Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-07-2011 - 5lORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: June 7, 2011 Action Age a I Item No. SUBJECT: Resolution Acknowledging the Results from the 2010 Census Indicating Orange County Remains in Lawful Compliance With Applicable Requirements for Board of County Commissioners' Nominatin Districts DEPARTMENT: County Attorney, Planning, & PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No County Manager ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: John Roberts, County Attorney, 245- A) June 27, 2006 Approved Resolution 2318 and Election Map/Plan Brian Carson, GIS Project Coordinator, B) Population Deviations for the 245-2595 Approved 2006 Map/Plan Greg Wilder, County Manager's Office, C) Current Electoral Districts along with 245-2300 New Population Numbers Based on the 2010 Census D) List of Issues of Interest with Maps 1, 2&3 E) Draft Resolution Acknowledging the Results From The 2010 Census Indicating Orange County Remains in Lawful Compliance With Applicable Requirements for Board of County Commissioners' Nominatin Districts PURPOSE: To approve a Resolution Acknowledging the Results from the 2010 Census Indicating Orange County Remains in Lawful Compliance With Applicable Requirements for Board of County Commissioners' Nominating Districts. BACKGROUND: At the Board of Commissioners' January 24, 2005 regular meeting, representatives of a group of Orange County residents addressed the Board and submitted a 1200-signature petition to the Board regarding the method by which the members of the Board of Commissioners were elected in Orange County. The representatives requested that the Board review the current method of election for the members of the Board, which entailed all five members of the Board being nominated and elected to staggered four-year terms on an at- large basis. At the Board's direction, the County Manager and County staff reviewed the issue and the petition submitted and provided a report to the Board at a May 5, 2005 work session. The report provided an initial framework of information upon which the Board of Commissioners 2 could deliberate and determine as appropriate any further steps in evaluating the issue and responding to the request and petition submitted. The Board then pursued a series of meetings over the next thirteen months including public hearings, Board discussions on possible draft district maps/plans for either a five or seven- member Board, and decisions on specific map/plan issues. The public hearings and discussions led to the development of a map/plan (identified in 2006 as "Proposal D") for aseven-member board that met all statutory requirements. The County Attorney prepared a draft resolution calling for a November 2006 referendum in concert with "Proposal D", and the Board approved that resolution and the election plan/map at the June 27, 2006 regular meeting. The approved resolution and election map/plan are provided at Attachment A. The population deviations for the approved 2006 map/plan are provided at Attachment B. In the November 2006 referendum, the voters subsequently approved the election plan/map with more than two-thirds supporting the initiative. The election plan/map was implemented with the May 2008 primary election and all seven members of the current Board have qualified and been elected under the plan. REVIEW OF DISTRICT ELECTIONS MAP BASED ON 2010 CENSUS The final numbers for the 2010 Census were published earlier this year providing new population numbers for Orange County as a whole as well as for the two current electoral districts. North Carolina General Statute 153A-22 states, "If a county is divided into electoral districts for the purpose of nominating or electing persons to the board of commissioners, the board of commissioners may find as a fact whether there is substantial inequality of population among the districts." Population growth or decline in districts can lead to significant deviations in the numbers of residents between districts, thereby compromising the integrity of the districts and the election plan as a whole. Therefore the Board may, but is not required to, review the impact of the new Census numbers to determine if there is substantial inequality. Attachment C is a map showing the current electoral districts along with the new population numbers based on the 2010 census. In the 2006 adopted plan (Attachments A and B), Orange County met its goal of keeping the population deviations within five percent of the exact population totals for each district, less than a total of ten percent deviation (referred to nationally as the Ten Percent Rule). Attachment C shows that Districts 1 and 2 are still within the Ten Percent Rule deviation criteria based on the 2010 Census data. Since the Districts are, combined, within the ten percent deviation allowed by law there can be no finding of substantial inequality. Without a violation of the Ten Percent Rule, it is highly unlikely that any group or individual could make any rational argument that there is substantial inequality between the districts. It is even more unlikely that any judicial challenge to a decision not to redistrict could survive a summary judgment in the County's favor. Attachment D is a list of issues of potential interest. Among the issues discussed: whether there will be any voting precinct adjustments by the Board of Elections, whether adjustments to the Orange/Alamance boundary line will impact population numbers, whether District 1 should be redrawn to extend northward, and whether the Patterson Voting Precinct should be placed entirely in one district or the other. Even though there can be no finding of substantial inequality the Board may, in considering these issues, wish to redraw the district lines. 3 Attachment E is a draft resolution for Board consideration acknowledging there is no substantial inequality revealed by the 2010 census results. Although it is not legally necessary, it may be prudent for the Board to approve the resolution. As noted above North Carolina General Statute 153A-22 states a local government "may" review the census numbers to determine if substantial inequality exists. Alternatively, should the Board, in considering the issues in Attachment D or any other issues that may arise, wish to adjust the district lines, it must have those lines drawn and adopted by December 4, 2011 in order to be effective for the 2012 election. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with consideration of the Resolution Acknowledging the Results from the 2010 Census Indicating Orange County Remains in Lawful Compliance With Applicable Requirements for Board of County Commissioners' Nominating Districts. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends, and the County Attorney concurs, that the Board approve the Resolution Acknowledging the Results from the 2010 Census Indicating Orange County Remains in Lawful Compliance With Applicable Requirements for Board of County Commissioners' Nominating Districts (provided at Attachment E) and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution. RN4d. + q NORTH CAROLINA ORANGE COUNTY RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL REFERENDUM ON THE QUESTION OF AN ALTERATION IN THE STRUCT'tJIZE OF AND MODE OF ELECTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has, from time to time, considered changing the structure and mode of electing the members of the Board; and WI~REAS, on January 24, 2005 the Board received a petition from citizens of the County, requesting the Board to alter the method and manner by which Orange County Commissioners are elected to include electoral districts; and WHEREAS, in response to the January 24, 2005 petition, Orange County staff presented a report to the Board on May ~, 2005, which report addressed: 1. the legal framework for structure of boards of county commissioners; 2. the various methods of at-large election, district election, and combination of at- large/district election utilized for boards of commissioners in the 99 other North Carolina counties; 3. a history of past discussions by the Orange County Board of Commissioners in regard to Board representation and election; and 4. some limited boundaries and statistical information showing the population distribution as it may relate to the consideration formulation of district representation for Orange County. WHEREAS, the Board considered the staff report, conducted public hearings and has continued to work on the concept of altering the structure of the Board and on specific alteration 4 H:~Resolutions~2006~Resolution Prop D Residency and Nom by Dist adopted 62706.doc 5 proposals since May 5, 2005, culminating in this Resolution calling for a special referendum on the structure of and the mode of electing members. of the Board of Commissioners. NOW, THEREFORE,' BE IT RESOLVED, by the Orange County Boazd of Commissioners, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 153A-58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 I. there is hereby called a special referendum conducted in Orange County on November 7, 2006 on the question of whether there will be an alteration in the structure of and mode of electing the Orange County Board of Commissioners. II. The proposition that will be printed on the ballot is as follows: "Shall the structure of the Board of Commissioners of Orange County be altered as follows: change the boazd from five members to seven members; 2. change from the qualified voters of the entire County nominating all candidates for and electing all members of the board to a structure in which there is one three member district (District 1), one two member district (District 2) and two members at large; members shall reside in and represent the districts according to the apportionment plan adopted; the qualified voters of each district shall nominate candidates who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district, and the qualified voters of the entire county shall nominate candidates for seats apportioned to the county at large; and the qualified voters of the entire county shall elect all the members of the board. District 1 consists of that portion of Chapel Hill Township that is south of a line. that begins at the boundary between Bingham Township and Chapel Hill Township, then goes east along the boundary of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro and Orange County school administrative units to Eubanks Road; east along Eubanks Road to MLK, Jr. Boulevard (State Highway 86); H:~Resolutions~2006~Resolution Prop D Residency and Nom by Dist adopted 62706.doc 6 north along MLK, Jr. Boulevard to Interstate 40; east along Interstate 40 and ending at the boundary between Orange County and Durham County. District 2 consists of the rest of Orange County. 3. The transition process is: 1) -The first election for which this election system will apply will be in 2008. The three commissioners elected in 2006 will serve the remainder of their unexpired terms. Two of the three seats in District 1, one of the two seats in District 2 and one of the two At Large seats will become available in 2008. 2) Four commissioners will be elected in the 2008 election. The two commissioners whose terms expire in 2008, along with other qualified candidates, may choose to run for two of the three District 1 seats, for one of the two District 2 seats or for one of the two At Large seats. The qualified voters of District 1 will nominate candidates for the District 1 seats. The qualified voters of District 2 will nominate a candidate for the District 2 seat. The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate a candidate for the At Large seat. The qualified voters of the entire County will elect the members of the District 1 seats, the member of the District 2 seat, and the member of the At Large seat, all for four year terms. 3) Three commissioners will be elected in the 2010 election. The three commissioners whose terms expire in 2010, along with other qualified candidates, may choose to run for one of the three District 1 seats, for one of the two District 2 seats or-for one of the two At Large seats. The qualified voters of District 1 will nominate a candidate for the District 1 seat. The qualified voters of District 2 will nominate a candidate for the District 2 seat. The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate a candidate for the At Large seat. The H:~Resolutions~2006~Resolution Prop D Residency and Nom by Dist adopted 62706.doc 7 qualified voters of the entire County will elect the member of the District 1 seat, the member of the District 2 seat, and the member of the At Large seat, all for four year terms. ~ YES. 0 NO." III. This Resolution shall be published, shall be filed and indexed in the ordinance book of the County and shall be available for public inspection in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Commissioners, all as provided by law. IV. A map showing electoral District land-electoral District 2 is attached hereto and thereby made a part of this Resolution. V. As provided by law, if a majority of the votes cast in the November 7, 2006 special referendum are in favor of the plan submitted to the voters, the plan shall be put in effect. If a majority of the votes cast in the November 7, 2006 special referendum are against the plan submitted to the voters, this Resolution and. the plan submitted to the voters are void. This the day of ~cP , 2006. Upon motion of Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner ~ the foregoing resolution was adopted this the ~ day of , 2006. Ayes Noes I, Donna S. Baker, Clerk to the Board of Commissioners for the County of Orange, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of so much of the proceedings of said Board at a meeting held on p~ , 2006 as relates in any way to the adoption of the foregoing and that said proceedings are recorded in the minutes of said Board. H:~Resolutions~2006~Resolution Prop D Residency and Nom by Dist adopted 62706.doc 8 WITNESS my hand a seal of said County, this {}~ day of 2006. ' _ C~e~ to the Board of Commissioners 4 ear H:~Resolutions~2006~Resolution Prop D Residency and Nom by Dist adopted 62706.doc * Rural Buffer ~ ~~ Orange County ®~, °`~~`°°° 2000 Census Blocks o Voting Precincts E I e cto ra I Districts Map u «, ~... ~°° Attachment B 2006 Orange County Electoral Districts Map Population Deviation Statistics The population numbers are from the 2000 Census. 115,531 =County Population 7 members 2 Districts 1.15,531 / 5 = 23,106 District 1 (3 members in district) = 69,318 ("ideal population") 5% deviation +/- 3,466 Range = 65,852 to 72,784 District 2 (2 members in district) = 46,213 ("ideal population") 5% deviation +/- 2,311 Range = 43,902 to 48,524 Deviation 10 D1 = 2.99 % (71,389) D2 = 4.48 % (44,142) Attachment C Voting -Voting Curren a 133,801 82,412 80,280 +/-4,014 + 2,132 + 2.66 k= 51,389 53,520 +/- 2,676 - 2,131 - 3.98 People per Commissioner: 133,801/5=26,760 One person, one vote applies to people being elected from a district not to a person who is elected at-large. This is why the total population is divided by 5 and not 7. Attachment D Other Issues Related to Board of Commissioners' Structure/Districts As part of staffs 2011 general review of the Board of Commissioners' structure/districts in conjunction with the 2010 census, several other related issues were considered. Staff has provided information regarding those issues below. ISSUE #1 Will there be any voting precinct boundary changes in the County during 2011 or 2012? STAFF FOLLOW-UP According to Orange County Board of Elections Director Tracy Reams, there are no plans for any voting precinct boundary changes in the County during 2011 or 2012. ISSUE #2 How will the final delineation of the Orange-Alamance county line affect the population numbers for the County, District 1, and District 2, and what is/will be the impact on the Board structure and Districts? STAFF. FOLLOW-UP Staff has determined that the overall impact on population numbers from the delineation of the Orange-Alamance county line will be minimal. The maximum effect on County population numbers will be 200+/- residents. (This increase or decrease would all occur within District 2.) Out of 133,801 County residents, a change of 200+/- residents equates to less than one- quarter of one percent (.0025), a difference which minimally impacts the population deviation percentages for both Districts 1 and 2. 12 The Orange-Alamance county line delineation has negligible effect on the population numbers, Board Structure and Districts_ 13 ISSUE #3 The northern boundary line for District 1 follows a combination of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools district line for the northwestern section of the boundary, Eubanks Road for the middle section of the boundary, and Interstate 40 for the northeastern section of the boundary. Can the middle and northeastern sections of the boundary line be extended northward to match the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools district line so, in that area, the entire northern boundary line for District 1 matches the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools district line? STAFF FOLLOW-UP When the northern boundary for District 1 was established in 2006, the Board of Commissioners and staff investigated the possibility of the entire northern boundary line for District 1 matching the Chapel .Hill-Carrboro City Schools' district line. However, matching the Schools' district line increased the population numbers for District 1 and created a substantial deviation from the District 2 population numbers. For this reason, the boundary line for the middle and northeastern sections was established just south of the Schools' district line to follow Eubanks Road and Interstate 40. Staff has revisited this issue again in 2011 and has. found that matching the Schools' district line still inflates the population numbers for District 1, thereby creating a substantial deviation from the District 2 population numbers (See Map #1). Matching the northern boundary for District 1 with the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools district line is possible. However, an adjustment to move some other portion of District 1 and its residents to District 2 would be necessary to reduce the population deviations. District 1's population numbers would be too high and District 2's would be too low, and therefore additional district boundary changes would be required to decrease the deviations. ISSUE #4 The northern boundary line for District 1 follows a combination of the Chapel Hill- Carrboro City Schools district line for the northwestern section of the boundary, Eubanks Road for the middle section of the boundary, and Interstate 40 for the northeastern section of the boundary. This boundary line creates a split for the Patterson voting precinct, causing the small, southern-most portion of the precinct to be located in District 1 and the substantial majority northern-most portion of the precinct to be located in District 2. Can the entire Patterson voting precinct be made part of either District 1 or District 2? 14 STAFF FOLLOW-UP Placing all of the Patterson voting precinct into either District 1 or District 2 is possible. Placement of A!I of the Patterson Votinq Precinct into District 1 The placement of all of the Patterson voting precinct in District 1 is possible. However, placing all of the voting precinct into District 1 would require corresponding changes to the District 1 and District 2 boundaries elsewhere. This would need to occur in order to address the resulting significant population deviations between the Districts if all of Patterson was part of District 1 (See Map #2). Placement of All of the Patterson Votinq Precinct into District 2 The placement of all of the Patterson voting precinct in District 2 is possible The small southernmost portion of the Patterson voting precinct could be moved from District 1 and included with the larger portion of the Patterson voting. precinct in District 2. This adjustment would further decrease the population. deviations between District 1 and District 2 (See Map #3). As a point of information, staff notes that an electoral split for the Patterson voting precinct preceded the 2006 Board structure/Districts establishment. The Patterson voting precinct was and still is currently split based on School District boundaries. The small, southern-most portion of the Patterson voting precinct and part of the northern portion of the precinct are included within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools district while the remaining northern-most portion of the precinct is part of the Orange County- Schools district. Addressing_ the split associated with the Board structure/Districts is possible; however, it should be noted that the Patterson voting precinct split based on School District boundaries would remain. Map 1 15 Voting - Voting Curren 133, 801 83, 874 80, 280 +/- 4, 014 + 3594 +4.48% 49, 927 53, 520 +/- 2, 676 - 3593 ~ , People per Commissioner: 133,801/5=26,760 One person, one wte applies to people being elected from a district not to a person who is elected at-large. This is why the total population is divided by 5 and not 7. Map 2 ~ s One person, one wte applies to people being elected from a district not to a person who is elected at-large. This is why the total population is divided by 5 and not 7. People per Commissioner: 133,801/5=26,760 Map 3 ~~ Voting C _ Voting C One person, one wte applies to people being elected from a district not to a person who is elected at-large. This is why the total population is divided by 5 and not 7. People per Commissioner: 133,801/5=26,760 Draft Attachment E ~ ~' ~ - a ~ (~ 1 d 5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGING THE RESULTS FROM THE 2010 CENSUS INDICATING ORANGE COUNTY REMAINS IN LAWFUL COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' NOMINATING DISTRICTS WHEREAS, in 2005 and 2006 following a petition by Orange County residents to change the manner of nominating Orange County Commissioners, Orange County began the process of creating nominating districts for Orange County Commissioner elections; and WHEREAS, in 2008 the first election was held in which the nominating districts were utilized; and WHEREAS, North Carolina General Statute 153A-22 states in pertinent part that in a county where commissioners are nominated or elected by district, the Board of Commissioners "may find as a fact whether there is substantial inequality"; and WHEREAS, State and Federal law require redistricting after each census when there is a finding of such substantial inequality; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the 2010 census Orange County staff examined the results of the census for Orange County in its entirety and also for both nominating districts; and WHEREAS, case law has established that where there is a ten percent (10%) discrepancy between the smallest (by population) and largest districts that there then as a matter of law exists substantial inequality and there must be a redistricting; and WHEREAS, Orange County staff has determined the discrepancy between and among the commissioner nominating districts of Orange County is within the ten percent (10%) legal threshold and that as a matter of law there is no substantial inequality; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 153A-22, finds as a fact that there is no substantial inequality between or among the commissioner nominating districts of Orange.. County. This the 7~' day of June, 2011. Bernadette Pelissier, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners Attest: 18 Donna Baker Clerk to the Board of Commissioners