~ v~ \ ' o ~ O ~ ~ ~ ,,,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~= n - z ~ , ~ .` ~, 3 0 as m a a Z O ~- 'i a .. ~ ~, . v ! ' ~ ~ ~ Your Community Newspaper Since 1995 P.O. Box 1616, Midlothian, Virginia 23l l3 • Phone: (8(14) 545-7500 • Fax: (804) 744-3269 • Email: news@chesterfieldobservercom • Internet: www.chesterfieldobserver.com ADVERTISING AFFIDAVIT Client Description Ad Size Cost (per issue Chesterfield County LN: Redistricting 4-6 Board of Supervisors 1 / l OP - 1 in. $224.67 The Observer, Inc. TAKE >VO't'K~E Please take notice drt tree Conaty of Chestetfieid wiE aeNduet two ppuubblic mmeetirtgs on tree Cook peen to redistrict ty' magistereal disKk~ts,and to change the bounddaarriies of voting precincts. The meetings will be held at the following places and times: (1) Monday, Aprilll, 2011 at 7:00p.rq. atthe Public Meeting Room in the Chesterfield County Administrateon$uilding, Route 10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Virginia; and (2)"Thur:Elr~ April 14, 2011 at 7:00 p.m at Greenfield »ea~r~rr Sdwd, 10751 Savvy Road, Rtdtmond, A 23235. Publisher of CHESTERFIELD OBSERVER This is to certify that the attached legal notice was published by Chesterfield Observer in the county of Chesterfield, state of Virginia, on the following date(s): 4/6/2011 Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~`~ day of I~pr ~ ~ , 2011. Repreventatives of County staff will make a redistricting presentation at each of these meetings, after which members of the public will have an opportunety to comment and ask questions.on the subject of redistricting. Legal Affiant A copy of the. frill text of twa proposed ordinances and of maps showing two redistricting plans. which the Board of Supervisors will con$i~er at a public b on April 27, 2W7~== in dte Cotmty Publec lvleeting Room at the .Chesterfield County Administration Building, Rt.10 and Lori Road, Chesterfield, Vtrginia, are on 51e in the Office of the .Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator's Office, Room 304, 9901 Lori Road, Chesterfield, V' and maybe examined by all interested .persons betweea the hp~~etrseto~f 8:30 a:m. and 5:00 tpnfonaytfoe is derinedPr~ ff further contact Me'. ~f~ ~+..>~ County Aaoreel, at (t101) 74~-1491. ,.yam es T, Grooms Jr., Notary Public My commission expires: February 29, 2012 Commission I.D. 7182093 (SEAL) ,,~~,,,~~rornrrrq, ~ 1.1t ';' i ~ ; o EXPIRES o~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ 02-89-12 ' = <11t2093 ~;. O Q ~' ~~+ •,. THIS IS NOT A BILL. PLEASE PAY FROM INVOICE. THANK YOU.