OFFICE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL
CHERYL L. BROWN 117 WEST DUVAL STREET,
DIRECTOR 4TH
FLOOR, CITY HALL
OFFICE (904) 630-1452
FAX (904) 630-2906
E-MAIL: CLBROWN@coj.net
RULES COMMITTEE REDISTRICTING MEETING MINUTES
September 29, 2011
6:00 p.m.
Location: City Council Chamber, City Hall -
In attendance: Committee Members Bill Bishop (Chair), Ray Holt, Matt Schellenberg, Clay Yarborough, Johnny Gaffney, Lori Boyer and John Crescimbeni
Guests: Council Members Robin Lumb, Warren Jones, Doyle Carter, Reggie Brown and Don Redman
Also: Bill Killingsworth and Soliman Salem – Planning and Development Department; Jerry Holland – Supervisor of Elections; Jason Gabriel and Peggy Sidman – Office of General Counsel; Jeff Clements – City Council Research; Philip Zamarron – Legislative Services Division; Scott Wilson, Kevin Kuzel, Dan Macdonald and Rebekah Hager – ECAs; Steve Patterson – Florida Times-Union
Meeting Convened: 6:09 p.m.
Chairman Bishop convened the meeting and announced that the committee would be taking public comment on the proposed maps that were substituted and re-referred to Rules by the City Council on Tuesday night.
Jason Gabriel of the Office of General Counsel made a brief presentation on the legal basis and requirements for the redistricting process. The Florida Constitution and City Charter require that the City Council districts be redrawn every 10 years after the U.S. Census to equalize the population of the districts to comply with the “one person, one vote” standard. The total county population is 864,263, so the target population of the 14 council districts is 61,733 and the target population for the 5 at-large residence areas is 172,853. The City will be redistricting the council districts, the at-large residence areas, and the School Board districts which are composed of pairs of City Council districts.
The City Code and Charter say the districts must be as nearly equal in population as possible, must be compact, and must adequately represent the various interests of the City. The Florida Statutes say that major physical boundaries (water bodies, major roadways, etc.) and municipal boundaries should be respected in the drawing of districts. Race, gender and economic status may not be the primary reason for drawing district boundaries, nor may a district be drawn to intentionally help or hinder a category of citizens from being fairly represented. Mr. Gabriel stated that a memorandum prepared by General Counsel Cindy Laquidara giving a good overview of legal issues relating to redistricting is available for review on the Reapportionment Committee’s web site on the City Council web page. He noted that the recent State Constitution amendments regarding the redistricting of Congressional and state legislative districts do not apply to the local redistricting process. The City Council’s deadline for adopting a redistricting plan is November 18, 2011, 8 months from the date of official release of the Census data. If the Council does not adopt a redistricting plan by that date, the process is referred to the circuit court to draw the districts.
Bill Killingsworth, Director of the Planning and Development Department made a PowerPoint presentation about how the draft plan was developed. The department used Census data along with registered voter and voter turnout data from the last two general elections (the presidential contest of 2008 and the Mayor/City Council election of 2011). The Census showed that the City grew by 11% in the past 10 years, but areas south and east of the river grew much faster than areas north and west, with the result that a district must move from the north/west to the south/east to keep the district populations within the maximum deviation. The department worked from a set of basic criteria established by the Reapportionment Committee: 1) use total population as a basis; 2) balance compactness with representation of communities of interest; 3) no more than a maximum 10% deviation between the largest and smallest districts; 4) minimize river crossings; and 5) work from the existing districts as much as possible. The department met with individual council members to see how they felt the new districts should be drawn and prepared a first draft map for the committee’s consideration. Then a series of noticed council member public meetings were held, suggestions for changes were made, and the map was refined several times to produce the result you see today. Mr. Killingsworth repeated the November 18th deadline for Council adoption of a plan and stated that the new districts would become effective for the next general consolidated government elections that take place at least 9 months after the date the new plan is adopted.
Chairman Bishop opened the public hearing, stating that the committee would not be debating the merits of any proposals tonight, nor would committee members or staff engage in questions and answers with the public. The public hearing is intended to take public comment on the latest maps substituted and re-referred by City Council earlier in the week.
Public Comment
Richard Berry distributed a handout with suggested changes to the proposed district map to move the San Mateo/Cedar Bay area to the northeast area District 2 from the currently proposed District 7.
Ray Pringle expressed opposition to mixing drastically different types of communities (very rural and very urban) in the same council district, which makes it difficult for a council member to properly represent the constituents. He urged keeping separate urban and rural districts.
Janet Pringle, President of the Dinsmore Civic Association, opposed the proposed shift of the Dinsmore area from the current District 11 to the new District 8 because of the proposed mix of urban and rural interests in the new District 8. She likes the Schellenberg map proposal.
Henry Thomas commended the committee for working hard on the very difficult and sensitive task of redistricting and stated that each iteration of the map seems to be getting better.
Conrad Markle of Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County thanked
the committee for its willingness to take public input and map suggestions but
expressed doubt that the general public knows that redistricting is going on or
that input is welcomed. He disliked the
proposal for District 7 in the earlier Plan D map as being non-compact and
wildly shaped, as he also dislikes the current District 7 crossing the river
into
Helen Heath stated that the 9/22/11 SE Compact map looks much better than earlier efforts in that the districts are more compact and logically shaped with deviations for clear geographical reasons. She believes the current district map is very bad, lacking logic and showing evidence of a hidden agenda.
Kay Ehas of Riverside/Avondale Preservation and the Riverside/Avondale Historic District stated that the latest proposal includes more of the historic district in District 14 than previous maps, which is good, but still does not get the whole historic district into a single council district which would be the most preferable. She urged the committee not to take a step backwards with regard to the historic district when making future changes to the maps.
Alberta Espy, a resident of the Old Arlington area, stated
that she did not mind the current District 7 with its extension into
Celia Miller of the Durkeeville neighborhood association stated that her area has not been well represented in recent years by the current City Council district members in the area. The Durkeeville area was split into two districts in the 2001 redistricting and she fears it will be even more splintered by the current plan which divides the area into four districts. She expressed support for the Schellenberg proposal which seems to better protect communities of interest in her area.
Lavoyus Partlow asked why the council members in Districts 7, 8, 9 and 10 did not hold community meetings and ask the citizens of the area what they wanted to see in the redistricting process. The constituents in his area feel disrespected by the process.
Glorious Johnson stated that there is no understanding in the general public about the redistricting process, nor any effort on the part of the district council members to explain to the public what is happening. She opposes her neighborhood being split among four council districts and likes what she has seen of the Schellenberg map.
John Libby thanked the committee for their perseverance
through a long process and expressed general support for the 9/22/11 SE Compact
with Party proposal. He believes that
James Lester thanked the committee for its hard work thus far. He likes the 9/22/11 SE Compact with Party proposal and advocated for four minority access districts with perhaps a few tweaks on the current proposal to take into account neighborhood cohesion issues. He does not see a need to draw districts to protect incumbent council members.
Bill Lewis, President of the Argyle Area Civic Council, stated that the redistricting process 10 years ago started with a proposal for compact districts and then deteriorated to what we have today. This time the process seems to be working in reverse, from less to more compact districts, which is good. The 9/22/11 SE Compact with Party proposal seems to be a good compromise of the issues at play.
Valerie Knollman said that there is no perfect map but please try to emphasize compactness and natural boundaries. She likes the Schellenberg proposal with a few minor tweaks.
Dot Mathias, President of the Northwest Jacksonville Civic
Association, thanked the committee for their work. She stated that the residents of the
Joe Andrews expressed opposition to Districts 9 and 10 in the proposal being so long and narrow. He prefers the Schellenberg proposal for its greater compactness of districts.
Chairman Bishop stated that he would schedule an additional special Rules Committee meeting for later next week to discuss potential changes to the current proposal and that redistricting will not be on the agenda for next Monday’s regular committee meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Jeff Clements, Council Research Division
9.30.11
Posted: 11:15 a.m.