2011 salt lake city redistricting working group · salt lake city redistricting working group 2011...

2011

Salt Lake City

Redistricting Working Group

Recommendations for Council Consideration

December 13, 2011

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=Salt+Lake+City+election+district+map&hl=en&gbv=2&biw=1517&bih=751&tbm=isch&tbnid=8H_Wl3yoshjpWM:&imgrefurl=http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/us/politics/mayors-concerned-as-redistricting-carves-up-urban-areas.html?pagewanted=all&docid=AdU9M37b4mWhWM&imgurl=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/12/04/us/REDISTRICT-1/REDISTRICT-1-articleLarge.jpg&w=600&h=330&ei=HjvkToHBJsqjiQLs9dHiBg&zoom=1

Salt Lake City Redistricting Working Group 2011

2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

During 2011, the City Council formed the Redistricting Working Group (RWG) to serve as advisors for the City’s redistricting process. The redrawing of the Salt Lake City Council and School Board district boundaries occurs after the decennial census numbers are released. Redistricting is required to substantially balance the population so that each person is equally represented in our government.

The RWG held several meetings in November and December to review, study, discuss, and evaluate various map proposals for new Council and School Board district boundaries. The RWG invited representatives from the School Board to present their process, findings, and recommendation(s). The School Board’s proposal and other school board maps were discussed at the December 1st RWG meeting. School Board and City Council maps that are being recommended to the City Council for its consideration were evaluated and ranked by the RWG based on meeting the Council’s defined Guiding Principles. The RWG is forwarding, for the consideration of the City Council, two maps for the City Council districts and two maps for the School Board districts. For the latter, one of the maps recommended to the Council by the RWG is the one the School Board had recommended. These maps have been rank ordered according to the preferences of the RWG.

The RWG is the first group of City residents selected to serve as advisors to the redistricting process. Members of the RWG gave deliberate consideration in the development of their recommendations. The RWG was committed to an open, transparent, and public process. Although the number of participants and comments were few, nearly 500 participants have read about the City’s redistricting efforts on Open City Hall. The tools provided to the RWG, including the mapping software, Open City Hall, and City website, were invaluable to the RWG process.


3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4

Redistricting Working Group ................................................................................... 4 - 9 Selection of Members ................................................................................................................... 4 Information and Tools .................................................................................................................. 5 Public Outreach ....................................................................................................................... 6 - 7 Public Meetings ............................................................................................................................ 7 Map Selection and Ranking Process ........................................................................................ 8 - 9

Working Group Recommended Maps .................................................................. 10 - 22

City Council Proposals ...................................................................................................... 10 - 16 CC Map 1 – Description/Map/Statistics ........................................................................... 10 - 13

CC Map 2 – Description/Map/Statistics .......................................................................... 14 - 16

School Board Proposals .................................................................................................... 17 - 22 SB Map 1 – Description/Map/Statistics ........................................................................... 17 - 19

SB Map 2 – Description/Map/Statistics ........................................................................... 20 - 22

Attachments ....................................................................................................... 23 - 60 1 - Project Timeline ..................................................................................................................... 23 2 - Ground Rules .................................................................................................................. 24 - 27 3 - Legal Memo – City Attorney’s Office .............................................................................. 28 - 34 4 - Press Releases and Outreach Efforts .............................................................................. 35 - 39 5 - Meeting Notes ................................................................................................................ 40 - 59 Open City Hall Comments ............................................ http://www.slcgov.com/opencityhall


4

Introduction After each federal census, legislative bodies In the United States, including local governments, review the census data and redraw political boundaries. This process, established by the U.S. constitution, rebalances the population in each jurisdiction so each district has substantially equal numbers of people. The City Council, as the legislative body for Salt Lake City, is responsible for City Council district boundaries. The Council also is responsible for redrawing the boundaries for the Salt Lake City School Board because the entire school district is within Salt Lake City. Federal, state, and city legislation and case law govern and provide guidance on the redistricting process. In addition to these legal aspects, the timeline for redistricting is dependent on the release of census data by the federal government and other legislative bodies completing their redistricting process. The State of Utah completed redrawing the State’s U.S. congressional, State legislative, and State Board of Education district boundaries in October of 2011. The Salt Lake County Council approved the County Council and Jordan, Granite, and Canyon School Board districts in October of 2011. Per Utah State Code, 10-3-205.5, the Salt Lake City Council “must complete its redistricting process within six months from when the state Legislature finalizes their legislative district boundary changes.” The final deadline for Salt Lake City to complete its 2011 redistricting process is April 20th. However, the filing deadline for School Board candidates is the second Friday in March. In order to meet this deadline, the Council is expected to complete its redistricting process by early February of 2012.

Formation of Redistricting Working Group The Salt Lake City Council discussed redistricting several times throughout 2011. During its May 3rd meeting, the Council decided to form an independent and politically-balanced informal Working Group to serve as advisors during the redistricting process. On July 12th, the Council specified the following with regard to the Redistricting Working Group (RWG):

Composition - The RWG would have one representative from each of the seven council districts and two representatives recommended by the School Board.

Eligibility – Members would not be eligible if, within the past three years, an applicant had been: o A candidate for elected office. o Appointed or elected to any public office. o An officer of a political party. o A registered lobbyist. o An officer on any candidate’s campaign committee.

Application and Selection – Candidates would be required to submit an application. Applicants were interviewed and recommended by the Mayor’s Office. The Council interviewed and approved candidates during September and October of 2011.

The following Salt Lake City residents were selected for the Council’s first Redistricting Working Group. The RWG elected their Chair and Vice Chair at their first meeting on November 10th.

District 1 – Mike Christensen, Vice Chair

District 2 – Nan Weber

District 3 – Margith Maughan

District 4 – Maria Torres

District 5 – Eliot Sykes


5

District 6 – Jim Guilkey, Chair

District 7 – Stephen Nelson

School Board Representative – John Bennion

School Board Representative – Craig Ruesch During the first meeting on November 10th, the Working Group adopted ground rules and agreed to work towards the Council’s January 31, 2012 redistricting resolution adoption deadline. For the Working Group, the written report deadline agreed to was December 13th, with a January 3, 2012 Council briefing to present the RWG’s findings and recommendations. The timeline and ground rules are included as attachments to this report.

Redistricting Project – Information and Tools The task before the RWG, and ultimately the City Council, requires rebalancing new Salt Lake City Council and School Board district boundaries due to population changes that have occurred since the last redistricting process in 2001. The following table presents census data from 2010. The table shows the number and change in the number of people per district from 2000 to 2010. The table also indicates the deviation from optimal district size - the number of residents over or under the target of equally balanced population which is 26,634 residents.

Table – Census Data

Council District 2000 Census Population

2010 Census Population

Percent Change from 2000

Census

Deviation from optimal district

size (26,634 residents)

1 26,947 28,386 5.34% +1,752

2 26,004 27,858 7.13% +1,224

3 25,668 24,870 -3.11% -1,764

4 25,652 27,161 5.88% +527

5 25,845 26,165 1.24% -469

6 26,030 26,680 2.50% +46

7 25,597 25,320 -1.08% -1,314

181,743 186,440 2.58%

As mentioned above, the redistricting process is defined by federal and state law and City ordinance. Court cases over the years also provide guidance on how new district boundaries need to be drawn. City Attorney Office Staff provided oral and written information to the Redistricting Working Group on legal requirements, considerations, and issues throughout the entire RWG’s process. This material was included as an attachment to the July 12, 2011 staff report and is included as an attachment to this report. In addition to the legal considerations, the City Council defined and provided the RWG with the following Guiding Principles to use in the development of its Council and School Board district recommendations. Salt Lake City Council Guiding Principles (Guiding Principles)

Balance City Council and School Board districts to be substantially equal in population among

the various districts with a deviation not greater than ± 5% or no more than 1,350 people.


6

Maintain neighborhood areas with similar characteristics and take into consideration communities of common interest.

Recognize natural boundaries, such as physical separation of areas.

Recognize human-made boundaries, such as major streets and freeways.

Maintain compact and contiguous districts as much as is possible.

Consider existing Council and School Board boundaries in order that they: o Remain consistent and unchanged if doing so does not violate state or federal law. o Remain consistent with the District’s current configuration, with changes being limited

to the maximum extent possible. o Avoid removing existing Representatives from the district to which they were elected,

where possible. o Avoid reconfiguring for the purpose of political advantage.

In addition to the Council’s Guiding Principles, the Salt Lake City School Board provided the criteria they considered in evaluating and recommending changes to the School Board district boundaries. The RWG invited representatives from the Salt Lake City School Board to present its findings and recommendations to the Redistricting Working Group at the December 1st meeting. The following list is the criteria the School Board used in preparing their recommendation: Salt Lake City School Board Criteria

Make precincts substantially equal in population (less than 10% overall variance).

Consider school-age population and School Community Council (SCC) responsibilities in each

precinct.

Preserve communities of interest where possible.

Maintain two precincts lying completely west of I-15.

Include constituents west of I-15 in at least one additional precinct.

The Council’s formation of the Redistricting Working Group to serve as advisors during the Council’s 2011 redistricting process was not the only change to occur since the last time the boundaries were drawn in 2001. Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping software developments include the use of mapping software to help jurisdictions redraw district boundaries. Salt Lake City, working through Salt Lake County’s contract with ESRI – a GIS provider, acquired the use of the redistricting software. This software was made available to Council and Administrative Staff, as well as any member of the Public, to draw and submit maps for consideration. Additionally, the Council expressed its expectation that the redistricting process in 2011 be open, transparent, and encourage public involvement. All members of the RWG were in full agreement with these objectives and worked to develop a process that encompassed these objectives and utilized the available tools.

Public Outreach The public engagement strategy from the beginning of the redistricting process was to centralize the information on Open City Hall, the City’s online forum that allows readers to learn about and share their thoughts on topics under consideration. Public outreach began in the late summer of 2011 and included:


7

Press releases specific to the City’s redistricting efforts were distributed to all regional media,

including print and broadcast media. Press releases also were sent to Community Council Chairs

and the entire Council list serv.

Citywide newsletter delivered in all City utility bills.

Weekly e-newsletter articles delivered to 4 Council Districts.

Open City Hall updated frequently; biweekly in the final month of the redistricting process.

Open City Hall subscribers (800+) received notices, including topic launch and major updates.

Council Website announcements featured press releases and most updates with a link to the

updated information.

Facebook updates included redistricting updates, links to information, and photo or graphics.

Fast Facts announced when redistricting was on the Council’s agenda.

Video with Chair Love encouraging participation was included on Council web page, Open City

Hall, Council YouTube Channel, and was aired on SLCTV.

Training video explaining the mapping tool was placed on the Council web page, Open City Hall,

Council YouTube Channel, and was aired on SLCTV.

RWG Chair presented an update on the redistricting efforts to the Mayor’s Breakfast with

Community Council Chairs on December 7th.

By December 9th, the day after the Redistricting Working Group decided upon their final recommendations to be presented to the Council, over 450 people had viewed the Open City Hall website. Although the actual number of maps submitted and the number of people attending the RWG meetings was lower than anticipated, or desired, the number of people viewing the topic ranks well among the most visited Open City Hall topics. Copies of the redistricting outreach efforts, including all press releases, are included as attachments to this report. Open City Hall comments can be found at http://www.slcgov.com/opencityhall.

Working Group Public Meetings The RWG held four public meetings. At each of the RWG meetings, the public had an opportunity to provide their comments or submit a map for the Group’s consideration. Comments received through any of the Council’s established communication channels, including email, phone, and/or Open City Hall also were shared during the meetings. Redistricting Working Group meetings were held on:

November 10th – 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

November 18th – 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

December 1st – 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

December 8th – 5:00 to 7:00 p.m.

Much of the time of each meeting was spent sharing and studying maps created by members of the RWG, Council Staff, and the public. Maps prepared by Council Staff were done so under the direction of the RWG to meet particular criteria. Each map prepared for the City Council and School Board districts was considered and evaluated to see if the map met the Guiding Principles. The RWG considered seven school board maps, including the School Board’s recommended map and six city council maps. Other maps prepared by Staff and RWG members were discussed. However, the RWG determined that some

http://www.slcgov.com/opencityhall


8

of these maps did not meet the Guiding Principles and would not be considered further. Maps receiving further consideration by the RWG can be found on the redistricting maps website - http://www.slcgov.com/redistricting/maps.htm.

Map Selection and Ranking Process School Board Precinct Boundaries - On December 1st, following the presentation by the School Board representatives, all of the submitted school board maps were reviewed by the group as a whole. Each was discussed and either rejected as not being sufficiently in compliance with the Guiding Principles, or was placed on a short list for further consideration. At the end of this process, four maps remained on the short list. Those maps were made available to the public through the Redistricting Maps website. The information on the website indicated which maps were under final consideration. The four maps included: 1) the map proposed by the Salt Lake City School Board, 2) a map prepared by RWG member, Eliot Sykes, 3) a map submitted by a member of the public, Edie Trimmer, who attended the meeting, presented her map, and answered the RWG’s questions about her map, and 4) a map prepared by Council Staff at the direction of the RWG - the primary goal of which was to achieve population balance with minimal changes to existing precinct boundaries. On December 8th, following review of public comment on these maps, the RWG ranked the maps in the following manner. Each RWG member was given a ballot and ranked the maps in order of their preference, 1-4. As there are nine members of the RWG, the best score a map could achieve would be 9, and the worst possible score would be 36. The outcome of this vote is shown in the following table.

School Board Ranking Table

Map Score

SB Map 1 - School Board Proposal 13

SB Map 2 - Eliot Sykes Proposal 19

Staff “Minimal Change” Proposal 23

Edie Trimmer Proposal 35

After some deliberation, the group decided to forward the top two maps to the City Council for further consideration. Per the RWG ground rules, a motion was made and seconded to forward the School Board Proposal and Eliot Sykes’ Proposal, ranked 1st and 2nd respectively, to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously. City Council District Boundaries - Also on December 8th, the RWG reviewed the maps that were submitted by members of the public, members of the RWG, and Council Staff. Both RWG members who had submitted maps voluntarily withdrew them in favor of other maps. Next, those maps submitted by the public were reviewed and rejected due to their non-compliance with the Guiding Principles put forth by the City Council. At the end of this process, the two remaining maps were those prepared by Council Staff. One map was prepared based on the principle of making minimal changes to existing boundaries, with the goal of balancing population as evenly as possible. The other map was prepared based on the principle of changing boundaries to minimize the division of neighborhoods, using community council boundaries as a guide, while at the same time balancing population. Both maps retained all incumbents in their current districts.

http://www.slcgov.com/redistricting/maps.htm


9

These two maps were ranked 1 or 2 by each member of the RWG, and the individual rankings were summed to give the scores in the following table. One member of the RWG was unable to participate in this vote, so in this case, the best possible score was 8, and the worst was 16.

City Council Ranking Table

Map Score

CC Map 1 - Minimize division of neighborhoods

10

CC Map 2 - Minimal changes to existing boundaries

14

Per the RWG ground rules, a motion was made and seconded to forward the maps “Minimize division of neighborhoods” and “Minimal changes to existing boundaries”, ranked 1st and 2nd respectively, to the City Council. The motion passed unanimously.

Recommendations of the Redistricting Working Group The following section contains information about each of the maps recommended by the RWG to the City Council for their consideration. Each recommendation includes the following information:

Summary, including the rationale, impact of map changes, and a description.

Map which shows the current boundaries, the new proposed boundaries, and community

council boundaries.

Statistics table, including population and deviations by districts and number of people

affected by the proposed boundary changes.

Attachments The last section of the report contains the following attachments:

Attachment 1 - Project Timeline

Attachment 2 - Ground Rules

Attachment 3 - City Council Staff Memo – Legal Considerations Regarding Redistricting

Attachment 4 - Press Releases and Outreach Efforts

Attachment 5 - Meeting Notes


10

City Council (CC) Proposal - CC Map 1 – Minimize Division of Neighborhoods Summary - The Working Group discussed City Council proposals during meetings held on November 10th, November 18th and December 8th 2011. CC Map 1 was created by Council Staff as directed by the Redistricting Working Group with the following priorities:

Balance population with minimal deviation between districts.

Change boundaries to minimize the divisions of neighborhoods using community council boundaries as a guide.

Do not affect incumbents. The proposed boundaries in CC Map 1 affect all seven City Council districts. The population changes achieve a greater balance of residents in each district. The largest deviation from the target population in this proposal is 2.98% and the total deviation is 5.28%. See City Council – RWG – CC Map 1 Statistics Tables – for statistical information related to District changes. The CC Map 1 proposal is responsive to the Guiding Principle established by the City Council to “maintain neighborhoods areas with similar characteristics.”1 The neighborhood areas were identified using community council district boundaries. Of the ten neighborhoods that are currently split among different Council districts, seven divisions were reduced. Description – As “communities of common interest” is a somewhat subjective metric, the RWG opted to attempt to align the proposed City Council boundaries with existing community council boundaries where possible. With a few exceptions, nearly all community councils lie within a single City Council district under this proposal. The notable exceptions to this include: (1) Wasatch Hollow Community Council, where maintaining incumbency was given precedence, (2) Capitol Hill Community Council, where the proposed boundaries have district 4 taking a small portion of this area to accommodate population balance requirements, (3) Fairpark Community Council, where the intersections of Council districts 1, 2 and 3, along with population balance constraints, made achieving this goal infeasible, and (4) East Liberty/East Bench Community Councils, where an exception was made at the behest of the East Liberty Community Council Chair. The latter two of these bear further comment. In the Fairpark community, existing Council boundaries have this area divided among three districts. Getting this community into a region spread across two Council districts led to the relatively large deviation from ideal population distribution. The RWG felt that the expected improvement in representation was a reasonable tradeoff for this imbalance. In the East Liberty/East Bench area, a deviation was made from existing community council boundaries to accommodate a request of the East Liberty Community Council Chair. After the Mayor’s breakfast, the East Liberty Chair pointed out that the current community council/city council boundaries divide the 9th and 9th business district, a collection of businesses that run east of Liberty Park along 900 South. He indicated that the community council was in the process of moving their own boundaries one block north, so that this neighborhood and its businesses would be encompassed in a single community council. He requested that the city council boundaries be drawn to reflect that goal. This suggestion was discussed and accepted by the RWG. However, it should be pointed out that the East Bench

1 See “City Council Guiding Principles” in report.


11

Community Council has not given input to the RWG regarding this proposal. Regardless of changes to community council boundaries, encompassing the businesses between 800 and 900 South in one City Council district seems logical.

SugarHouse

WasatchHollow

Liberty-WellsGlendale

EastCentral/EastLiberty Park

SunnysideEast

AssociationEastBench

YalecrestBallPark

EastCentralCentral

City

DowntownPoplarGrove

RosePark

Westpointe

GreaterAvenues

JordanMeadows Fairpark

CapitolHill

BonnevilleHills

CentralCity/Liberty-Wells

Foothill/Sunnyside

CouncilDistrict 3Council

District 1

CouncilDistrict 2

CouncilDistrict 4

CouncilDistrict 5

CouncilDistrict 6

CouncilDistrict 7

City Council – RWG – CC Map 1

Drawn By: K. BellSalt Lake City Corporation

Information Management ServicesDecember, 2011

4

LegendCurrent City CouncilsProposed City Councils


13

Statistics Tables - City Council (CC) Proposal - CC Map 1 – Minimize Division of Neighborhoods

District

2010

Population

Deviation

from Target

Population -

26,634

Residents

Percent

Deviation

from Target

Population

1 28,426 1,792 6.73%

2 27,818 1,184 4.45%

3 24,939 -1,695 -6.36%

4 27,161 527 1.98%

5 26,165 -469 -1.76%

6 26,611 -23 -0.09%

7 25,320 -1,314 -4.93%

District

New

Population

New

Deviation

from Target

Population

New Percent

Deviation

from Target

Population

Net Number

of Residents

Moved Into

or Out of

Districts

Percent of

District

Residents

Changed per

New

Population

1 26,021 -613 -2.30% -2,405 -9.24%

2 27,427 793 2.98% -391 -1.43%

3 26,772 138 0.52% 1,833 6.85%

4 26,296 -338 -1.27% -865 -3.29%

5 26,935 301 1.13% 770 2.86%

6 26,810 176 0.66% 199 0.74%

7 26,179 -455 -1.71% 859 3.28%

Total 186,440 -

Current Council District Boundaries

Proposed Council District Boundaries - CC Map 1

District Moved Out District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5 District 6 District 7

1 3,586 - 2,121 1,465 - - - -

2 2,512 715 - 1,797 - - - -

3 1,429 466 - - 963 - - -

4 1,828 - - - - 892 936 -

5 1,299 - - - - - 1,299 -

6 2,966 - - - - 584 - 2,382

7 1,523 - - - - 593 930 -

15,143 1,181 2,121 3,262 963 2,069 3,165 2,382

Population Detail by District - Number of Residents Affected by Proposed CC Map 1

Moved In


14

City Council (CC) Proposal - CC Map 2 – Minimize Changes to Existing Boundaries Summary - The Working Group discussed City Council map proposals during meetings held on November 10th, November 18th and December 8th 2011. CC Map 2 was created by Council Staff as directed by the Working Group with the following priorities:


Make minimal changes to the current boundary configuration.

Do not affect incumbents. The proposed boundaries in CC Map 2 affect all seven City Council districts. The population changes achieve a greater balance of residents in each district. The largest deviation from the target population in this proposal is 1.86% and the total deviation is 3.49%. See City Council – RWG – CC Map 2 Statistics Tables – for statistical information related to District changes. CC Map 2 is most responsive to the Guiding Principle established by the City Council to “Remain consistent with the District’s current configuration, with changes being limited to the maximum extent possible.” Description – In addition to a nearly ideal population balance, this map also improves the compactness of City Council districts. The largest changes are at the shared boundary between districts 1 and 2, with district 3 enlarging its area west of I-15 to accommodate the relative population increase in that part of the City. Small changes were made to the remaining districts to accommodate the shift in population to the west and north. Note that a more ideal balance of population could be achieved, but only by violating other Guiding Principles, such as, recognizing natural and man-made boundaries, and dividing communities of common interest.

SugarHouse

WasatchHollow



SunnysideEast


YalecrestBallPark

EastCentralCentral

City

DowntownPoplarGrove

RosePark

Westpointe

GreaterAvenues


CapitolHill

BonnevilleHills


Foothill/Sunnyside


District 1

CouncilDistrict 2

CouncilDistrict 4

CouncilDistrict 5

CouncilDistrict 6

CouncilDistrict 7

City Council – RWG – CC Map 2



4



16

Statistics Tables - City Council (CC) Proposal - CC Map 2 – Minimize Changes to Existing Boundaries

District

2010

Population

Deviation

from Target

Population -

26,634

Residents

Percent

Deviation

from Target

Population

1 28,426 1,792 6.73%

2 27,818 1,184 4.45%

3 24,939 -1,695 -6.36%

4 27,161 527 1.98%

5 26,165 -469 -1.76%

6 26,611 -23 -0.09%

7 25,320 -1,314 -4.93%

District

New

Population

New

Deviation

from Target

Population

New

Percent

Deviation

from Target

Population

Net Number

of Residents

Moved Into

or Out of

Districts

Percent of

District

Residents

Changed per

New

Population

1 27,032 398 1.49% -1,394 -5.16%

2 26,425 -209 -0.78% -1,393 -5.27%

3 27,130 496 1.86% 2,191 8.08%

4 26,821 187 0.70% -340 -1.27%

5 26,353 -281 -1.06% 188 0.71%

6 26,480 -154 -0.58% -131 -0.49%

7 26,199 -435 -1.63% 879 3.36%

Total 186,440

Current Council District Boundaries

Proposed Council District Boundaries - CC Map 2


1 2,567 - 1,135 1,432 - - - -

2 2,528 1,173 - 1,355 - - - -

3 596 - - - 596 - -

4 936 - - - - - 936 -

5 1,299 - - - - - 1,299 -

6 1,472 - - - - 894 - 1,472

7 593 - - - - 593 - -

10,885 1,173 1,135 2,787 596 1,487 2,235 1,472

Population Detail by District - Number of Residents Affected by Proposed CC Map 2

Moved In


17

School Board (SB) Proposals - SB Map 1 – School Board Recommended Proposal Summary - Representatives from the Salt Lake City School Board of Education presented SB Map 1 during the Redistricting Working Group meeting held on December 1, 2011. The map was developed with the following additional criteria adopted by the School Board:

Make precincts substantially equal in population (less than 10% overall variance).

Consider school-age population and School Community Council (SCC) responsibilities in each precinct.

Preserve communities of interest where possible.

Maintain two precincts lying completely west of Interstate 15.

Include constituents west of Interstate 15 in at least one additional precinct. The proposed boundaries in SB Map 1 affect all seven School Board districts, also referred to as precincts. The population changes represent a minor improvement in balancing of residents in each precinct. The largest deviation from the target population in this proposal is -4.73% and the total deviation is 9.37%, nearly ten percent (10%). This is the amount or total deviation the U.S. Supreme Court generally accepts as the population difference between the largest and smallest districts. See City Council – RWG – SB Map 1 Statistics Tables – for statistical information related to District changes. SB Map 1 is most responsive to the Guiding Principles adopted by the School Board. SB Map 1 achieves the goal of maintaining two precincts completely west of Interstate 15 along with including a large group of residents in one additional precinct. SB Map 2 Statistics Table shows the population differences in each precinct. Note that, among the four maps voted on by the Working Group, SB Map 1 has the largest population deviation between precincts. Description – The proposal from the Salt Lake City School Board of Education represents an effort that

began approximately two years ago and involved multiple meetings and their own public input process.

This proposal achieves all of the aforementioned goals of the School Board. In their presentation to the

RWG, the representatives from the School Board made clear their strong preference that representation

from communities west of I-15, where a disproportionately large number of students live, be increased.

This proposal accomplishes that by making Districts 1 and 2 relatively small in population (-4.66% and

-4.73%, respectively), while making Districts 6 and 7 relatively large in population (+4.64 and +4.36%,

respectively). This proposal retains all incumbents.

SugarHouse

WasatchHollow



SunnysideEast


YalecrestBallPark

EastCentralCentral

City

DowntownPoplarGrove

RosePark

Westpointe

GreaterAvenues


CapitolHill

BonnevilleHills


Foothill/Sunnyside


District 1

CouncilDistrict 2

CouncilDistrict 4

CouncilDistrict 5

CouncilDistrict 6

CouncilDistrict 7

School Board – RWG – SB Map 1



4



19

Statistics Tables - School Board (SB) Proposals - SB Map 1 – School Board Recommended

Proposal

District

2010

Population

Deviation

from Target

Population -

26,634

Residents

Percent

Deviation

from Target

Population

1 28,155 1,521 5.71%

2 28,002 1,368 5.14%

3 24,703 -1,931 -7.25%

4 27,320 686 2.58%

5 25,731 -903 -3.39%

6 26,789 155 0.58%

7 25,740 -894 -3.36%

District

New

Population

New

Deviation

from Target

Population

New Percent

Deviation

from Target

Population

Net Number

of Residents

Moved Into or

Out of

Districts

Percent of

District

Residents

Changed per

New

Population

1 25,392 -1,242 -4.66% -2,763 -10.88%

2 25,375 -1,259 -4.73% -2,627 -10.35%

3 27,175 541 2.03% 2,472 9.10%

4 26,532 -102 -0.38% -788 -2.97%

5 26,299 -335 -1.26% 568 2.16%

6 27,871 1,237 4.64% 1,082 3.88%

7 27,796 1,162 4.36% 2,056 7.40%

Total 186,440 -

School Board District Boundaries

Proposed Council District Boundaries - SB Map 1


1 4,556 - 4,556 - - - -

2 7,183 1,563 - 5,620 - - -

3 230 230 - - - - - -

4 6,408 - - 2,702 - 2,047 1,659 -

5 3,626 - - - - - 2,799 827

6 3,376 - - - - 2,147 - 1,229

7 - - - - - - - -

25,379 1,793 4,556 2,702 5,620 4,194 4,458 2,056

Population Detail by District - Number of Residents Affected by Proposed SB Map 1

Moved In


20

School Board (SB) Proposals - SB Map 2 – Eliot Sykes Proposal

Summary - The Working Group discussed School Board map proposals during meetings held on November 18th, December 1st and December 8th 2011. SB Map 2 was created by Eliot Sykes, who represented District 5 as a member of the Working Group. The map had the following priorities:


Maintain compact and contiguous districts as much as is possible.

Recognize communities of common interest. The proposed boundaries in SB Map 2 affect all seven School Board precincts. The population changes achieve a greater population balance in each precinct. The largest deviation from the target population in this proposal is -2.80% and the total deviation is 4.85%. See City Council – RWG – SB Map 2 Statistics Tables – for statistical information related to District changes. SB Map 2 is most responsive to the additional Guiding Principle selected by the School Board that states, “Preserve communities of interest where possible.” The creator of the map stated that communities of interest were a primary consideration as the map boundaries were selected. Description – This proposal also sought to increase the potential for representation of west side residents, recognizing the disproportionately large number of students in that area. While not maintaining two districts entirely west of I-15, the creator of this map pointed out that the portion of District 1 that does cross I-15 to the east could be considered a west side neighborhood, based both on addresses and community commonality. In addition, this proposed map allows for the possibility of two additional School Board members from the west side of the city, in Districts 4 and 5. The deviations from ideal population distribution are relatively small. Some members of the RWG pointed out that the Jordan River, which was chosen as a division between District 2 and Districts 4 and 5, while a natural boundary, does not really divide communities of interest in that area. However, the School Board proposal also uses the Jordan River as a division, albeit over a shorter length. Finally, this map displaces the incumbent from District 4. In their presentation to the RWG, School Board representatives indicated that their body had discussed this at length and that they were comfortable with the prospect of incumbents being unseated as part of the redistricting process.

SugarHouse

WasatchHollow



SunnysideEast


YalecrestBallPark

EastCentralCentral

City

DowntownPoplarGrove

RosePark

Westpointe

GreaterAvenues


CapitolHill

BonnevilleHills


Foothill/Sunnyside


District 1

CouncilDistrict 2

CouncilDistrict 4

CouncilDistrict 5 Council

District 6

CouncilDistrict 7

School Board – RWG – SB Map 2



4



22

Statistics Tables - School Board (SB) Proposals - SB Map 2 – Eliot Sykes Proposal

District

2010

Population

Deviation

from Target

Population -

26,634

Residents

Percent

Deviation

from Target

Population

1 28,155 1,521 5.71%

2 28,002 1,368 5.14%

3 24,703 -1,931 -7.25%

4 27,320 686 2.58%

5 25,730 -903 -3.39%

6 26,789 155 0.58%

7 25,740 -894 -3.36%

District

New

Population

New

Deviation

from Target

Population

New Percent

Deviation

from Target

Population

Net Number

of Residents

Moved Into

or Out of

Districts

Percent of

District

Residents

Changed per

New

Population

1 26,248 -386 -1.45% -1,907 -7.27%

2 26,690 56 0.21% -1,312 -4.92%

3 27,091 457 1.72% 2,388 8.81%

4 25,888 -746 -2.80% -1,432 -5.53%

5 27,179 545 2.05% 1,448 5.33%

6 26,664 30 0.11% -125 -0.47%

7 26,680 46 0.17% 940 3.52%

Total 186,440

School Board District Boundaries

Proposed Council District Boundaries - SB Map 2


1 8,414 - 8,414 - - - - -

2 9,726 3,041 - - 3,706 2,979 - -

3 4,187 3,466 - - 721 - - -

4 5,859 - - 1,846 - 1,766 2,247 -

5 7,265 - - - - - 5,143 2,122

6 7,515 - - 4,729 - - 2,786

7 3,968 - - - - 3,968 - -

46,934 6,507 8,414 6,575 4,427 8,713 7,390 4,908

Population Detail by District - Number of Residents Affected by Proposed SB Map 2

Moved In


23

Attachment 1

2011 Redistricting Working Group

Calendar November 2011 December 2011 January 2012

Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9 10 11 12

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 28 29 30


1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25 26 27 28 29 30 31


1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

29 30 31

Key Dates

November 10, 2011 Working Group meeting #1 November 11, 2011 Veteran’s Day November 18, 2011 Working Group meeting #2 November 24, 2011 Thanksgiving Holiday December 1, 2011 Working Group meeting #3 December 8, 2011 Working Group meeting #4 December 13, 2011 Working Group will provide electronic report to City Council December 24-25, 2011 Christmas Holiday (Council Office Closed December 26th) January 1, 2012 New Year’s Holiday (Council Office Closed January 2nd) January 3, 2012 Work Session briefing – Redistricting Working Group recommendations City Council will hold Public Hearing about Redistricting January 17, 2012 City Council will hold Public Hearing about Redistricting January 31, 2012 Council deadline for conclusion of Redistricting February 7, 2012 City Council approves new Council and School Board boundaries March 9, 2012 Filing deadline for School Board candidates


24

Attachment 2

Salt Lake City Proposed Ground Rules for Redistricting Working Group

Members

o Attendance

No Working Group member may send a designee to meetings to act in his or her stead.

If unable to attend, please contact Council Staff prior to the meeting.

Phone-in arrangements can be made for “phone meeting attendance”. A member’s phone attendance is considered attendance for quorum purposes.

o Communication

Communication among members of the Working Group will be held to the highest level of decorum and respect.

Email and meeting attendance will be used to complete the tasks associated with the Redistricting Working Group.

o Selection of Chair/Vice Chair

The Working Group shall select a chair and vice chair at its first meeting. The chair shall preside over and conduct all meetings of the Working Group.

In the event that neither the chair nor the vice chair can attend a meeting of the Working Group, then the Working Group may select a temporary chair for the meeting.

o Agendas

The Chair and Vice Chair will determine the order and confirm the content of the agenda.

Members should send agenda items for consideration to Chair/Vice Chair and Staff one week prior to meeting.

Meetings

o Quorum

A quorum shall consist of a majority of Working Group members. No action may be taken by the Working Group without a quorum of members present at the meeting.

No meeting of the Redistricting Working Group shall be held without a quorum of members present. Any meeting that is canceled due to a lack of a quorum will be rescheduled by Staff.

o Public


25

Redistricting Working Group Members are committed to an open and transparent process in conducting the work of redrawing of district boundaries for the Salt Lake City Council and Salt Lake City School Board.

Members of the public will be invited to comment at meetings held by the Redistricting Working Group.

Comments from each member of the public will be limited to two minutes.

All comments received by members of the Working Group, Council Staff, and other communication channels, including Open City Hall, constituent phones calls/emails will be shared during the comment period of each of the Working Group’s meetings.

o Notice

The Chair shall notice each meeting, including supporting documentation for agenda items for all members of the Working Group electronically at least 3 days before the scheduled date of the meeting.

o Open meetings

All meetings of the Working Group shall be subject to the Utah Open Meetings Act, Utah Code Ann. Section 52-4-1, et. Seq.

o Agenda Process/Content

An agenda of the business to be conducted at any meeting of the Working Group shall accompany and be provided with the public notice of that meeting.

Unless otherwise decided by the Working Group, the order of business for regular meetings shall be as follows:

Call to Order Public Comment Approval of Minutes Reports of Working Group members, if any Pending and unfinished business New business Adjourn

o Working Group Actions

The Redistricting Working Group will use motions for items requiring action.

All action by the Working Group shall require the affirmative vote of the quorum.

o Staff Role

Staff for the Redistricting Working Group will be provided by the Administration and City Council.

Staff will provide administrative support for the Working Group. Staff will work with the Chair of the Working Group in preparing the notice of


26

meetings, agendas, and all other documentation for meetings. Staff will also be responsible for recording the meetings and preparing the meeting notes.

Staff will also provide other assistance as requested by the Working Group.

Communication

o Internal

Email

All Working Group communications will be written in an email format and sent to all members of the Working Group and support staff.

Meeting notes

The format of the meeting notes will be written action steps taken by a quorum of the Working Group members.

o External

Open City Hall

Open City Hall shall be used as a medium to communicate and gather input from the public.

Press Releases

If directed by Working Group, Council Staff will prepare and, upon approval of the Working Group Chair or Vice Chair, send Press Releases to the media on any major action items.

The chair will serve as the contact person with members of the media.

Media

All media contact shall be through the Working Group chair. In the event that the Chair is unavailable, all media contact shall be through the Working Group Vice Chair.

Meeting notes

Notes of each meeting will be prepared by Council Staff. The draft of the meeting notes will be made available to the public within one week of the meeting. Draft meeting notes will be approved by a majority vote of the Working Group quorum. Notes will be posted on Open City Hall.

Audio recording of meeting

An audio recording of each meeting will be available for the Working Group members, Support Staff, and public.

Salt Lake City Council

Draft and approved notes of each meeting will be emailed to all City Council Members and Council Member elect(s).

Salt Lake City School Board


27

Draft and approved notes of each meeting will be forwarded to the School Board.

Written communication

All external written communications will be approved by the Chair of the Working Group.

Project Expectations

o Timeline/Schedule

The Working Group will schedule multiple meetings for the Redistricting process, during which they will discuss boundary proposals and gather public input. The Working Group will make a recommendation on Salt Lake City Council and School Board boundaries by December 13th, 2011.

o Public Process

The Working Group will gather public input using the ESRI redistricting software, Open City Hall, a comment period during each of the Working Group meetings, and two formal City Council public hearings.

o Report to City Council

The Working Group will report their recommendation to the City Council on December 13th, 2011.

The City Council has the responsibility for determining the final boundaries for the Council and School Board districts.

o Final Report Format

The final work product of the Working Group that shall be submitted to the City Council for consideration shall include at a minimum:

A written report of the Working Group’s recommendation which explains the Group’s methodology, evaluation criteria and priorities in developing the proposed district boundaries.

A population summary of each council and school board districts.

Maps of proposed council and school board district.

A citywide map of the proposed council and school board districts.

If the Working Group submits more than one redistricting plan for either City Council or School Board boundaries, the plans shall be rank ordered.

Amendments to Ground Rules

o These ground rules may be altered, amended, repealed or added to by an affirmative vote of the majority of the quorum.


28

Attachment 3

July 6, 2011 City Council Staff Memo – Legal Considerations Regarding Redistricting Redistricting of city council and school board district boundaries is governed by the United States Constitution, federal statutes, State of Utah statutes, and Salt Lake City Code provisions. U.S. Constitution Equal Protection of the Laws The “one person, one vote” rule is based on the Equal Protection Clause, and applies to the City Council and school board districts. It requires substantial equality of population among the districts. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) Fifteenth Amendment The Fifteen Amendment provides that “the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” Federal Statutes Discrimination in voting against racial or language minorities is prohibited by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Section 2. Utah Statutes City Council Each City Council district must be of substantially equal population as the other districts. In the redistricting process the Council must make any adjustments in the boundaries of the districts as may be required to maintain districts of substantially equal population. UCA § 10-3-202. School Board School board districts must be:

(1) substantially equal in population,

(2) as contiguous as practicable, and

(3) as compact as practicable. UCA § 20A-14-201.

Contiguous “Contiguous” means that no portion of a district is not connected to another portion of the district. Utah Code § 10-1-104(2) defines “contiguous” to mean:


29

(a) if used to describe an area, continuous, uninterrupted, and without an island of territory not included as part of the area; and (b) if used to describe an area's relationship to another area, sharing a common boundary.

A court probably would consider that statutory definition to be valid. Compact According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (1981), “compact” means “having parts or units closely packed or joined.” Courts in some states define “compact” in terms of physical shape or size, such as having a small perimeter in relation to the area composed, and avoiding bizarre designs, or even in terms of a circle containing the least land area outside the district. 114 ALR 5th 311 § 3[a]. Courts in other states define compactness as referring to closely-united territory, which is conducive to constituent-representative communication. Id. The following ideas were in a redistricting case in Colorado. The compactness requirement specifies that the boundaries of each district shall be as short as possible. One of the most accurate ways to measure compactness is to determine the smallest circle into which the district can be circumscribed and to compare the ratio of the area of the district inside the circle to the area of the circle itself. The closer these figures come to a 1 to 1 ratio, the more compact the district will be. Although there is no federal constitutional standard requiring compact districts, more than half of the states include compactness as a constitutional or statutory criteria for state legislative districting.

A second method of measuring compactness is to compare the aggregate linear distance of the boundaries of each district.

In a practical sense, the compactness of a district will be directly affected by the density and distribution of a state's population. Since population requirements have priority, compactness must often be sacrificed in order to achieve an acceptable range of population deviation. See Carstens v. Lamm, 543 F. Supp. 68, 87 (D. Colo. 1982)

City Code The City Council districts must be of substantially equal population. The districts must be reapportioned after each federal census to maintain substantially equal populations. City Code § 2.06.010.


30

Guiding Principles As noted above, the “one person, one vote” requires substantial equality of population in districts. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) The Supreme Court has developed a measure called the "maximum population deviation" to measure disparities in population per legislator. The maximum population deviation is calculated by the following steps:

First, the apportionment base is divided by the number of legislators in the legislative house under consideration, to arrive at the norm if absolute population equality were achieved.

Second, if a district has more persons than the ideal district, the ideal district population is subtracted from the actual district population; the resulting number is then divided by the ideal district population to get the percentage of under-representation.

Third, if a district has fewer persons than the ideal district, its population is subtracted from the population of the ideal district; the resulting number is then divided by the ideal district population to get the percentage of over-representation.

Finally, when the percentages of under-representation or over-representation have been calculated for all districts (or all legislators in multimember districts), the district that is most over-represented is identified and the district that is most under-represented is identified; these two percentages are then added together to obtain the maximum population deviation. See 25 Am Jur 2d Elections § 25 (2011). For example, suppose that a city’s population is 100,000 and it has seven city council districts. 100,000 divided by seven is 14,286. That is the “ideal district” population, in that each district would have exactly equal population. Suppose further that one district is reapportioned to have only 14,000 people, and another is reapportioned to have 15,000 people. The first district’s deviation from the ideal is -286, which is a 2.0 percent deviation. The second district’s deviation is 714, which is a 5.0 percent deviation. The 2.0 percent and 5.0 percent deviations are added together to get a maximum population deviation, which in this case is 7.0 percent. Though the description above refers to state legislative districts, the principles apply to local government districts. A rule of thumb is that if a maximum population deviation is under ten percent, the redistricting well be presumed to be valid. On the other hand, if the maximum population deviation exceeds ten percent, the governmental entity must bear the burden of establishing that the deviation is not discriminatory. However, local governments may be able to employ slightly higher percentage deviations due to their need for flexibility in municipal arrangements. Abate v. Mundt, 403 U.S. 182, 185 (1971). There are many sources that attempt to describe guiding principles or factors that may or may not be taken into account in redistricting. The following are some examples: According to John Fellows at the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel, Utah’s practice has been to have the Redistricting Committee adopt redistricting principles. In 2001 the Committee adopted principles relating to: Equal population

Single member districts Number of legislative districts


31

Use of the Census Bureau’s population figures Contiguity Compactness

Mr. Fellows also stated that the Supreme Court has recognized seven “traditional redistricting principles”: Compactness (Shaw v. Reno; Bush v. Vera)

Contiguity (Shaw) Preservation of political subdivisions (Shaw; Abrams v. Johnson) Preservation of communities of interests (Miller v. Johnson; Abrams) Preservation of the cores of prior districts (Abrams) Protection of incumbents (Abrams) Compliance with the Voting Rights Act (Shaw v. Hunt)

However, it is important to remember that equal population is the most important factor. The following factors do not justify disparities from population-based representation:

Creating districts with special interest orientations.

History alone

Economic interests (“Citizens, not history or economic interests, cast votes.”)

Other group interests

Area or geographical considerations. (“People, not land or trees or pastures, vote.”) Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 580 (1964).

Natural borders can be instructive in drawing districts, due to the potential commonality of interests among subpopulations. Moore v. Itawamba County, Mississippi, 431 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2005).

The following consistently applied legislative policies (if nondiscriminatory) might justify some minor population deviations:

Making districts compact, Respecting municipal boundaries, Preserving the cores of prior districts, Avoiding contests between incumbent representatives. Karcher v. Daggett, 462 U.S. 725, 740 (1983)

Issues Meaning of “Population.”


32

As a constitutional matter, the federal census is not the required standard by which substantial population equivalency is to be measured. Apportionment plans may use bases other than population, but only when population figures are unavailable and the figures employed substantially approximate those that would have been derived from a census of the entire population. For example, registered voter figures may be used only if the results substantially reflect results obtainable by the use of another permissible basis, such as total population. See CJS Constlaw § 1273. In an election of general interest, such as a city council or school board election, restrictions on the franchise other than residence, age, and citizenship must promote a compelling state interest in order to survive constitutional attack. Hellebust v. Brownback, 42 F.3d 1331, 1333 (10th Cir. 1994)

It has been suggested that the City Council consider measuring “equal population” by the number of parents of children in the public schools, rather than the general population. However, because that is a restriction on voting other than residence, age, or citizenship, courts would apply strict scrutiny in analyzing the restriction. Strict scrutiny is extremely difficult to satisfy. The purpose of the one person, one vote rule is to guarantee that “the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen.” Board of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U.S. 688, 791 (1989). Therefore, the rule is intended to protect voters and citizens, not just parents. Courts have struck down attempts to use something other than general population, such as property owners. See City of Herriman v. Bell, 590 F.3d 1176, 1186 (10th Cir. 2010). The court cited examples, including what it described as the “law restricting voting in a school district election to those owning or leasing taxable property or having children enrolled in that school district.” (Emphasis added.) The Supreme Court, in Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S. 621 (1969), ruled that a law that restricted voting in a school district election to people owning or leasing taxable property or having children enrolled in that school district was an unconstitutional violation of equal protection. More recently, the Illinois supreme court struck down a law that denied the vote in school council elections to voters who did not, at the time of the election, have children attending the public schools. Fumarolo v. Chicago Board of Education, 566 N.E.2d 1283, 1300 (Ill. 1990). The court applied strict scrutiny and said that there had been no evidence that voters who do not have children attending the public school have less interest in the candidates to be elected, or that parents with children attending public schools have a special ability to choose school council members. It said that it was unreasonable to deny an equal voice to citizens who do not, at the time, have children in the public schools. Therefore, the City Council, in redistricting, should not interpret “population” to mean only parents of school-aged children.


33

Effect of Boundary Changes on Incumbent Officers School Board

With respect to school boards, statutory guidance exists.

Section 20A-14-201(3)(a) provides that “[r]eapportionment does not affect the right of any

school board member to complete the term for which the member was elected.

Section 20A-14-201(3)(b) contains the following rules regarding school board representation

following reapportionment:

1. If only one board member whose term extends beyond reapportionment lives within a reapportioned district, that board member shall represent that district. 2. (a) If two or more members whose terms extend beyond reapportionment live within a reapportioned district, the members involved shall select one member by lot to represent the district. (b) The other members shall serve at-large for the remainder of their terms.

(c) The at-large board members shall serve in addition to the designated number of board members for the board for the remainder of their terms.

3. If no board member lives within a district whose term extends beyond

reapportionment, the seat shall be treated as vacant and shall be filled as provided by law.

City Council

In contrast to the school district scenario, Utah lacks a statute that expressly addresses the effect

of a redistricting boundary change on incumbent city council members. However, some Utah

Code sections indirectly provide guidance.

For example, § 10-3-201(1) states that the officers elected in a city general election shall continue in office for four years except in case of death, resignation, removal, or disqualification from office. Furthermore, § 10-3-202 provides that each elected officer of a city shall hold office for the term for which he or she is elected unless the office becomes vacant under § 10-3-301. Section 10-3-301(3) says that a city officer must maintain residency within the boundaries of the “municipality.” It is silent about maintaining residency within a council district.2 In addition, Subsection 10-3-202(b) provides that an elected officer’s office becomes automatically vacant if the officer establishes a principal place of residence outside the city during the officer’s term of office. This happens only if the officer acts affirmatively to remove

2 It is true that § 20A-9-203(1)(b) provides that each candidate for a city council position must be a resident of the

council district from which elected. However, unlike § 10-3-301(3), it does not say the officer must maintain such residency. Therefore, the better interpretation of this section is that it describes only a qualification in effect at the time of the election.


34

himself or herself from a district with an intent to remain in another place. See § 20A-2-105(4)(j)(i). Because a change of district boundaries does not involve the affirmative act of a council member to move from the district, it seems unlikely that his or her residence would change and thus there would be no automatic vacancy.

Because no Utah statutes clearly address the issue, it is likely that the common law would apply.

Under the common law, the qualifications of candidates for office are determined at the time

they begin their term of office. Redistricting that changes the residence of an incumbent member

does not affect that member’s current term of office. Candidates carry their residence with them

throughout the entire term of office to which they were elected. Kendra Carberry, Redistricting:

A Municipal Perspective, Colorado Lawyer, February 2002 49.

That view is supported by Olsen v. Merrill, 5 P.2d 226 (Utah 1931). In that case a redistricting

affected members of the Provo Board of Education. Mr. Olsen and Mr. Startup were school

board members. Before the redistricting, Mr. Olsen resided in municipal ward No. 3, and Mr.

Startup resided in ward No. 2.

After a redistricting, Mr. Olsen ended up living in ward No. 2 and Mr. Startup resided in ward

No. 1. The board of education met to select two new board members to replace Mr. Olsen and

Mr. Startup, on the premise that the positions of those men had become vacant.

The Supreme Court disagreed, and ruled that the men were entitled to continue to act as

members of the board for the remainder of their terms. The redistricting did not render them

ineligible to continue as board members.3

Therefore, an incumbent City Council member will not lose his or her office due to redistricting. That necessarily means that, temporarily, more than one Council Member might live in a single district, and that during that time a district might endure with no Council Member residing within it. Boyd Ferguson HB_ATTY-#18640-v1-Redistricting_2011_Council_staff_memo_legal_section.DOC

3 The court distinguished situations in which the elected officials served only as representatives of the municipal

wards from which they were elected. In contrast, the Provo board members did not serve in a municipal ward office.

Instead, each board member, though elected from municipal wards, participated in the management and control of

the entire school system without regard to municipal wards.


35

Attachment 4

NEWS RELEASE _____________________________________________________________________________ August, 2011 Media Contact: Dan Weist 801.535.7600 Dan. Weist @slcgov.com

Council begins City redistricting by offering mapping tool; Web page - Open City Hall - offers ongoing redistricting information

The Salt Lake City Council has begun the process of re-drawing the City’s political map as a result of the latest U.S. Census survey. It’s a vital effort required of lawmakers to ensure equal representation for residents of each Council and City School Board district.

The City has partnered with an online redistricting software provider to offer a new mapping tool that will help the public prepare district plans which can be considered by the City Council. The City’s ongoing web forum, Open City Hall http://www.slcgov.com/redistricting , is offering information from start to finish about the redistricting process, including the new mapping program.

The public can access the map-drawing tool and use it to propose new boundaries here:

http://www.slcgov.com/redistricting

For the next four months, Open City Hall will be updated to reflect the stages of the process. It began with applications for the Redistricting Working Group -- a volunteer group that will meet to offer recommendations to the Council -- and will end with the selection of specific boundary proposals by the Council. The Council is expected to conclude the process by the end of 2011. Public hearings on redistricting will be held this fall as the Council invites residents to offer their suggestions and listen to their comments. Suggestions from the Redistricting Working Group, the public mapping program and all other comments will be considered by the Council.

Timeline: The online mapping tool will be available through the Fall. The goal is to complete the redistricting by December 6. The finalized hearing dates will be announced later this summer, but the following are potential dates for Public Hearings: November 15 and November 22. Public Hearings on this topic, when scheduled, will be held at the City & County Building Council Chambers, 451 S. State Street, Room 315 in Salt Lake City.




36

Attachment 4

NEWS RELEASE _______________________________________________________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release Contact: (801) xxx August, 2011

WANTED: Volunteers for City redistricting group

The Salt Lake City Council and the Mayor’s Office are looking for volunteers to help redraw the City’s political map as a result of the latest U.S. Census survey. It’s a vital effort required of lawmakers to ensure equal representation for residents of each Council and City School Board district.

The Council, in collaboration with the Mayor’s Office, will select seven volunteers who will serve as members of a Redistricting Working Group. The volunteer group will gather input from the public and offer district boundary recommendations to the Council as part of the redistricting process. The Working Group will independently review the data and make suggestions for the Council and School Board district boundaries. Public hearings on redistricting also will be held.

The commitment for volunteers will include meeting as needed with the other Working Group members to arrive at suggestions for the Council. New mapping tools are expected to be available soon to help the Working Group develop boundary proposals. The mapping program also is expected be available to the general public at the City website. The Mayor’s Office will accept the applications for potential members of the Working Group, and then recommend to the Council the finalists for the positions. The Council’s interest is to have the Working Group be as diversified as possible, including political affiliation and representation from each Council District. The volunteers will be asked to fill out an application and conflict of interest statement, similar to the process for volunteers who wish to serve on a City board or commission. Applications will be accepted from August 1 through August 15, 2011. Council Members expect to complete the redistricting process by the end of the 2011.

Applications available at the Mayor or Council office and:

www.slcgov.com/redistricting



37

Attachment 4

PRESS RELEASE

CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 13, 2011

Contact: Dan Weist,

Communications Coordinator 801-535-7623

The Salt Lake City Council has begun the process of re-drawing the City’s political map as a result of the latest U.S. Census survey. It’s a vital effort, separate from the state redistricting process, that is required of City lawmakers to ensure equal representation for residents of each Council and City School Board district.

The City has partnered with an online redistricting software provider to offer a new mapping tool that will help the public prepare district plans which can be considered by the City Council. The City’s ongoing web forum, Open City Hall http://www.slcgov.com/redistricting is offering information from start to finish about the redistricting process, including the new mapping program.

Any member of the public can access the map-drawing tool and use it to propose new boundaries here: http://www.slcgov.com/redistricting

Open City Hall will be updated to reflect the stages of the process. It began with applications for the Redistricting Working Group -- a volunteer group that will meet to offer recommendations to the Council -- and will end with the selection of specific boundary proposals by the Council. Public hearings on redistricting will be scheduled as the Council invites residents to offer their suggestions and listen to their comments. Suggestions from the Redistricting Working Group, the public mapping program and all other comments will be considered by the Council.

Timeline: The goal is to complete the redistricting by early 2012. Public Hearings on this topic, when scheduled, will be held at the City & County Building Council Chambers, 451 S. State Street, room 315 in Salt Lake City.




38

Attachment 4

PRESS RELEASE


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 16, 2011

Contact: Dan Weist,

Communications Coordinator

c. 801-535-7623

SLC Redistricting Working Group announces leadership, meeting schedule SALT LAKE CITY – A volunteer group of nine Salt Lake City residents – called the Redistricting Working Group- has chosen its leaders and announced a series of meetings that includes time for public comment. The next meeting is 5:30 – 7:30 pm on Friday, November 18 at the City & County Building, room 326. The group was appointed by the Salt Lake City Council to independently come up with recommendations on how to redraw the City’s political map. It’s a decennial effort, separate from the state redistricting process that is required of City lawmakers to ensure equal representation for residents of each Council and City School Board district.

The Working Group chose James Guilkey as Chairman, and Mike Christensen as Vice Chairman. The Group includes one person from each Council District and two members recommended by the Salt Lake City School Board. The other members include Craig Ruesch, Eliot Bryant Sykes, Margith Maughan, Maria Torres, Nan Weber, Stephen Nelson and John Bennion. The City has partnered with an online redistricting software provider to offer a mapping tool that will help the public and the Group prepare district plans which can be considered by the City Council. Any member of the public can now access the map-drawing tool and use it to propose new boundaries.

The City’s ongoing web forum, Open City Hall http://www.slcgov.com/redistricting is offering information from start to finish about the redistricting process, including the mapping program. The topic is listed as “Re-drawing the City’s political map.” The Group invites public comment at the beginning of each meeting; through Open City Hall or at [email protected]

Two more Group meetings are scheduled:

Dec. 1 5:30-7:30 pm, City and County Bldg, 451 South State St, Third Floor, Room 326

Dec. 8 5:00-7:00 pm, City and County Bldg, 451 South State St, Third Floor, Room 326

Timeline: The goal is to complete the redistricting by early 2012. Public Hearings on this topic, when

scheduled, will be held at the City & County Building Council Chambers, 451 S. State Street, room 315 in

Salt Lake City.


mailto:[email protected]


39

Attachment 4

PRESS RELEASE


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 28, 2011

Contact: Dan Weist,

Communications Coordinator

801-535-7623

SLC School leaders to speak at Redistricting Working Group meeting

Salt Lake City School leaders are scheduled to speak at the next meeting of the Redistricting Working Group, a volunteer group of nine SLC residents appointed to independently come up with recommendations on how to redraw the City’s political map. The Salt Lake City School Board of Education President and SLC School District Superintendent plan to meet with the Working Group as part a series of meetings that includes time allotted in each meeting for public comment. The next meeting is 5:30 – 7:30 pm on Thursday, Dec. 1 at the City & County Building, room 326. The Group was appointed by the Salt Lake City Council to help with the decennial effort, separate from the state redistricting process, that is required of City lawmakers to ensure equal representation for residents of each Council and City School Board district. The City has partnered with an online redistricting software provider to offer a mapping tool that will help the public and the Group prepare district plans which can be considered by the City Council. Any member of the public can access the map-drawing tool and use it to propose new boundaries.

The City’s ongoing web forum, Open City Hall http://www.slcgov.com/redistricting is offering information from start to finish about the redistricting process, including the mapping program. The OCH topic is listed as “Re-drawing the City’s political map.” The Group also invites public comment through Open City Hall or at [email protected]




40

Attachment 5

Salt Lake City Redistricting Working Group Meeting Notes

November 10, 2011

Attendance: Mike Christensen (D1), Nan Weber (D2), Margith Maughan (D3), Maria Torres (D4), Eliot Sykes

(D5), James Guilkey (D6), Stephen Nelson (D7), Craig Ruesch and John Bennion (School Board Representatives), Karen Halladay, Brady Wheeler, Dan Weist, and Boyd Ferguson (City Staff)

1. Welcome/Introductions Council Staff – Karen Halladay

2. Purpose/Task Council Staff – Karen Halladay

a. Project Overview i. Working Group for City Council

o Karen invited the Group to review the Staff Reports from previous Council meetings.

o The goal of the Council is to have a fair and open process, with input and recommendations being prepared by an independent and politically-balance group. The Group’s recommendations will be presented to the Council for their consideration.

o Karen reminded the Working Group that the City Council has the ultimate decision making authority for the Council and School Board boundaries.

ii. Public Process 1. Open City Hall

o Karen discussed plans for how Open City Hall has been and will be used throughout the redistricting process.

2. Comments iii. Timeline

o Karen provided a project timeline overview, starting at January 31st

and working backward. Although the Working Group realizes the schedule is aggressive, they indicated their preference to complete their work and submit their recommendations to the City Council by December 13

th of

2011. iv. Work Product

1. Recommendation Salt Lake City Council district map 2. Recommendation Salt Lake City School Board district map

o Working Group plans to submit plans for both Council and School Board District to the Council for their consideration.

3. Need to Understand Attorney’s Office – Boyd Ferguson

a. Legal Aspects of Redistricting i. Federal

o Remember 1 person, 1 vote which comes from the United States Constitution. o Remember that you must have substantially equal population. o Question from Mr. Bennion, representative from the School District

a. Does this count include or exclude school children?


41

o Response from Boyd Ferguson - Substantially equal population means all residents.

ii. State iii. Local

o School Board language is more specific in code than City Council. o References compact and contiguous districts.

b. Guiding Principles i. Salt Lake City Council – (The Guiding Principles developed by the City Council are

included in binder.) ii. Salt Lake City School Board – (A letter containing the School Board’s Redistricting

Criteria is included in the binder.)

c. Primary Requirements balanced with secondary interests & goals

4. ESRI Software Council Staff – Brady Wheeler

a. Accounts o Brady provided details as to how a resident can setup their account.

b. Examples o Brady showed how to navigate the different features of the software.

c. Questions o How do you compare new boundaries to existing boundaries? o Can you run a report with economic information? o Are we determining school boundaries? o Can you indicate where current council and school board members live?

d. Reports o Brady showed the members how to use the report feature found in the software. o 5 tips provided by Brady

i. Start with districts that are too big first. ii. Draw small shapes always, because big shapes end up reassigning too many census

blocks. iii. Use the lock boundaries features when you complete a district, specifically around

the edges of the district you completed. iv. Use the reports feature at the end of your boundary process. v. Provide a detailed description and policy reasons for drawing the lines on the map.

For example, the intent of this map is to recognize and avoid splitting both officially and unofficially recognized community councils.

5. Meeting Management Council Staff – Karen Halladay

a. Adoption of ground rules o The Working Group indicated the ground rules they wish to adopt, change, or add. Karen

will make the necessary edits and send to the Working Group for review. b. Selection of Chair/Vice Chair

o James Guilkey volunteered to be the Chair of the Working Group and Mike Christenson volunteered to serve as the Vice Chair. Both members were approved by the rest of the Working Group members.

c. Determine meeting schedule o The meeting schedule was determined as follows:

Friday, November 18, 2011 from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. Thursday, December 1, 2011 from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. Thursday, December 8, 2011 from 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.

d. Project timeline


42

o The Working Group decided to follow the suggested timeline from Staff, which would have the Working Group present their recommendations to the City Council by December 13, 2011.

e. Working Group expectations o The Working Group members discussed outreach and communication efforts, including

encouraging the public to attend their meetings and/or provide oral or written comments directly to Working Group members, Council Members, Staff. The Working Group expressed their desire to review all comments received at each of their meetings.

6. Next Steps Council Staff – Karen Halladay a. Letter to Salt Lake City School Board

o The Working Group reviewed the draft letter and indicated that they approve of the language. Staff will send a final draft to the Chair next week for review. Upon approval, the staff will send the letter to the School District.

b. Next Meeting – selection of date and time o The next meeting will be held on November 18, 2011 from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. at the City and

County Building. c. Additions/changes to Open City Hall

o The Working Group wants a summary of all comments about redistricting organized and presented at the next meeting.


43

Attachment 5


November 18, 2011 5:30 – 7:30 p.m.

Attendance: Mike Christensen, Vice Chair (D1), Nan Weber (D2), Margith Maughan (D3), Maria Torres (D4), Eliot Sykes (D5), Jim Guilkey, Chair (D6), Stephen Nelson (D7), Craig Ruesch (School District) John Bennion (School District), Brady Wheeler, Dan Weist, and Lehua Weaver (City Staff) Excused: Karen Halladay (City Staff)

1. Welcome/Call to Order

2. Public Comment a. Members of the public in attendance*

*Note-comments will be limited to two minutes for each person

Jim noted no members were present, but they would come back to the item if necessary. b. Review of public comment from Open City Hall, other City Government forums, and any input that

individual members of the group have received.

Jim - Reviewed the comment on the Open City Hall posting.

Jim – Reviewed one comment regarding giving the CBD its own Council Member, but not many other comments.

Dan – Indicated that this is a preliminary stage, and the number of users reading the page is noteworthy. Once the maps are up, we might see a higher use.

Working Group Discussion: o Margith – Commented that she didn’t see any coverage on the press release.

Dan – Reviewed to whom it was sent and the places it was posted. Jim – Noted that he has not gotten a weekly email from JT since he wasn’t re-

elected, hoping to see that come back out. Action Item: Please request that it is sent out to all the lists – perhaps as a

special item. o Action Item: Jim – Asked if it is possible to have the OCH people send out an update /

notice / solicit comments when the maps are up? Dan – Stated that yes, when there’s a major development especially we can do

that. Noted that key is to take steps to develop the public process.

o Action Item: Margith – Asked if there will there be a public release after each meeting to generate interest / notify.

Jim – This item will be discussed further during the discussion of item #6 on the agenda.

Jim – Asked if there were any comments from committee members.

Jim – Mentioned that an invitation was sent to the School Board, and School Board representatives are expected to present information to the Working Group on Dec 1

st.

3. Approvals

a. Minutes from Working Group meeting held on 11/10/2011

Motion to approve Nan, 2nd

by Mike – approved - all in favor


44

b. Ground Rules for Working Group

Discussion? Motion to approve Mike , 2nd

by Nan – approved - all in favor

4. Map Presentations and Discussion e. Working Group Member – Mike Christensen (D1)

Mike – census bureau data on census blocks. 2,858. o Craig - Asked about the darker section being more dense. o Mike – Indicated that several maps were prepared by reviewing City boundaries,

population by census block, by square mile. The following maps were prepared: Map by council district residence – concern about unseating a council member

by redistricting. Only a few districts that are outside the population and deviation allowed. A “minimum change plan” to adjust the boundary between the 1

st & 3

rd district.

Can see what the Council wants to do. o Results of changes:

The significant change plan drew 4 council districts across I-15 - populations the same.

2/3 of the city would be in a new council district. o Mike – Presented several slides showing where the children (under 18) are located -

showed children per adult – they are not evenly distributed across the city.

John Bennion – was one of the Council directives to do minimal change? o Brady – yes, tab 2 – provides the “guiding” principles. This could be an option for the

Working Group to consider in their analysis of how to best draw new Council and School District boundaries.

o John – Asked if school board & council maps have to be the same? o Brady – Answered that they are not required to be the same.

f. Working Group Member - Eliot Sykes (D5) o Eliot - Created map for both city and school.

o “Might be antagonistic”. o The way he thought about it – biking a lot going east to west and back and forth –

routes, quick, ride through neighborhoods and notice attributes. o Trying to keep that in mind – communities of interest – and take into account natural

boundaries – the District 2 eastern boundary is the Jordan River. o Results of changes:

i. Put Kyle & Luke in the same district. ii. No D2 representative.

iii. Put Jill in D6. iv. Charlie Luke and Søren in the same district. v. Driven partially by his desired changes to the school district map.

o Discussion: Margith – Referred to Boyd’s information about a new boundary creating a

district without a council member. Jim – Appreciated the discussion – but concern about unseating people. Effort

of people to get elected. He asked if there is another version that wouldn’t unseat current representatives?

Eliot – trying to keep interests of folks together.

East side of his district vs. the west side – they’re different interests.

Gave options for more west side residents to be on the Council.

Dynamic of kids. Stephen – Asked questions and commented on Mike and Eliot maps. His

comments included: that he has lived in 4 different community council districts, he sees a preference for diversity in terms of the drawn options, and also sees


45

a preference for commonalities, etc. He stated that these don’t have to be mutually exclusive, but one might be sacrificed for the other. He asked if there is a preference between EITHER diversity or commonality.

Mike – Stated that 1st

of all, it gets difficult when you’re trying to keep the population even – it’s hard to ensure adequate west side rep – if the district straddles the city, might have no west side rep – hard to find a map that does everything.

Stephen – Noted that it is difficult because we have to trade some preference – saw the boundary shift between D1 and D3 went past Beck St / Victory road, which is a pretty strong dividing line.

John – Asked if that was that an answer – diversity or commonality.

Mike – Indicated that that he probably favored more diversity.

Eliot – Thought that SLC is a smaller stage than state / federal. He mentioned that he would probably favor of commonality.

g. Council Staff – Brady Wheeler o Map 1 – Minimal change to current boundaries.

o Brady - Indicated that there are copies of the map in binders. The northwestern part of the city is similar to what Mike presented, but also it also changes D7 a bit to address the possible population issue. Changes were made to provide more uniform boundaries.

o Discussion: Jim – Asked about whether or not there is an issue of some homes being split.

Brady – Indicated that maybe 20 homes in the state, none in SLC.

Jim – Asked about D5 and D6 boundaries? John – Stated that the map has 2 purposes: population issue and the cleaner

boundaries. Jim – Stated that ‘nesting’ nice things about having boundaries same. Nan – no change to the I-15 boundary issue – D2 feels cut off because of the

boundary. Brady – Stated that for balancing issues, some districts may have to come

across the freeway. This would be a topic of discussion for the Working Group.

o Map 2 – Communities of interest o Brady – Attempted to align with community councils, minimizing splitting Community

Councils between multiple Council Members. o Discussion:

Jim – Asked how Community Council boundaries got established. Brady – Mentioned that there are ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ Community Councils.

They serve as a forum for the communities to share information, not directed by the City.

o Map 3 – Geographic center of Salt Lake City

o Brady – Calculated distances from the City center – population center: 700 E 300 S highest number of shifted residents.

o Jim – Stated that the purpose of the map is that we asked him to do it. o Jim – Asked about the benefit of this option. o Jim – Stated that Karen suggested it as an option – based on Salt Lake County’s

Redistricting Commission’s work. o Brady –Noted that the population center is so far east. o Stephen – Noted that it is helpful to see it, even if it’s not likely to be adopted. o Nan – Agreed.


46

o Craig – Noted that the map provides insight into why the current districts are as they are.

h. Other

Jim – Asked Craig if he wanted to present the School District map.

Action Item: BRADY – contact the school district to have them share their map recommendation.

Jim – Suggested that the Working Group should discuss Eliot’s option further. o Eliot – Noted the following regarding the school board and their criteria:

Coming west of I-15 42% of the school age population comes from there – most if not all are Title 1 mainly about funding.

70% or more on free or reduced lunch receive additional funding. Combining with more affluent neighborhoods gives the families with less

connection more opportunity. Again trying to get more districts that would provide an option for west side

representatives. “Deserve more representation” because they aren’t financially advantaged. Children being the constituents of the school board, not the parents.

o Jim – Noted that the map meets one of the criteria that the school board gave us – about having a district cross over I-15.

o Eliot – Mentioned Stephen’s question about commonality and diversity has been bouncing around. Each word can have multiple definitions. Eliot retracted his answer from before regarding the city council maps – diversity goes beyond that. He favored it all because he thinks they can be similar.

o Stephen – Noted that this makes redistricting fascinating, because these are hard decisions.

o Eliot – Noted that one thing he did not like about his map is that the D4 boundary is too far east, but some things are driven by the populations.

Jim – Asked if I-15 is a true boundaries - is west more rural.

Craig, Nan – Stated that no, it wasn’t. o Nan – Stated that it is not a natural boundary just built. o Brady – Mentioned concern that neighborhoods straddle even the Jordan River.

John – Stated that it will be interesting to see the School Board presentation. o Brady – Asked about what has been done with Community Councils. o Jim – Expressed concern that the board’s map hasn’t had the public input that we could

provide. o John – Stated that he thinks the School Board will be open to input and adjusting the

map. o Jim – Suggested that Eliot could present his map again. o Eliot – Mentioned that he didn’t have the school board members’ addresses, so some of

them may be unseated, but didn’t take that into account, but may not have mattered.

Action Item: Understand impact on school board elections.

Brady – County Redistricting Commission – School Districts o Impact on the school districts – map response, future plans with schools, and ultimately

they adopted the maps from the school districts. o Wasn’t just focusing on the map sample, but also toyed with changing things up. Part of

the discussion.

Jim – Asked the Working Group members to share their philosophies on the process and preference for the outcome.

o Maria – no real expectation, info gathering, and doing the best that I can. Personally have an interest in the I-15 boundary and interested in – the culture in SLC for having an east and west side. What that means to people psychological.


47

o Steve – less important to have equal population. Above that is everything else. Getting the population to 0 is not a concern. Diversity, places of interest, Community Council all that is more important than getting to 0.

o Nan – I don’t think I came in with any specific feel of an agenda. Interested in the criteria that we were presented with. I agree that we’re not going to be able to satisfy each. Give and take. Realizing that there isn’t a line of separation that everyone seems to think. I see diversity everywhere. It’s not as cut & dry as people think it is. Geographic boundary is less of a concern if river is used, because people on both sides. Freeway is more divisive. We’re going to come up with great maps.

o Mike – I think the biggest consideration in my head is more with the school district that we have the number of children as balanced as possible. I think that’s what the school board is going for. There’s a lot of truth in the problems they have expressed in terms of not enough representation.

o Jim – have to admit that I lean toward the minimal change. People involved with the city have identified themselves with council districts and worked to build relationships. They worked hard to get elected and if we move them out of their district. Hesitant to replicate problems with state redistricting people out of office. People were elected by their constituencies specifically. That’s why I’m more supporting of the minimal change approach.

o Eliot – similar to Mike, concerned about school district boundaries. Last year as an intern, worked to put together a group to increase Westside representation on the school board. That is a bias. In regards to the council districts – I don’t see the same issues playing out. I’m way more passionate about the school representation issue.

o John – we’re here because of the population imbalance from the last 10 years. So we do have a responsibility to tweak that. I’ve been trying to think of whether the system is broken in another significant way, but don’t see that it is. I agree that political loyalties have been built through work and time and effort. Ought to be a powerful rationale to interfere with that. Tweaks could address what we need to do like in map 1. With respect to the school board – we ought to hear what they say and see what input they’ve gotten and take that seriously, even though we may want to make some suggestions back.

o Margith – mandate is to follow the law and to make sure that the population is as equal as possible. I agree that we’re lucky to have some input from the school board. My philosophy is that I love diversity, but for the council and school board districts, there should be more commonality than diversity. I’ve seen that with refugee children who can go to schools with wealthier children, because they are left out on some occasions. For council districts, it’s important to have a proponent on your side who understands what your property taxes are.

o Craig – as having been nominated by the school board, I feel it’s a priority to weigh their recommendation. For the council districts, my input may be philosophically, I’m a minimalist. If too radical, issues may muddy the process.

5. New Business a. Communication and Outreach – Possible Opportunities

Community Council Options o Contact the Chairs – through either email or attending the Mayor’s breakfast. o Contact the full Community Council through attending the meetings, adding items to the

newsletters. o Contact those involved with the Salt Lake Network, which is an organization ‘parenting’

to the Community Councils. o Brady – several options – through Community Councils:

Mayor’s breakfast – request to have redistricting on their agenda –


48

Action Item: Margith – please request that the Council Staff send out the schedule for next meetings.

o Future consideration of a press conference John – due to timeline – do with a map to respond to. John – see if at the next meeting we could come up with a tentative proposal.

Action Item: Jim – plan: o Yes - EMAIL outreach to community council chairs and request that they send it out.

Use Dan’s press release more or less. o Dan – do the next release about the Board coming to the Working Group.

Brady - Confirm they’re coming? John & Craig remind McKell they need to be here.

o Mayor’s breakfast – can do however the working group wants – staff attend or committee member – Jim – Yes, staff do reminder to follow-up on email sent.

o Margith – reminder that it’s a once in 10-year process. o John – goes to chair meeting – and would be happy to present if we have a

recommendation. ADD to the 12/1 AGENDA. o Add other groups (human rights commission) to the press release distribution list. Also

any other groups that working group members are a part of.

Brady – It is up to the working group about how many proposals to send. Just need to be ranked.

6. Assignments

Action Items: Jim – Homework o Eliot – School District map - make a similar one to Mike’s map, but using the population

center for school age population. o Mike – Make a new option that doesn’t unseat any CM (NO…. need to identify criteria). o Jim – maybe Eliot, Mike, Brady could collaborate on having districts straddle east / west. o Eliot – 2

nd school board map that is minimal change following their criteria:

John – once the school district comes in, do we want to have their proposal before we have our other versions?

Jim – I think people on this working group are passionate about school district related issues and can give them weight.

John – just want the working group to understand the new proposals before we see the school board proposal.

Jim – AGENDA – put working group time to discuss these two school district maps before the school district comes here. Do public comment after their presentation.

o Jim – just need to be mindful of not unseating current council members.

7. Adjourn – Next meeting December 1, 2011 from 5:30 – 7:30 p.m.


49

Attachment 5


December 1, 2011 5:30 – 7:30 p.m.

Attendance: Mike Christensen, Vice Chair (D1), Nan Weber (D2), Margith Maughan (D3), Maria Torres (D4), Eliot Sykes (D5), Jim Guilkey, Chair (D6), Stephen Nelson (D7), Craig Ruesch (School District) John Bennion (School District), Brady Wheeler, Dan Weist, and Karen Halladay (City Staff) Guests: Salt Lake City School District Representatives - Kristi Swett, Chair, Heather Bennett, Vice Chair, and McKell Withers, Superintendent


2. Approval of Minutes from 11/18/2011 a. Minutes from the Working Group meeting 11/18/11

Motion to approve Craig, 2nd

by John – Approved – all in favor.

3. School Board Map Presentation School Board Maps

Staff Map 1 1. Rationale - Balance population with minimal deviation, minimal change, and respect

incumbents. 2. Impacts – Fairpark area – shift from D1 to D3, D4 on west side of Freeway and

southern boundary shifted, shift to Sugarhouse area, and changes to D5 and D6.

Staff Map 2 1. Rationale – Consider balance of school age population while maintaining one

person, one vote. 2. Impacts -

a. There are major changes/shifts to district boundaries, due to location of school age children.

b. Achieves greater balance with school age population, keeps current elected officials, but creates significant changes and impacts to the population.

3. Discussion – Preserving incumbents during the redistricting process. Margith did not feel this should be a primary concern of the RWG. John asked how close this was to the School Board’s recommended map.

4. New a. Guiding Principles Table – Indicates, by map, which Guiding Principles are

met. b. Redistricting Maps Website – Captures submitted maps that will be

discussed by the RWG, and provides an opportunity to comment on each of the maps.

Mike Christensen Map 1. Rationale – Reviewed current School Board Districts, which had three districts out

of acceptable range, and the school age population is not balanced. The map presented provides a more balanced population and school age population.


50

2. Impacts – Two incumbents were not preserved.

Eliot Sykes Map 1. Rationale – Better balance of school age population and keep similar

neighborhoods together. Also, includes increased representation of west side residents on the school board and placing a high school in direct supervision of a west side representative.

2. Impacts a. One board member D4 was not preserved. It was pointed out that with a

minor modification the current incumbent would be preserved. 3. Discussion – Preserving incumbents during the redistricting process. Margith did

not feel this should be a primary concern of the RWG. Boyd reminded everyone not to assume an incumbent would lose their job during this process – the law defines what happens when the school district boundaries change.

Kyle LaMalfa Map 1. Rationale – A map that keeps communities of interest together in east side

precincts by breaking along busy streets. Breaks up the west side into three. Balances kids across the board members better than current precincts.

2. Impacts a. Three board members are not preserved. b. Population deviation is off a bit. c. All seven districts could be represented by someone from the East side.

School Board Recommended Map 1. Rationale – Provide a better balance of children, while keeping total population

deviation low and preserving board members. 2. Impacts – Discussed below during SLCSD presentation and discussion. 3. Discussion - Discussed below during SLCSD presentation and discussion.

Edie Trimmer - Member of the Public 1. Rationale – Keep population in guiding principle parameters, consider community

council boundaries, consider school age population, and, when possible, keep incumbents, not an overriding concern.

2. Impacts a. Keep Fairpark Community Council. b. City Creek boundary used in D3. c. D3 incumbent not preserved. d. D4 has two incumbents.

Salt Lake City School Board – Recommended Map – Presented by Kristi Swett and Heather Bennett, President and Vice President of Salt Lake City School Board, and McKell Withers, Superintendent

1. Rationale – In addition to Council’s Guiding Principles, the School Board developed maps using the following additional criteria:

a. Make precincts substantially equal in population. b. Consider school-age population and SCC responsibilities in each precinct. c. Preserve communities of interest. d. Maintain two precincts lying completely west of I-15. e. Include constituents west of I-15 in at least one additional precinct. f. The School Board was not concerned with preserving incumbents.

2. Impacts – a. D1 and D2 are as small as possible to allow for west side constituents to be

added to a third district that is partially on the west side of I-15. 3. Discussion –


51

a. School Board Goal - Kristi reviewed the information submitted to the RWG. She stated that the overall goal was to keep D1 and D2 intact and create another district that might be able to elect another representative from the west side. According to Heather, the board was surprised by the lower than expected census numbers.

b. School Board Public Process – i. Board members and others suggested maps.

ii. According to Kristi, criteria and goal was developed after a two year discussion regarding the complete count project, a attempt to capture the population. Other factors included growth patterns.

c. School District Information – Provided by SLCSB representatives. i. There are approximately 25,000 k-12 students in Salt Lake City

School District. ii. Fifty (50%) of kids reside west of I-15.

iii. School Board Members (According to School Board Members): Represent school communities; attend events, schools, meetings, etc. Board members cover for one another; some board members are assigned outside of their precincts or districts. Board members have duties both in and out of the precincts. Additionally, neither schools nor students are evenly distributed in the City’s overall population.

iv. D4 does not have a lot of school age population – difficult to get the right mix on the maps.

v. Questions 1. Craig: Does the School Board’s recommended map

provide for a better balance of kids? Heather responded – “Marginally better based on number of schools and children. Board members represent entire school district. There is not a complete balance, but they try to represent all children, and they represent schools and children that feed into the high schools in their districts, even if the schools are located outside of the district they represent.”

2. John: Does the map take into account the City Council and Community Council Districts? Heather responded – Some concern was expressed by board members, but this is not a controlling issue or criteria for the School Board. Kristi added that the School Board does not feel that Council and School Board Districts need to be the same.

3. John: Is it likely that the proposed map would produce a third board member from the west side, since the proposed district straddles I-15? Kristi responded that there is an active population that might be able to produce a third school board representative west of I-15.

4. John: What feedback has been received? Kristi responded that there have been conversations at school meetings, neighborhoods, etc. They have also used their website, FaceBook, Twitter.


52

5. Margith: How do the westside/Eastside school issues differ? School board representatives provided the following information:

a. Schools are organized by community. b. Twenty-five (25) percent of the children attend

a school outside of their neighborhood. c. Poverty is an obstacle to student success. Some

schools have populations that have 90% of the population on free or reduced lunch. Citywide the average is 60%. The issues vary by district and school.

d. There are Title 1 schools in all the districts. According to McKell, most are west of I-15.

e. Fee waivers are available for secondary students.

f. Schools are very diverse. The Board tries to achieve balance and provide opportunities to all students.

g. There are 39 School Community Councils. These Councils have spending authority over the School Trustland Funds.

6. Eliot: Would you we willing to share the RWG’s maps with the School Board to get their comments?

7. John: Given the short timeline, would the School Board be willing to collaborate on other maps or does the Board feel their map is the only version? Kristi responded that the Board would be willing to consider smaller tweaks. However, given the amount of time spent in developing their map, the Board is recommending their map.

8. John: Do the maps take into account school boundaries? Representatives responded that this is a consensus map; the map everyone could live with. Heather reminded the RWG that board members share schools and responsibilities. The Board felt that the 6000 residents along the Jordan River would give the highest chance of another west side representative.

9. Jim: As a D6 resident, how do you address the issue of less representation? Kristi responded that all school board members try to outreach and understand where the kids come from and their needs, similar to City Council members. Heather added that the Board looked at the issue from several viewpoints, including taxpayer concerns, number of students, and communities of interest.

10. Jim: Why another west side representative? Kristi responded that although the numbers did not come in as expected, the Board still was concerned about an imbalance with representation. Further, the Board tries to correct any school imbalances, and socio-economic changes and needs in the City are evaluated and addressed, as permitted.


53

11. John: What enrollment changes are expected – for example, along North Temple, 400 West to Redwood Road?

12. John: How much feedback has been received from SCCs, SICs, and PTA organizations? Response was not much. There were two formal occasions to provide feedback. The number of comments was small, but the informal feedback was either okay or showed concern about whether or not a representative would still be “their representative”.

13. Jim: Was the School Board concerned about preserving incumbents? Kristi responded that the School Board did discuss and have strong conversations about this issue. However, the Board stressed that the board’s most important responsibility to the students, but they are also ultimately responsible to all residents and taxpayers as stewards of public funds. The map presented preserves seats while balancing the population and students.

14. John: Would the School Board be able to review other maps prior to the RWG’s last meeting on December 8

th?

Kristi, the Board does have one more meeting. However, it would be helpful to have only one or two maps for the Board to review and consider. McKell also mentioned that the School Board did go through a process in arriving at the map the School Board recommended. Heather also mentioned the upcoming school board election filing date.

vi. Discussion – 1. Jim invited the School Board representatives to the rest

of the meeting, which would include the RWG’s discussion of all the School Board maps that have been submitted.

4. Comments on School Board Maps from Boyd Ferguson

a. Mentioned that the maps considered are in the spirit and letter of the law; not likely to be thrown out by the courts.

b. Reminded the RWG that the deviation calculation – add the lowest and highest deviation – must be under 10%. If under 10%, not likely to present a problem.

5. Public Comment Period

a. Edie Trimmer – Consumer and veteran of education services.

School boundaries are important – can result in class size problems, segregation of schools and areas of poverty. Need for good schools throughout the system – good for neighborhoods. Appreciates the efforts of the School Board. However, believes that representatives ie the west side needs to speak for themselves and have their own representatives. They need political representation on the west side – the opportunities are still not the same – could be better.

b. Staff – shared a new Open City Hall comment.

6. Discussion on School Board Redistricting


54

a. Sharing School Board maps with the public – how many and which ones.

John – Impressed with the School Board’s approach and responsibility for their recommended map. Specifically, getting the consensus of the Board and meeting their goal of getting more representation from the west side. John wondered if the RWG should adopt the School Board’s map as the RWG’s recommended map.

Jim – Suggested that other maps be reviewed 1. Kyle LaMalfa Map –

a. Potentially all School Board members could be from east of I-15. b. Decision that map would not be put out for further consideration.

2. Eliot’s Map a. Only one district is west of I-15. b. Craig, Principal on the west side, mentioned the importance of having a

School Board member to represent his school and population’s interests because they are aware of the needs in the district they represent.

c. D3 – use of Beck Street and/or 2nd

or 3rd

west – Different neighborhoods – would have similar needs and interests.

Maria – Questioned why only share one map while trying to get comment from the public. 1. Other maps to consider.

a. Staff Map A i. Share this as a possible option.

b. Staff Map B i. Craig – Map not practical – all representatives could be east of I-

15. c. Edie Trimmer Map

i. No tweaks to map submitted by public. ii. Not as many people west of I-15.

iii. Impact is significant to D3, D4, and D5. iv. City Creek is a natural boundary. v. West High would be contained in a district that would be west of

I-15. 2. Get other recommendations and perspective and provide other alternatives the

Council may want to consider. 3. Jim preferred to present more than one option to the Council. Margith agreed – it

would be more open and transparent. 4. Decision to have the following maps included for further consideration and public

comment: a. Working Group/Staff A Map b. Eliot Sykes Map c. Edie Trimmer Map d. Salt Lake City School Board recommended.

5. Decision to exclude the following maps: a. Mike Christensen b. Kyle LaMalfa c. Staff Map B

6. Discussion to not label or influence the public with RWG comments. May want to carefully prepare a rationale for each of the maps that will be recommended to the City Council.

7. RWG would be making recommendations about which maps to forward to the City Council for their consideration.

7. City Council Map Presentation and Discussion a. To be discussed at next meeting.


55

8. New Business a. Mayor’s Breakfast Presentation – Jim will present to the Community Council Chairs on Wednesday,

December 7th

at 7:30. John will also be in attendance as a Community Council Chair.

9. Assignments a. Post maps being considered further by RWG on website by Monday. b. Send out example of report – Salt Lake County Redistricting Commission. c. Prepare for City Council map discussion.

10. Adjourn – Next meeting December 8, 2011 from 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.


56

Attachment 5


December 8, 2011 5:00 – 7:00 p.m.

Attendance: Mike Christensen, Vice Chair (D1); Nan Weber (D2) via teleconference; Margith Maughan (D3); Maria Torres (D4); Eliot Skyes (D5); Jim Guilkey, Chair (D6); Craig Ruesch (School District); John Bennion (School District); Karen Halladay, Dan Weist and Jan Aramaki (City Council staff) Excused Absence: Stephen Nelson (D7)


2. Approval of Minutes from 12-01-2011

a. Minutes from the Working Group meeting 12-01-2011

Motion to approve Mike Christensen, 2nd

by Margith Maughan – Approved – all in favor.

3. Public Comment Period

a. Members of the public in attendance – Question was asked as to the importance of including

incumbency – appears self-serving. Chair explained reason is because it is one of the guidelines

provided by the Council.

b. Review of public comment from Open City Hall, other City Government forums and any input

that individual members of the group have received.

Two new comments read into the record received on Dec 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm and Dec 7,

2011 at 12:19 pm

Council staff will check to see if any comments came through

[email protected] and will provide to the working group.

Chair gave a presentation at community council chair Mayor’s breakfast this morning.

4. Understanding the Minority/Majority Issue –Boyd Ferguson, Attorney’s Office

a. Boyd said Section 2 of Voting Rights Act provides challenges with diluting the voting strength 1)

disperse minority through a broad district; and 2) concentration – there have been cases when a

minority says you are violating my rights. Working Group does not need to worry about this -

proceed as they have been going.

5. School Board Map Discussion and Recommendations – 4 maps were considered

a. School Board approved map

a. Rationale: turned out to be a consensus map.

b. Discussion: Recognize one goal is to increase the likelihood of a third board member

from west side by making one district have more residents (strength). Lot of feedback

from key constituents in the districts.

b. Edie Trimmer’s map: (Edie’s definition read into the record)

Rationale: significant changes to the east side, not meeting guidelines.

Discussion: Not in favor.

c. Eliot’s Map: :



57

Rationale: increases likelihood of more than two representatives coming from west

side, consensus to opening up west side. Pushing District 5 a bit further west is in

keeping with common interest – good in balancing numbers population wise.

Discussion: increases the likelihood of more than 2 representatives coming from west

side and not in agreement with west side starting west of I-15, rather this is slightly east

of I -15 that still fits with idea of west side. The school district map with its jog across I-

15, heard historically that area has been higher in numbers to run for school board, but

that school board sits on the opposite side of that District 2 -- more years before

potential representative could be elected. Since current elected is so far east and basing

upon historical numbers, uncertain if it s accurate to say that someone will come from

that.

By pushing Districts 4 and 5 a little further west does a better job of keeping community

of interests together – gives potential for more representation. Group talking about

potential – would like to see the highest potential than lowest.

Question asked if any comments were received from the School District on any of the

other maps. Council staff informed School District comments are still welcomed. Plan is

to provide Council a draft of a written report and give presentation on January 3 – still

time to solicit comments. Up to the working group to keep comment period open.

Like for what school board map accomplishes -- population more equally balanced than

school district. Looked at Districts 3 and 4 boundary – current district stops at

University Avenue, pushed to 1200 E, advocate for the possibility of moving boundary

back to original boundary, create a better balance. There are 706 people in that strip,

push district 4 up to 26,500 (700 people difference) 26,300 for District 3.

Concern expressed about the splitting of District 2 at the river relating to the

community.

Impact: still leaning not changing based on rationale if there is no incumbent. Woman

that sits on the seat, may impact her later.

d. Brady’s map:

Rationale: two districts with no change; fulfills most of the guidelines from City Council

population balance.

Discussion: There is more shifting to the west. Because of that District 4 loses

population, D5 southern boundary. Get a better balance population wise – rationale.

Boundaries less clear, but certainly viable. Every effort made to encourage another

district on the west side, this map doesn’t do that.

6. Ranking results:

School board 13 pts; Eliot School Board V1 16 pts; Staff Map A 23 pts; Edie School Board 32pts


58

Motion made by Craig to not submit Edie map; Eliot moved to eliminate Staff Map A and pick top two as a

“recommendation” – all in favor – motion passed.

7. City Council Map Discussion and Recommendations

a. Eliot Map

Map withdrawn

b. Public Map/Western shift (Will Carlson):

Rationale: strong potential to have nobody from outside District 1 from the west side –

potential to shift seats – no interest

Map taken off table

c. Second public map/submitted by same person (Will Carlson)

Rationale: no rationale given, similar problems as Western Shift map, number of residents

change is significant

Discussion: District 3 goes into populated area to about 300 East, potential for

representative from Districts 1 and 2

Map taken off table

d. Amy Barry Map:

Rationale: biggest change with I-15, splits up community councils, against guideline to keep

incumbency, District 1 lost population the way map was drawn.

Discussion: don’t see any overwhelming rationale to cause us to override the guideline.

Map taken off table.

e. Staff Map 1 submission:

Rationale: Statistics appear well balanced, deviations are low – rebalance with minimal

change.

Map stays on table.

f. Staff Map 2 submission – evolved into version 2

Rationale: includes 9th

and 9th

commercial district; Council Member Love is in favor of

moving community council and city council boundary one block north; 700 E natural

boundary; community councils are in the process of change; meets guidelines of City

Council; fewer residents impacted -- boundary map change to create version 2 maintains

common interest and reduces Fairpark Community Council divided by two Council Districts

rather than in three Council Districts.

Discussion: D4 and 5 boundary in D5 at bottom, hashed area, a change Brady made to

encompass Liberty Wells Community Council- region along 700 East and 2100 South want to

no longer be divided – the hash area is represented by Soren in District 7; the other

comment top of District 5 hashed region makes an excursion into District 4 so the existing

city council boundary and community council boundary 900 South, East Liberty Community

Council stops at 1100 East. Currently, there is 9th

and 9th

neighborhood and East Liberty

Community Council. The change has approval of Council Member Love. Block over north

they would pick up Smith’s, Pago, commercial district and combine into one community

council – bringing that together would be positive. Still have to negotiate with East Bench

Community Council to the east. By doing this, population out of sync, went to east line and


59

pushed back to current city council boundary to bring population back in balance to

accommodate north boundary hash area. To be fair E Liberty person but person from E

Bench did not respond – both are aware of each other. Jill Love is in favor of moving

community council and city council boundary one block north 700 E natural boundary –

willing to take comments to undo the change.

John: Get consensus between two CCs and then they recommend to city council.

East of Fairpark - I-15 cuts Fairpark in half, currently in Districts 1, 2 and 3 --on this map will

stay in three districts. Splits put their community council in two districts – somehow

reduced the population in one and two and open it up some more. Downtown community

council is also split between two. Southern boundary of District 4 gets pushed north so

essentially Downtown Community Council gets split between 4 and 5 districts as well. The

map divides Capitol Hill Community Council slightly. Looked at populations in Districts 1 and

2.

Boundary change was made which resulted in population in District 4 goes over 3 percent

and District 1 under 2.5 percent.

g. Map ranking:

Map 1 – minimal changes 14 pts

Map 2 version 2 – keeps Fairpark in two districts 10 pts

Motion made by John to adopt, 2nd

Craig – all in favor

8. New Business

a. Written Report for City Council: due to the City Council on Tuesday, December13. Draft outline was

developed to report the different elements through this process -- different from county format.

Working group approved of draft outline.

Meeting minutes and Open City Hall comments will be included as part of report. Once draft is

prepared by Council staff, will run draft by chair first, then by other working group members to

ensure information is clear and working group comfortable with presentation outline.

As working group presents to the Council still opportunity to present comments to the Council.

Outline will be presented to the Council as the working group’s final report to ensure public doesn’t

assume working group is still working on the report. Tentative plan: Jan 17 public hearing, Jan 31 is

Council deadline. Information on each working group member to include name and district. Chair

will be present on January 3 to present with all working group members present.

9. Assignments

Council staff indicated Heather Bennett had a few clarifications on last meeting minutes – she has a few

clarification changes regarding her presentation. Council staff will forward her changes since the minutes

have already been approved.

10. Adjournment

Thanks given to everyone for their diligent efforts and commitment to this project.

2011 salt lake city redistricting working group · salt lake city redistricting working group 2011...

Documents