Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-02-2006-7aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: March 2, 2006 SUBJECT: Receive Public. Comments on Proposal 5 Along with Related Items for a November 2006 Referendum on District Elections for the Board of County Commissioners Action Agenda Item No. ~] ~_ DEPARTMENT: County Attorney, Planning, County Commissioners & County Manager PUBLIC HEARING (YIN) No ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Citizen Petition Cover Sheet 2) Draft Principles 3) Draft Process/Timetable 4) Copy of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-60 5) Statistical Data and Map for Proposal INFORMATION CONTACT: Geof Gledhill, County Attorney, 732-2196 Greg Wilder, 245-2300 David Hunt, 245-2130 John Link, 245-2300 Brian Carson, 245-2595 Craig Benedict, 245-2592 PURPOSE: To provide 1) an opportunity for public comment on the Board's plan to pursue Proposal 5 along with related items for a November 2006 referendum on district elections for the Board of County Commissioners; 2) to provide the Board with an opportunity to consider the content of a Resolution calling for the referendum; and 3) to give the Board the opportunity to provide comments, questions and any further direction to staff,. BACKGROUND: At the Board's .lanuary 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 are elected in Orange County.. The representatives requested that the Board review the current method of election for the members of the Board, which entails all five members of the Board being nominated and elected to staggered four-year terms on an at-large basis. The petition requesting an alternative method and manner by which Orange County Commissioners are elected is attached. The County Manager and County staff reviewed the issue and the petition submitted and provided a report to the Board at the Board's May 5, 2005 work session. The report included information on the following: 1) the legal framework for stn~cture 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; z 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. The report was intended to provide an initial framework of information upon which the Board of Commissioners could deliberate and determine as appropriate any further steps in evaluating this issue and responding to the request and petition submitted. The Board then pursued a series of meetings over the past nine months, Those meetings included two public hearings, one on August 24 and the other on August 31, 2005, to receive input from the public on this issue, The Board then discussed, at an October 17, 2005 work session, five initial draft maps/plans, an introductory preamble, a draft set of Principles, and a draft Process/Timetable, From that meeting, the Board scheduled and conducted a public hearing at its November 2, 2005 regular meeting on three of the initial draft maps/plans, The next discussion occurred at the Board's November 15, 2005 regular meeting, At that meeting, the Board determined that it would like to invest more time at a work session far specific discussion of the issues and possibilities associated with the district election of commissioners, The Board did approve a motion at the meeting ".,.[to] pursue a district election system and have a referendum in the general election of 2006 on the map that the Board of Commissioners adopt." The Board also briefly discussed district elections at the January 20, 2006 BOCC Retreat as part of the "Priorities' review, and members of the Board indicated an interest in reaching a conclusion on district elections discussions with two additional meetings, if possible. The most recent discussion occurred at a February 16, 2006 work session, during which the Board decided: 1) there would be a total of 5 members on the Board in a district plan submitted to the voters; 2) the district map/plan would be the one designated as "Proposal 5", with one member from District 1 (all of the County except Chapel Hill Township); two members from District 2 (encompassing Chapel Hill Township); and two At-t_arge members; 3) members elected from District 1 and District 2 must reside in their respective District, but the qualified voters of the entire County would nominate all candidates for and elect all members of the Board; 4) confirmed that a referendum on "Proposal 5" along with related items would occur in November 2006 (As noted above, the Board, at its November 75, 2005 regular meeting, had already determined to have "a referendum in the general election of 20Qti on the map and plan that the Board of Commissioners adopt'; 5) confirmed that implementation of the district election plan for the Board of County Commissioners, with the approval of County voters in November 2006, would begin with the 2008 Primary Election. Tonight's meeting provides the opportunity far public comment on the February 16, 2006 decision of the Board and on district elections for the Board of County Commissioners. To initiate an alteration in the structure of the Board, the Board must adopt a Resolution as prescribed by N,C. Gen.. Stat. § 153A-60.. The Resolution must: 1) briefly but completely describe the proposed alterations; 2) prescribe the manner of transition from the existing structure to the altered structure; 3 3) define the electoral districts, if any, and apportion the members among the districts; 4) call a special referendum on the question of adoption of the alterations. The referendum shall be held and conducted by the county board of elections. The referendum may be held at the same time as any other state, county or municipal primary, election, special election or referendum, or on any date set by the board of county commissioners, provided, that such referendum shall not be held within the period of time beginning 60 days before and ending 60 days after any other primary, election, special election or referendum held in the county, Regarding a transition process, Commissioner Gordon has recommended the following for Proposal 5 (edited and abridged by the County Attorney to accommodate the Board's February 16, 2006 decision): 1) individuals seeking election to the Board of Commissioners will be nominated in primary elections to represent each party recognized in North Carolina; 2) the first election for which this election system will apply will be in 2008, At that time, one seat in District 2 and one At Large seat will become available; 3) in the 2008 election, the two commissioners whose terms expire in 2008, along with any other qualified candidate, may choose to run either in District 2 or At Large, the District seat based on residency. The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate the candidates for and elect the member of the District 2 seat and the member of the At Large seat both for four year terms; 4) in the 2010 election, the three commissioners whose terms expire in 2010, along with any other qualified candidate, may choose to run either in District 1, District 2, or At Large, the District seats based on residency. The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate the candidates far and elect the member of the District 1 seat, the member of the District 2 seat and the member of the At Large seat all far four year terms. Following the adoption by the Board of the Resolution required by N.C. Gen, Stat. § 153A-60, the Resolution will be "published" also as required by that statute, The law does not prescribe when the Resolution is to be published. The options are that the publication could occur soon after the Resolution is adopted or sometime reasonably close to and prior to the 2008 primary election. Alternatively, it could be published both times, It is recommended that the Resolution be published in the News of Orange and in the Chapel Hill Herald. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving public comment on the Board's plan to pursue Proposal 5 along with related items for a November 2006 referendum on district elections for the Board of County Commissioners. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board 1) receive public comment on the Board's plan to pursue Proposal 5 along with related items for a November 2006 referendum on district elections for the Board of County Commissioners; 2) consider and give direction to staff and the County Attorney concerning the content of the Resolution; and 3) provide comments, questions and any other direction to staff. January 24, 2005 Petition Cover Sheet 1 Fair and Equal Tlistrict Representation --' on the Or$nge County Board of Commissioners Orange County is a diverse area comprised of identifiable communities which reflect the diversity of the county including farmers, blue collar workers, white collar workers, academics, professionals, and students, all of diverse racial and ethnic self identifications. It is important in our democracy that the diversity of the community be reflected in its chosen representatives. For this reason North Carolina Law permits the voters of counties to choose commissioners by electoral districts with each district being as nearly equal in population as practicable. Further, North Cazalina Law permits the qualified voters of each district to nominate candidates and elect members who reside in the district far seats apportioned to that district. It is also permissible to have some commissioners allocated to the county as a whole, wham the qualified voters of the entire county nominate and elect. (NCGS §153-58(3)b) Currently all Orange County Commissioners are elected countywide, Thus the Iazge city and urban population in and arowyd Chapel I-Iill and Carrboro -- control the electoral process while the more rural areas of'the county lack the population to elect someone from their areas who would be able to represent their views in the deliberations and decisions of the Orange County Commissioners. The undersigned residents of Orange County petition the Orange County Board of Commissioners to alter the method and manner by which Orange County Commissioners are elected to afford equa] and fair representation to the residents of the county by adopting NCGS §153•~58(3)b, permitting the voters of <)range County to choose commissioners by electoral districts with each district being as nearly equal in population as practicable. Further, that the qualified voters of each district nominate candidates and elect members who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district and that some commissioners, but not more than half of the boazd, be allocated to the county as a whole, to be nominated and voted upon by the qualified voters of the entire county. DRAFT STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRINCIPLES Voters should have the opportunity to vote, in the general election, for a majority of the members of the Board of Conutrissioners. The establishment of district boundaries and any necessary revisions should be based on decennial census data from the United States Census Bureau. District lines should, where feasible, follow already-existing township lines, precinct lines, roadways, and/or other boundary lines. District lines should be as simple and as easy to understand as possible. However, in order to comply with any statutory and constitutional provisions, delineations such as including a small or substantial portion of a township or community in one district may be necessary, thereby designating the remaining portion of the township or community as part of another district, To the degree possible, district boundaries should be configured to provide the opportunity for areas more urban in nature to produce commissioners from more urban areas and areas more rural in nature to produce conunissioners from more rural areas. Any district plan should maintain a staggered term system for members of the Board of Commissioners. Any district plan should continue to provide African-Americans, women, and other minorities an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Adherence to the North Carolina statutory requirements that the district populations be as nearly equal as practicable and the Constitutional provision of one person-one vote and the existing population distribution in Orange County precludes the establishment of one commissioner representing each township in the County. Any district plan should foster greater participation of the public in the electoral process. DRAFT 6 STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROCESS/TIMETABLE ACTIONS TO DATE January 2005 May 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 February 2006 FUTURE (Proposed) March 2006 November 2006 May 2008 Submission of Petition to BOCC Staff Report to BOCC Two Public Hearings Conducted by BOCC to Receive Public Input County Staff Begins Review of Orange County Decennial Census Data and Formulates Draft Plans with Potential District Lines Based on Proposals Received from BOCC Members BOCC Initial Review of Draft Plans including Potential District Lines First BOCC BOCC Public Hearing on Draft Plans Regular Meeting including Potential District Lines and on November 2, Continued BOCC Review of Draft Plans 2005 including Potential District Lines Second BOCC Additional BOCC Discussion and Decision Regular Meeting to Schedule Further Discussion at a Work on November' 15, Session - BOCC approved motion for 2005 November 2006 Referendum BOCC Worlc Additional Discussion and Review of Draft Session on Maps/Plans February 16, 2006 First BOCC Receive Public Comments on Proposal s Regular Meeting Along with Related Items for a November on March 2, 2006 Referendum on District Elections for 2006 the Board of County Commissioners Referendum by County Voters on B000- Approved Plan (Already scheduled based on BOCC Adopted Motion on 11/15/OS) Implementation of Adopted Plan (IF APPROVED BY VOTERS) '~~ 11-117- 175 ll:l7t5 CtlUl9- §153A-59 ART. 4. FORM OF QOVERNMENT §153A-60 Local Modification -- (.4a to Part 4 of Article 4) Blsdea: 19&7, c.. 646; Dare; 1991, Ex, Sees„ c 2, s. 4 CAs to applicability and contin- gency pravisiona, see 1991 Session Laws, Ex. Sesa., c. 2, a, 7): Lee (as to Part 4 and (1.5. 153A-58):1989, c. 195, ss, 4, 5 (effective June i, 1969, but only applicable to resolutions ap- proved on or before Aug, 1, 1990), ae amended by 1989, c. 770, s. 43. Lee (as to ]{art 4 and G.S.. 153A~S8):1989, e. 195, sa, 4, 5 (affective Juns 1, 1989, but only applicable to resolutions ap- proved on or before Aug. 1, 1990), se amended by 1989, a 770, s, 43.. cASS NoTEs Cited in Ratctifr v. County ofBunwmbe, 759 F.2d 1183 (4th Cir. 198,5); Ratcliff v County of Buncombe, 663 F Supp. 1008 (W.D.N~G 1967). § 1,58A-59. Implementation when board has members serving a combination of four- and two-year terms. If the structure of the board of commissioners is altered to establish a board with an odd number of members servingg a'combination of four- and twayear terms of office, the now structure shall be implemented as follows: At the first election all members of the board shall be elected. A simile majority of those elected shall be elected for two-year terms, and the remaining members shall be elected for four-year terms, The candidate or cas}didates receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected for the four-year terms. At each subsequent general election, s simple majority of the board shall be elected. Thst candidate who is elected with the least number of votes shall be elected for atwo-yeaz term, and the other member or members elected shall be elected for four-year terms. (1927, c. 91, s, 3; 1969, c. 717, s. l; 1973, c, 822, s, l,) ~ I53A-60. Initiation of alterations by resolution. The board of commissioners shall initiate any alteration in the structure of the board by adopting a resolution. The resolution shall: (1) Briefly but completely describe the proposed alterations; (2) Prescribe the manner of transition from the existing structure to the altered structure; (3) Define the electoral districts, if' any, and apportion the members among the districts; (4) Call a special referendum on the question of adoption of the alter- ations. The referendum shall be held and conducted by the wunty board of elections. The referendum maybe held at the same time as any other state, county or municipal primary, election, special election or referendum, or on any date set by the board of county commission- ers, provided, that such referendum shall not be held within the period of time beg' ing 60 days before and ending 60 days after any other primary, election, special election or referendum held in the county. Upon its adoption, the resolution shaA be published in full. (1927, c. 91, s. 4; 1969, c. 717, s. 1; 1973, c. 822, s, 1; 1977, c. 382,) Local Modification. -Craven: 2001447, e. 1 (applicble only to resolutions adopted before Januarq 1, 2002); Dare: 1991, Ez. Sass„ c. 2, e. 1 (AB to applicability and contingency provi- sions, see 1991 Session haws, Ex. Sesa.., c 2, s, 7); Lee: 1988, c.195, s, l (effective Juae 1,1968, but only applicable to resolutions approved on or before Aug. 1, 1990); Wayne: 1987, e. 119 (only applicable to resolutions approved on or before Nov. 30, 1968).. 925 1-;Sl;i Y17L1 t74 U-8tS f Proposal 5 Tl:e populatiar ruuubers are,~•om the 2000 Census. 115,531 =County Population 5 members 2 Districts 115,531/.3 = 38510 District 1 = 38510 ("ideal population") 5% deviation +/- 1,926 Range =.36,584 to 40,4.36 District 2 = 77020 ("ideal population") 5% deviation +/- .3,$51 Range = 7.3,169 to 80,871 Deviation DI = 1..19%(.38,95.3) D2 = 0.57% (76,578)