Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-18-2006-9aORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 18, 2006 Action Agen a Item No. ° 0 SUBJECT: Next Steps on District Elections for the Board of County Commissioners for a November 2006 Referendum DEPARTMENT: County Attorney, Planning, PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No County Commissioners & County Manager ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Citizen Petition Cover Sheet 2) Draft Principles 3) Draft Process/Timetable 4) Copy of N,C. Gen. Stat. § 153A -60 5) 3/21/06 BOCC Adopted Motion (Draft Pending Minutes Approval) 6) Map & Statistical Data for Proposal 3 as Referenced in 3/21/06 Adopted Motion 7) Maps, Statistical Data, and Draft Transition Plans for Additional Seven Geof Gledhill, County Attorney, 732 -2196 Greg Wilder, 245 -2300 David Hunt, 245 -2130 Member Maps /Plans (Follow -up to John Link, 245 -2300 3/21/06 Draft BOCC Adopted Motion) Brian Carson, 245 -2595 8) Map, Statistical Data, and Transition Craig Benedict, 245 -2592 Plan Requested by Commissioner Carey for Seven Member Variation of Proposal 5 PURPOSE: To provide 1) an opportunity for the Board to consider the next steps on district elections for the Board of County Commissioners for a November 2006 referendum; 2) to review and discuss additional sets of maps /plans, statistical data, and draft transition plans for a potential seven member Board of Commissioners; and 3) to give the Board the opportunity to consider any action and /or provide comments, questions and any further direction to staff. BACKGROUND: At the Board's 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 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 2 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 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; 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 ten 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. This was followed by, at an October 17, 2005 work session, Board discussion of five initial draft maps /plans, an introductory preamble, a draft set of Principles, and a draft Process/Timetable. From that meeting, the Board then 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 for 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. At a February 16, 2006 work session, the Board: 1) decided there would be a total of 5 members on the Board in a district plan submitted to the voters; 2) determined 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 -Large members; 3) decided that 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 15, 2005 regular meeting, had already determined to have "a referendum in the general election of 2006 on the map and plan that the Board of Commissioners adopt'), 3 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. The next BOCC consideration of this matter occurred at the March 2, 2006 regular meeting when the Board received public comments on Proposal 5 and other items related to district elections. At the next regular meeting on March 21, 2006, the BOCC further discussed district elections and approved the following motion (currently in draft form pending BOCC approval of the meeting minutes): "Staff to prepare a resolution, a map and a transition plan to be sent to referendum in November 2006, for a 7- member Board of County Commissioners, with 2 members from residential districts in rural Orange County, and at least two members and not more than three members from a residential district in Chapel Hill Township, with the remainder being at -large members. These 7 commissioners would be nominated and elected at- large. This proposal is reflected in Proposal 3, but need not be limited exactly to the district designs in Proposal 3." Based on the reference to Proposal 3 in the adopted motion, a copy of the map /plan and statistical data for Proposal 3 is attached to this abstract for reference purposes. Based on the Board's action at the March 21s` meeting, the Chair and Vice Chair have worked with staff to develop additional sets of maps /plans, statistical data, and draft transitions plans. These documents, which are attached to this abstract, detail potential seven - member configurations for the Board of Commissioners. At the request of the Commissioner Moses Carey, staff has also provided a map /plan, statistical data, and transition plan for a seven - member variation of the Proposal 5 as previously considered by the Board. (Proposal 5, a 5- member proposal, was one of the original district election maps /plans reviewed by the BOCC and the public during this process. Proposal 5 was also one of the three plans presented for public hearing at the Board's November 2, 2005 meeting and was a subject of follow -up discussion by the Board, specifically at the Board's February 16, 2006 work session as noted above.) The new seven member variation of Proposal 5, noted as "Commissioner Carey's Proposal ", proposes 4 members from a district encompassing Chapel Hill Township, two members for a district encompassing the rest of the County, and one at -large member. 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. Following BOCC review and approval of a map /plan and discussion of a draft transition plan, the County Attorney will develop a draft Resolution, including a transition plan, for consideration and approval at an upcoming BOCC meeting. Approval of a Resolution would formally move forward the process for a November 2006 referendum. 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) 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. 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 the Board's consideration of next steps on district elections for the Board of County Commissioners for a November 2006 referendum. There would be some costs associated with the publishing of the Resolution which could be addressed within the current FY 2005 -06 budget. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board 1) consider the next steps on district elections for the Board of County Commissioners for a November 2006 referendum; 2) review and discuss the additional sets of maps /plans, statistical data, and draft transition plans for a potential seven member Board of Commissioners; and 3) consider any action and /or provide comments, questions and any further direction to staff. January 24, 2005 Petition Cover Sheet M• Fair and Equal District Representation on the Orange 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 Carolina Law permits the qualified voters of each district to nominate candidates and elect members who reside in the district for seats apportioned to that district. It is also permissible to have some commissioners allocated to the county as a whole, whom the qualified voters of the entire county nominate and elect. (NCGS § 153- 58(3)b) Currently all Orange County Commissioners are elected countywide. This the large city and urban population in and around Chapel Hill 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 equal and fair representation to the residents of the county by adopting NCGS §153•- 58(3)b, permitting the voters of Orange 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 board, be allocated to the county as a whole, to be nominated and voted upon by the qualified voters of the entire county, 61 - ralift til N 8XII _ a •- a : 9:_x._1 I_ W#01110 _ COMMISSIONERS PRINCIPLES Voters should have the opportunity to vote, in the general election, for a majority of the members of the Board of Commissioners. 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 commissioners 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. STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROCESS /TIMETABLE ACTIONS TO DATE January 2005 January 24, 2005 Submission of Petition to BOCC Regular Meeting May 2005 May 5, 2005 Work Session August 2005 August 24 and 31, 2006 September 2005 October 2005 October 17, 2005 Work Session November 2005 November 2, 2005 BOCC Regular Meeting 6 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 BOCC Public Hearing on Draft Plans including Potential District Lines and Continued BOCC Review of Draft Plans including Potential District Lines November 15, Additional BOCC Discussion and Decision to 2005 BOCC Schedule Further Discussion at a Work Regular Meeting Session — BOCC approved motion for November 2006 Referendum February 2006 February 16, 2006 Additional Discussion and Review of Draft BOCC Work Maps/Plans Session March 2006 March 2, 2006 Receive Public Comments on Proposal 5 BOCC Regular Along with Related Items for a November Meeting 2006 Referendum on District Elections for the Board of County Commissioners March 21, 2006 Additional Discussion and Review of Draft BOCC Regular Maps/Plans — BOCC Approval of Motion for Meeting Seven Member Plan FUTURE (Proposed) April 2006 April 18, 2006 Consideration of the next steps on district Regular Meeting elections for the Board of County Commissioners for a November 2006 referendum November 2006 Referendum by County Voters on BOCC- Approved Plan (Already scheduled based on BOCC Adopted Motion on 11/15/05) May 2008 Implementation of Adopted Plan (IF APPROVED BY VOTERS) §153A-59 ART 4- FORM OF GOVER.NIJENT §153A•6( Local Modification. - G4a to Part 4 of Article 4) Blades 1967, c.. 646; Dare: 1991, Ex. Seas.., c. 2, s. 4 (As to applicability and contin- gency provisions, see 1991 Session Laws, ML Sass., c. 2, s. 7); Lee (ae to Part 4 and G.S. 153.4- 58):1989, c. 195, as. 4, 5 (effective June 1, 1989, but only applicable to resolutions ap- 5K J �I Cited in Ratclifiv. County of Buncombe, 759 E2d 1193 (4th Cir. 1985); Ratcliff v. County of Buncombe, 663 F. Supp, 1003 (W.D.N,C, 1987). proved no or before Aug. 1, 1990), as amendei by 1989, c.. 770, s. 43. Lee (as to ]?art 4 end G 153A- 56):1989, 0.195, se. 4, 5 (effective June 1 1989, but only applicable to resolutions op proved oa or before Aug. 1, 1990), as amandai by 1989, c 770, s. 43. § 153A -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 serving a'combinatioa of four - and two-year terms of office, the new structure shall be implemented as follows: At the first election all members of the board shall be elected. A simple 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 cagdidates receivhlg the highest number of votes shall be elected for the four -year terms. At each subsequent general election, a simple majority of the board shall be elected. That candidate who is elected with the least number of votes shall be elected for a two-year term, and the other member or members elected shall be elected for four -year terms, (1927, c. 91, s: 3; 1969, c. 717, s: 1; 1973, c. 822, s. 1.) § 153A -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 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 commission- ers, prrn*ded, 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. Upon its adoption, the resolution shall be published in full. (1927, c. 91, s. 4; 1969, c. 717, s. 1; 1973, c. 822, s. l; 1977, c. 382.) Local Modification.- Craven: 2001 -447, a. 1 (applicble only to resolutions adopted before January 1, 2002); Dare; 1991, Ex, Sass.., c. 2, a. 1 (As to applicability and contingency provi- sions, see 1991 Session Laws, Er. Seen., c 2, s. V 7); Lee; 1989, c. 195, s.1(effective June 1, 1989, but only applicable to resolutions approved on a before Aug. 1, 1990); Wayne: 1987, c.. 119 (only applicable to resolutions approved an or before Nov. 30, 1988). 925 fi w �.I i a ) i i i , i K� 3121106 BOCC Adopted Motion (Draft Pending Minutes Approval) A motion was made by Chair Jacobs for staff to prepare a resolution, a map and a transition plan to be sent to referendum in November 2006, for a 7- member Board of County Commissioners, with 2 members from residential districts in rural Orange County, and at least two members and not more than three members from a residential district in Chapel Hill Township, with the remainder being at -large members. These 7 commissioners would be nominated and elected at- large. This proposal is reflected in Proposal 3, but need not be limited exactly to the district designs in Proposal 3. Proposal 3 The population numbem are,from the 2000 Census. 1 15,531 = County Population 7 members 3 Districts 115,531 / 4 = 28883 District 1 (2 members in district) = 57766 ( "ideal population ") 5% deviation +/- 2,888 Range = 54,878 to 60,654 District 2 (1 member in district) = 28883 ( "ideal population ") 5% deviation +/- 1,444 Range = 27,439 to 30,327 District 3 (1 member in district) = 28883 ( "ideal population ") 5% deviation +/- 1,444 Range = 27,439 to 30,327 Deviation Dl = 120 % (57,074) D2 = 1.77 % (28,371) D3 = 4.17 % (30,086) Proposal A The population numbers are from the 2000 Census. 115,531 = County Population 7 Members 3 Districts 115,531 / 5 = 23,106 District 1 (3 members in district) = 69,318 ( "ideal population ") 5% deviation = -!-/-,3,466 Range = 65,852 to 72784 District 2 (1 member in district) = 23,106 ( "ideal population ") 5 % deviation = +/- 1,155 Range = 21,951 to 24,261 District 3 (1 member in district) = 23,106 ( "ideal population ") 5% deviation = +/- 1,155 Range = 21,951 to 24,261 Deviation D1 = 2.08 `Yn (70,762) D2 = 0 44% (23,207) D3 = 6,68 (Yo (21,562) Transition Process Proposal A I ) 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. The three commissioners elected in 2006 will serve the remainder, of their unexpired terms. Two seats in District 1, one seat in District .3 and one At Large seat will become available in 2008. 3) Four commissioners will be elected in the 2008 election. 'file two commissioners whose teens expire in 2008, along with other qualified candidates, may choose to run for two of the three District 1 seats, for the District 3 seat or for one of the two At Large scats. The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate candidates for and elect the members of the District I seats, the member of the District 2 seat, and the member of the At Large seat, all for four year terms. 4) 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 t seats, for the District 2 seat or for one of tile two At Large seats The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate the candidates for and elect the member of the District I seat, the member of the District 2 seat and the member of the At Large seat, all for four year terms. = 2000 Census Blocks �! ` "• S•. Wing Precincts Proposal B ° Rural Buller l A r 2 i D2t' ( 38,'9 M t � ' t� c DRAFT ° 7 Member Proposal D1 = 2 Members D1 D2 =1 Member 4 At Large DI 33.720K. 4WD IS A 9 u^l r ssza °i Miles Orame County planning and Inspections Oeparbnent 0 1 2 3 4 GIS Mao Provared by Brian Carson October 3l 20e5 = 2000 Census Blocks �! ` "• S•. Wing Precincts Proposal B ° Rural Buller Proposal B The population iuunhevs are from the 2000 Census. 1 15,5.31 = County Population 7 members 2 Districts 1 15,531 /:3 = 38,510 Distr'ict.1 (2 members in district) = 77020 ( "ideal population ") 5% deviation +/- 3,851 Range = 73,169 to 80,871 District 2 (1 member in district) = 38510 ( "ideal population ") 5% deviation +/- 1,926 Range = 36,584 to 40,436 Deviation D 1 = 0.57% (76,578) D2 = 1.15% (38,95:3) Transition Process Proposal B 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 The three commissioners elected in 2006 will serve the remainder of their unexpired terms One seat in District 1, one seat in District 2 and two of the four At Large seats will become available in 2008. 3) 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 one of the two District I seats, for the District 2 seat or for two of the four At Large seats. The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate candidates for and elect the member of the District 1 seat, the member of the District 2 seat, and the members of the At Large seats, all for four year terms. 4) 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 two District I seats or for two of the four At Large seats. The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate the candidates for and elect the member of the District 1 seat and the members of the At Large seats, all for four year terms. I O1� k s ef' a I r / mr � t. m 9® r i ® A I = 2000 Census Blocks Wting Precincts Rural Buffer Commissioner Carey's Proposal � v Commissioner Carev's Proposal The population numbers are front the 1000 Ceusns. 115,531 = County Population 7 members 2 Districts 115,531 /6 = 19255 District 1 (4 members in district) = '77020 ( "ideal population ") 5% deviation +/- 3,851 Range = 73,169 to 80,871 District 2 (2 members in district) = 38510 ( "ideal population') 5% deviation +/- 1,936 Range =36,584 to 40,436 Deviation D1 = 0.57% (76,578) D2 = 1.15% (38,953) Transition Process Carey Proposal I ) 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, Tire three commissioners elected in 2006 will serve the remainder of their unexpired terms. Two seats in District 1, one seat in District 2 and the At Large seat will become available in 2008. 3) Four commissioners will be elected in the 2008 election., The two commissioners whose terns expire in 2008, along with other qualified candidates, may choose to run for two of the four District I seats, for one of the two District 2 seats or for the At Large seat, The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate candidates for and elect the members of the District I seats, the member of the District 2 seat, and the member of the At Large seat, all for four year terms. 4) 'Three commissioners will be elected in the 2010 election. The three commissioners whose terns expire in 2010, along with other qualified candidates, may choose to run for two of the four District 1 seats or for the District 2 seat. The qualified voters of the entire County will nominate the candidates for and elect the members of the District I seats and the member of the District 2 seat, all for four year terms.