HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-17-2005-3ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 17, 2005
Action Agenda
Item No. 3
SUBJECT: Review of Initial Draft Mapping and Associated Materials Related to Possible
District Elections for the Board of Commissioners
DEPARTMENT: County Attorney, Planning,
County Commissioners &
County Manager
ATTACHMENT(S):
1) Preamble
2) Draft Principles
3) Draft Process/Timetable
4) Five Initial Draft Maps with Base
Census Data
5) 2002 & 2004 General Election Results
for BOCC
6) Maps Showing Districts for NC House
Seats
7) School Districts Map
8) Elections Precincts Map
(ATTACHMENTS PREVIOUSLY
PROVIDED ON MAY 5, AUGUST 24, AND
August 31, 2005 - Not Included here)
1) Excerpt from May 5, 2005 Work
Session Minutes
2) Definition of a Resident Information
3) County Commissioner Partisan Election
Provisions
4) NC Counties Population /Concentration
Comparison with Orange County
5) Minutes from Five Meetings of the 1993
Task Force on the Process of Electing
County Commissioners
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) ro-]
6) Multimember or Unusual County
Commissioner Election Systems
7) Super Districts - Artie Franklin Letter to
Chapel Hill Herald Editor
8) Three Counties Methods of Election
Follow -up
9) Options for Electing County
Commissioners by Residential Districts
from Chair Carey
10)May 2005 Staff Report on the Structure
of Boards of County Commissioners
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Moses Carey, ,Jr., Chair
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 review and discuss initial draft mapping and other associated materials related
to possible District Elections for the Board of Commissioners,
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
representatives specifically requested, as stated in the petition, that the Board "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." The petition continued, "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 of the 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." Neither those making the request nor the petition
submitted included any explanatory information or detailed any specific proposal regarding the
format or implementation of the requested district representation for the Board.
Upon hearing the request, the Board of Commissioners asked that the Orange County Manager
and County staff review the issue and the petition submitted and provide a report to the Board.
Staff subsequently provided that report 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 not intended to be an investigation of the benefits, costs, opportunities, hurdles,
or timelines that may be associated with the consideration and possible implementation of
district representation for the Board of Commissioners. It 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.
Following staffs May 5th presentation of the report, the Board scheduled and conducted two
public hearings on August 24 and August 31, 2005 to receive input from the public on this issue.
Since the August 31St public hearing, the Chair has solicited input from other BOCC members
on potential district election ideas /frameworks that the Board could consider as a next step in
the review process. In addition, the Chair and Vice Chair have provided direction and feedback
to staff in the development of initial draft mapping and associated materials that followed the
ideas /frameworks provided.
Based on the Chair and Vice Chair's work with staff, the attachments provided with this abstract
include an introductory preamble, a draft set of Principles, a draft Process/Timetable, and five
initial draft maps, which were prepared both in concert with ideas /frameworks outlined by BOCC
members and with the draft set of principles developed with input from the Chair and Vice
Chair.
It should be noted that the attached initial draft maps have been provided based on staffs work
with population numbers and precinct lines. Once the BOCC provides direction to staff on a
preferred framework, staff will focus on that framework with additional specific assessment,
number - testing, and other related analysis in preparation for additional BOCC discussion.
Staff has also provided other attachments to this abstract based on requests from the BOCC.
These attachments are the 2002 & 2004 General Election Results for the Board of County
Commissioners, maps showing districts for NC House seats in Orange County, a School
Districts Map, and an Elections Precincts Map.
Also, in response to a question regarding the use of nominating districts versus residential
districts for the district election of members of other boards of commissioners in North Carolina,
staff contacted 22 counties across the state. Through a process of elimination based on
existing information, the County Attorney and staff determined that contacting the remaining 77
counties would likely not add anything to that learned from the 22 counties contacted. Results
of these contacts were that only one of the 22 counties contacted (Carteret County) utilizes
districts for nominating board of commissioner candidates in the primaries. Successful
primary candidates in Carteret are then elected on an at large basis in the general election.
The other 21 counties utilize the district delineations for residency purposes only with
candidates receiving votes on an at large basis both in the primary and in the general
election.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with review and discussion of
initial draft mapping and other associated materials related to possible District Elections for the
Board of Commissioners
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive, review and
discuss the initial draft mapping and other associated materials related to possible District
Elections for the Board of Commissioners, and provide comments, questions and any further
direction to staff as appropriate.
A total of 5 different variations of potential district elections maps are provided. These
initial maps were developed by staff based on frameworks /direction from members of the
Board of Commissioners. Staff developed the plans for compliance with those directions,
in concert with the DRAFT Principles provided. The maps are as follows:
COMMISSIONER CAREY'S FRAMEWORK — MULTIMEMBER DISTRICTS
FIVE COMMISSIONERS — THREE MEMBER DISTRICT/TWO MEMBER
DISTRICT
Two different maps, in accordance with staff's understanding of Commissioner
Carey's proposal, depicting variations of two multi- member districts, one with
two members and the other with three members, for a total of five members
nominated within their respective districts and all elected at- large. These maps
are Proposals I and 2.
COMMISSIONER JACOBS' FRAMEWORK
SEVEN COMMISSIONERS — ONE MULTIMEMBER DISTRICT/TWO SINGLE
MEMBER DISTRICTS /THREE AT LARGE
One map, in accordance with staff s understanding of Commissioner Jacobs'
proposal, depicting three districts, one district with two members residing in the
district, and two districts with one member residing in each district, and the
members of those districts being nominated from those districts or on an at large
basis; and three at -large members nominated on an at -large basis; and all seven
members being elected at- large. This map is Proposal 3.
COMMISSIONER JACOBS' FRAMEWORK
FIVE COMMISSIONERS — THREE DISTRICTS WO AT LARGE
One map, in accordance with staff s understanding of Commissioner Jacobs'
proposal, depicting three districts, each with one member residing in those
respective districts, and the members being nominated from those districts or on
an at large basis; and two at -large members nominated on an at -large basis; and
all five members being elected at- large. This map is Proposal 4.
COMMISSIONER GORDON'S FRAMEWORK
FIVE COMMISSIONERS — ONE MULTIMEMBER DISTRICT /ONE SINGLE
MEMBER DISTRICT/TWO AT LARGE
One map, in accordance with staff s understanding of Commissioner Gordon's
proposal, depicting two districts, one district with two members residing in the
district, and one district with one member residing in the district, and the
members of those districts being nominated from those respective districts; and
two at- large members nominated on an at -large basis; and all five members being
elected at- large, This map is Proposal 5.
A set of DRAFT Principles and a DRAFT Process /Timetable is also provided for review.
Other documents detailing the base census data upon which these initial maps were
developed is also provided. The information detailed includes the 2000 Census total
population, the "ideal population" for district delineation, the population ranges
permissible in districts based on legal provisions, and the actual population numbers of
the delineated districts for each plan.
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 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 nominate commissioners
from more urban areas and areas more rural in nature to nominate
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 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.
District lines, and any efforts to establish districts, should not exacerbate
perceived divisions within the County.
R
II'
STRUCTURE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
ACTIONS TO DATE
January 2005
May 2005
August 2005
September 2005
FUTURE (Proposed)
October 2005
PROCESS /TIMETABLE
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
November 2005 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 BOCC Decision on One Plan with District
Regular Meeting Lines
on November 15,
2005
November 2006 Referendum by County Voters on BOCC-
Approved Plan
May 2008 Implementation of Adopted Plan (IF
APPROVED BY VOTERS)
C
a00a GPN�R��1; EF6 oN Toll
n ,, .,,v r tAMI551(�tlEle
(Caldwell
Cameron Park
776
365 647
�-1 498
N .
NA
�j�--
Carr =�N
���_-_-
��246
1,88
`� "�,�- M
� N
478 86,
Carrboro -'�",��
Cedar Falls ���N, �
- ,�L
NAF
----
-- N�
313
553 ,� -22;4
�L
Cedar Grove IF lr�C-
Cheeks -�F-
N�
F N
251 .
E 575j 604
-_-_� A
537 91
� Coker Hills �r_
Coles Store -� NAIL
--
F -A1F
-�-- N�AjL�-
-- - N
��`����Np�
,
1135 374 j
��2 135!
ColomalHeights NAL_
_L-
`_L
-
221 63:.
`-_ -__-
f NA;
NA'
NA ,1 NAjF
'
Eal
Counm� Club
Ramascus
776
1�30q���
.,�w.-•_
Kq
—_.—
N�P
O
Acres
ogwood
1Y��-
- „F---
NA F---N
+�--
����
252
612
112
ast Franklin
Fastside
Hand
_ _-
i
NAIL
272
4,27
380
no
FstesHills
Glenwood -�
�I
505
-�- ��
89 F
�����-
N,
,��
L= =�I
--78 -0
N4��,
151
Grady Brown - -��
-��
NCI--
��497
�L=���
542
�NA
Greenwood
illsboroueh�
ings Mill
754
103
N-7
�__��
---
---N-
=�
L ncoln ��
T inns Club -
�NA I�
�
�-�
i "�i�'��
t- =.F
-
332 IF
664
133
asonFarm �E=-N
- -
--- ",�y�
N vL
- ' "����N�A
NAI�C
221
932)
216
Carrboro ��-
orth
-�E
�N�I
= -N
F_-- �F--
CNI-
-=��F
•• "E=N
�
431
9800
51
3N7
orthside
Grove
Orange
OWASA
- 3�N�C�--
608
---- 6655
NA
' ",=----
N,A�
",�3
1103
L
L-- `"
367
atterson
N�1
966---
-'��L-
"'+i_
-NN
��_-
-�
- �I
7�2281F-
"�I
-17788]
- - =�
'd efield _- IF
St John
St Marys ���I
L�NA
-1�0�1
- -L
�
�-- i��^J��-
NF-
403
3000
•��"���----
-N- N"
582
3�0�00
'�—�J"
F---�
480
898
51
511
213
olars
own Hall - -_��
_ A��-
�L__
eaver Dairy
`�"JF
N y�
-5421E==-_217
E-
Weaver Dairy Sat.
Hillsborough ��__
est
jestwood
4121,
32��C_NA�L-
_-
- -�"�
-��
-i1-
90��N
-- )1L--
I�- ��L��L_49
iC�-
,j�- p.L
- -r--
�",��,1_
- -��'�
1r---
-i1
16�
l teCross
ional
_JL_
O=--)
L- 5 -9031'
8361
50241
5553'
15805;
39571
Board of County
� Halldotis j
Commissioners
Jacobs ! Daniel
Staudt I Fehrs
_j Sheriff
i Pendergrass
Register
of Dee_ ds
Pearson I
Back to Ton
_
recmct i Gordon
� I bsentee t 30001
2871;
2925'; 16161
1611
483 35151
__
3378
t:l
c�J0a GE�ERA�EGE(T -776 V CoN-T'SNuF-D
�ordo� pwr.:5
cattle Park
331
556
420
417
259
475
538
288
625
498
314 1 31511
487 5051
431 478
367 F 436
2321 247
439 F 443
482 4871
268 F-3-0-7]F-2-62
564 58271F
474 489'
81 1
212
561
436
—1641F--1764
98
2891
I
5431
121,
F 4801
85
205
556
428
1-01 IF-6-91=
281
265
537
122
F 479'
46 i
92
169
156
53
117
93,�-
1431
591
211'
360 �1
591
740 1
6481—
3291r
4911-
632
4481-
853,-
514
1246
. 333
�— 5561
6721
6271
3341
4681
5931
423;
8191
-- 9
1 11651
ooker Creek
Caldwell
Cameron Park
Carr
Carrboro —�
Cedar Falls —�
Cedar Grove 11
Cheeks (
ICokerHills
ColesStore I
10841
1014!
F 1033'
Country Club
217
199
201
ii.
74
�'
67
1!!i
===
L ........ ___.
24311
2411
599
533
530
205
200
F 1201
675 1
6511
amascus
ogwood Acres
772
246
671
232
664
2341
F 321
71
333
67
1311
35
828 1
261 1
7851
263
ast Franklin —�
astride - - -�
593
296
541
2851
537
F 303
141
336
131
F-3-5-61F-1275
76
626
4541-
�- 6121
419;
}land
no
493
462
496
499
5121
184
710
�— 6531
Ms Hills —�
754
472
723
448
727
439
180
201
1851
199
73
89
541
7781
�- 5311
Glenwood
Grady Brown —�
577
562
F 5741
456
464
138
721
�— 701
Greenwood —�
E=
397
407
104
99
54
454
�- 428
illsborough
328
322
331
109
116
35
376
�— 378
gs Mill - -�
762
697
695
214
212
95
763
-3371
incoln —�
319
305
F 3oo]F
62
59
48
351
F
ions Club
6461
224
608
183
600
-19-6]F--9-o]F--8-91F
154
158
99 i
48
242
2381
anon Farm —�
orth Carrboro
855
826
837
297
F--302
302
F-1-35-
135
944
1 873
orthside
422
401
400
581
60
411
433
�— 4z
Orange Grove
889
826
884
492
514
233
1139
�— 1087
OWASA
586
544
F 5531F
121
F 115
F 90
631
�— 618
atterson
992
971
F--98-9]F--48-1]F
5151
201
1205
, 1106
'dgefield —ji
F--6-5-6]F-2-2-6]F-2-1-5]F--9-2]
1 721
St.7obn —�
1 895
498
829
I 445
277
422
846
528
F-3-473F--2777F--27-4]F--792
443
267
486
48
272
510
F--5-4]F--573
120
F 1701
1011
728
448
48011
F -____- 9561
1— 6621
--__.43 81
442j
St. Marys
olars —�
307
458
own Hall —�
eaver Dairy (
876
808
825
262
253
119
__ 926
919 j
eaver Dairy Sat. 1
304
543
400
290'
5061
3681
F-29-31F-62T76,
545
378
193
82,
187
851F
9
761
461
677
411j�_406
278
F— 6541
est Hillsborough (
estwood 1
'te Cross
F096
48J
4901
2551
259
1111
641i[-
6141
Provisional 1
20
19
19;�r
4���
221.__.211
ransfer I
681
59
591
16,
181
F 141
7310—
68
otal
26265
24542
25286!
118641
119401
4787;
30755
1— 293601
Back to Ton
l'�
r
2004 GENERAL ELECTION FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER
Moses Valerie Jamie Artie L.
Carey, Jr. Foushee Daniel lFranklin
Absentee
22169 23749 8582 2603
-. Battle Park 160, F 177 F 86 F 32
Booker Creek 386; 414,_ 195. 73
Caldwel, 390 437. 714 132
.
Cameron Park 353 335;F— 435 101
Carr 269 252,. 227 39.
_
Carzboro 304 331 111 48
Cedar Falls 327 513' 426 88
Cedar Grove 346: 3221 360 112
.Cheeks 636 F 6091 126
Coker Hills 333 369'. F 106 F 66
_.
Coles Store 528 755. 515 F 169
Colonial 436 519 203 92
—�
Heights T
Country Club. 266; 267_ 154 36
Damascus 433 534. 230. 86.
Dogwood 517 703 404 121
Acres
East Fmwln F 269 F 287, 15t; 50,
Easlside 428. 4671 200., 65,
EOand 360 330., 393 77,
Eno 381 _.. _ 393 553..... 99
Estes Hills 421 494 223 102
Glenwood. 4021 444 305 93.
G_rady_Brown 503 F 520, 494 131
Greenwood 289 292 148; 48
Hillsborough 200 195 106. 29..
Kings Mill 372 F-449T 232 F 86
_
lincoln 350 r 128; F 47.
_ ..318
Lians Club 4571 499 151 53
Mason Farm _ 228 233 126', 43.
North Carrboro 361 511 301 F 103:
Northside 399 429 113. 1 47
Orange Grove 690 658 535 161
GWASA. 454 478 _ 137 68,
_
Patterson 469. 635 469 126
Ridgefield 445 F 514; F 199 _ 74
St John 409 529. [--2781 101:
St. Marys 454 533 119
.436
Tolars 315 .. _ 327 F 350 _. 94
_..
Tovm Hall 310 314'., 53 45
Weaver Dairy 489 613', 305
Weaver Dairy
Sat
West
Hillsborough
296 _ 300
536. 506.
F-102
59 I 8.
212 59
Westwood 254 F 267 108 F 42
Whita Cross 466 476 _ 365 _ 78
Provisional 215 219 F 18.
iTotal 1 390271 42469.1 207051 b09z
tend
ca
N
E
CON
z
LON
■I�
J!
® V i. '- ,ri, q. .'G2
�S "'." 1° 8r Y sG
w➢
y � U
N
L
h
Fil.
0
Y x
ti
ip
pp
r a
=r H
o
Nc Hi9hw
.e
N
�
k• C [/a � x s a
.g 2 .S
v T'
L 1 f
.Y i _iii
va
6b.�
O
,Y
■N
r ro °
61
� �
�n
Q�
z _
� � • x
z9
O:a
Qm
pA
ga
E
N
c
d
a
U
N
FF
�
c
E
co
m
N
0
Z N
i C) 4 V 2
a c
i ®a�
as
®
Cow.
o�
50
10 15 20
Miles
NX
a :
.. ................... ...............................
..r .. .. ......... SR::::..' .::�- !'.:i:.� iii ii ......... ..... Z
L
p
i
L/�
Y /
i,
f l y
Q ' t
x W, s fi
ntV
x : "vs x i x 8 „•� .. u N
Q O 4
Sl N 86
L
E
N � h
N�
os
FWFA
V/
6 a
� N
O � Q
N
`w
G
°
m �
9 3 N
20
U .y
E 7 F d = p
° E
U
Ela_=
T
H N 1
O T
o °
01
' • � . m Z � Z4M
�/�
YI/
IN
Y m` N
• i. ° N 8 d z1 3 \psi t HwY e7
m
m 0 ' B�feMyglHo _ €� 2 rc N
� G N
� n
//�• c c $ o
L N d
K _
,a U
N
N � c cV
•- 7
a r U
L sr Q _
7,,W ��, m. °
}A • HAS o ;s ,�y 3 ^z v' � � �^
• !/1 m 9 4 �N S
c9 � Gy 7Ji �.g l 'r mry �J
m O�TN
N z U v m m x
_ y
z,y e
U
� si Wy 22 Is
?`
g o e Lv
� � E
_ vm
N
s E
m zw 5
�
N
U �
Q W 4
20
_N N'N
E V F m U O
q
3 v c _ Z E
i i U 4 U a o
e= $m
a
22
a5
Coui
posc� OF
Dish ;t - S�
School Districts Map /5
O
Proposal 1
The population numbers are from the 2000 Census.
115,531 = County Population
5 Members
2 Districts
115,531 / 5 = 23,106
District 1 = 46,212 ( "ideal population ")
5% deviation = +/- 2,311
Range = 43,901 to 48,523
District 2 = 69,318 ( "ideal population ")
5% deviation = +/- 3,466
Range = 65,852 to 72784
Deviation
D 1 = 0.18 % (46,297)
D2 = 0.12 % (69,234)
2000 Census Blocks
Voting Precincts
Rural Buffer
Proposal 1
�I
Proposal 2
The population numbers are from the 2000 Census.
115,531 = County Population
5 Members
2 Districts
115,531 / 5 = 23,106
District 1 = 46,212 ( "ideal population ")
5% deviation = +/- 2,311
Range = 43,901 to 48,523
District 2 = 69,318 ( "ideal population ")
5% deviation = +/- 3,466
Range = 65,852 to 72784
Deviation
D1 = 3.2 % (47,694)
D2 = 2.1 % (67,837)
= 2000 Census Blocks
Voting Precincts
.emu Rural Buffer
Proposal 2
F "A
Proposal 3
The population numbers are from the 2000 Census.
115,531 = County Population
7 members
3 Districts
115,531 / 4 = 28883
District 1 & 2 = 28883 ( "ideal population ")
5% deviation +/- 1,444
Range = 27,439 to 30,327
District 3 = 57766 ( "ideal population ")
5% deviation +/- 2,888
Range = 54,878 to 60,654
Deviation
D1 = 4.17 % (30,086)
D2 = 1.77 % (28,371)
D3 = 1.20 % (57,074)
2000 Census Blocks
Voting Precincts
Rural Buffer
Proposal 3
FiTOMAM
Proposal 4
The population numbers are from the 2000 Census.
115,531 = County Population
5 members
3 Districts
115,531/3 = 38510
Each District = 38510 ( "ideal population ")
5% deviation +/- 1,926
Range = 36,584 to 40,436
Deviation
D1 = 1.19% (38,968)
D2 = 4.10% (36,932)
D3 = 2.91% (39,631)
68
T
Z
�1)2
DRAFT
('36;932)
5 Member Proposal
D1 = I Member
D2 = 1 Member
D3 = 1 Member
2 At Large
D3
D3 D1
M 30% 33.73%
IN ............... W, -"'N
D2
3197%
mooK==Mlles Orange County Planning and Inspectors Department
3 4 GIS Map Prepared by grain Canon October 14, 2005
= 2000 Census BlockS
Voting Precincts
Rural Buffer
Proposa14
Proposal 5
The population numbers are from 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 40,436
District 2 = 77020 ("ideal population ")
5% deviation +/- 3,851
Range = 73,169 to 80,871
Deviation
D1 = 1.19% (38,968)
D2 = 0.59% (76,563)
68
DRAFT
5 Member Proposal
DI = 1 Member
D2 = 2 Members
D2 2 At Large
(,76,563--1
DI
33,13%
N NO
0, �,ll'.1111, D2
N
6627%
C5
mmmm== Miles Orange County Planning and Inspections Department
2 3 4 GIS Map Prepared by Bran Carnam October 14, 2005
= 2000 Census Blocks
Voting Precincts
Rural Buffer
Proposal 5
om
o
m
W
`�
O
a.
E
v
J
C3
U
d b
z
zQa1D
9
m
p
a�
y d
.,.,�
oo
N
LL
cri
a
6,
�+-
Z
N
N
`l�'
J
�
OZ
O
W
o
zo
o
�
§
8
�a
<m
J
J
_
m
m
¢
Wrn 3�
U
Nov
O
¢JO Yui�m�
Z
W8
LL(
O
pn
z
O
U
@ o
W M
�r
Wv
WN
�rpO Iy- co
LO
Q<
w whz Ox
�K I
Z G�
�Y W =J
OU
U)
C�JN
z�V
Ga U
Y
H
�N`D
ma Z�
Q�
OLL
W V
p
O
Jm
QZ
K_O j
Z N
O
LO
OD
m
-
UI
Cl
��Nw�
U")
V/
O
`Q
OQ�
U
Z
r
a
¢
O
zm=
-3.0
O
.0
U
Z
N
U
O
U N
If
—01p
y=
o_
WS
$gam
�m�
m
¢
OV
pd�
U
�v
OC m
A �.
gg
In .-
C N
@
1 T a
U C
NOM
co
sU
co
«. m
3
O
>n
U �
w @
d
a�
z�
N N
oom
w cc
go
3
O�
UU' ....
W�
<}
O U
'D O
LO
@ D
0 _
O
N
.../
#e
W W .-
_ C
U
Z��
m
O
N @
U°
®
Opv
C T
wM
3
CF)
a=
o
N
Y
nj
z..
G O
m'
¢m
Sn
NN
a–
U
_
U N
C�
@ T
zcN
�
@
F @
# (q