Will County Ad-Hoc Reapportionment Committee Met April 21.
Here is the minutes provided by the committee:
I. CALL TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Speaker Cowan led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
III. ROLL CALL
Chair Tyler Marcum called the meeting to order at 10:50 AM
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Tyler Marcum | Chair | Present | |
| Donald Gould | Vice-Chair | Present | |
| Mimi Cowan | Member | Present | |
| Mike Fricilone | Member | Present | |
| Gretchen Fritz | Member | Present | |
| Jim Moustis | Member | Present | |
| Meta Mueller | Member | Present | |
| Judy Ogalla | Member | Present | |
| Jacqueline Traynere | Member | Late | |
| Denise E. Winfrey | Member | Present |
Present from State's Attorney's Office: M. Tatroe.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. WC Ad-Hoc Reapportionment Committee - Regular Meeting - Apr 6, 2021 1:00 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Donald Gould, Vice-Chair AYES: Marcum, Gould, Cowan, Fricilone, Fritz, Moustis, Mueller, Ogalla, Winfrey ABSENT: Traynere |
1. Parameters for Reapportionment (Information)
Mr. Marcum stated I kept the parameters attached so everyone has a copy of them at every meeting.
VI. OTHER OLD BUSINESS
VII. NEW BUSINESS
1. Presentation/Review of GIS Map for 6 County Board Districts - Attachment Added (Presentation)
Mr. Greg Johnson stated for the reapportionment we are using the 2020 census blocks. The only issue with the 2020 census blocks is we do not have the population numbers for those. We have two options we can use; the American Community Survey or Esri, our GIS vendor. Esri has their own team of demographic scientists who have population numbers for 2020. Both are estimates, but they are the best we have. The American Community Survey says Will County has just under 690,000 people. The Esri numbers show we have 705,000 people approximately. I used the population figure of 705,000 for my plans.
Mr. Johnson reviewed the 6 District map and attachments in the agenda packet.
Speaker Cowan asked are we voting to accept this map today? A vote would be to accept the concept or multiple concepts, but we are not voting on these lines today, is that correct?
Mr. Marcum replied that is correct. Today, I would like to get it down to two options. Then we could take a couple to the public hearing along with the Executive’s map so we have options for the public to comment on. That is my preference. The last time they took three maps.
Speaker Cowan continued if we wanted to go with the 6 District 3 Member map we are not committed to exactly where these lines are; we could still figure out exactly where the lines will be, this is just a general indication.
Mr. Marcum replied that is correct.
Mrs. Traynere asked what is the hook piece on the west side of District 3? You mentioned Lockport Township and Carillon. There is a portion of Carillon in Lockport Township, but there is also a portion in DuPage Township. Did you pick up all of Carillon?
Mr. Johnson replied I picked up the areas of Carillon that are not in Romeoville or Bolingbrook.
Mrs. Traynere stated Carillon is Plainfield, but it is split by townships; part in Lockport and part in DuPage Townships. So you picked up all of Carillon?
Mr. Johnson replied that is correct.
Mrs. Traynere stated District #1 is huge. I guess with 3 Members it is doable. Many people in my District like the idea of knowing there is one person to contact; when you have three people, it gets confusing. I am trying to make it easier; I like the idea of one representative per District.
Mr. Moustis stated I think this is a good representative map of how a 6 District 3 Member map would lay out. We are always going to have one district with a larger geographical area regardless of how many districts we have, because there is no population in that part of the County and it is more rural. I don’t think a 6 District map serves and represents the people as well as some additional maps with more districts might. I think what we have now serves the people very well. Having districts with 117,000 people, regardless of the geographic layout, is pretty difficult to get local representation and equal representation. With larger districts, it is almost impossible to put districts of common interest together. There is always going to be some conflict. I don’t favor a 6 District map for those reasons.
Mrs. Ogalla stated County Board District 1 has a lot of straight lines, but in the other Districts there are lots of squiggles. What do the squiggles represent? Are you keeping the municipalities or townships together? Are you keeping precincts together? What is the explanation?
Mr. Johnson replied this map is primarily trying to keep municipalities together, outside of the southern part of the county. For example, in District 5, I kept Bolingbrook and Romeoville with a population of 117,000, together in their own district. In District 2 the portions of New Lenox and Frankfort above Laraway Road, as well as Mokena and Homer Glen, were kept together. District 3 has Crest Hill and Lockport together. We could not keep the City of Joliet together because their population is 130,000 plus. Joliet could not be one district of three representatives. In District 6, I kept Naperville, Plainfield and Aurora together which was at or near the threshold for that area.
Mrs. Ogalla stated a district of 117,000 is very large. It is more representative of a State Representative district, than a County Board district. Will County is so diverse and local representation is very important. I will not be supporting this 6 District map.
Ms. Ventura asked for the votes you are taking, if you decide on two maps, is it to move the reapportionment forward only to the Committee or do these all go to the County Board for a vote and then it goes back to the Committee?
Mr. Marcum replied whatever we decide we like, we will move to a public hearing. Once the County Executive submits her map, we have 14 days to hold a public hearing. I would like to do one public hearing with three maps as options. The Committee will take the comments from the public hearing and send something to the full County Board.
Ms. Ventura continued this is really our only chance, right now, to discuss these maps or if we don’t like any of them to go back to the drawing board, is that what you are saying?
Mr. Marcum responded if you really don’t like something, now would be the time to say it.
Ms. Ventura stated I am not advocating we determine districts based on where Members live, but it is important for us to know where Members live. Can that be put on the maps? I tried to zoom in on the maps, but it is impossible for me to identify who is in which district. Can that be sent to us? I would prefer to see that before we vote. Will we have it before the public hearing?
Mr. Marcum replied last month we discussed this and it was my preference and that of most of the Committee to leave current Board Members homes off. That way, we are not trying to make it easier for us to run for elections.
Ms. Ventura stated I don’t want the map to be drawn on that, but I am curious what that looks like. You are saying we won’t have that information and we have to figure it out ourselves.
Mr. Marcum stated if the Committee would like to do that, we can. It is not something I would like to do.
Mr. Fricilone stated no, that has to change. I think we are off the rails. You are asking us to vote on stuff and we can’t see the information. That is ridiculous. We need a meeting every week. We are not going to decide today on two maps, go to public hearing and that is it. That is ridiculous. We need an overlay of the County, the townships, the municipalities and the precincts. This seems like we are trying to ram something through.
Mr. Marcum stated that is not what I was saying. I said I would like us to pick two maps to go forward with and hone those in tighter so we are not coming back with a map everyone hates and we are not going to do. I would like us to pick maps we think would be good for us to go forward with and work on them. I never said we were going to ram anything through. We are going to pick maps we can get rid of and not waste our time on.
Ms. Ventura stated this is our first look at it and I would rather have another meeting so we can go through questions because it seems to be a lot at once. Some of you have mentioned this, but I think the accountability of one person is important. Otherwise, there is a lot of “I thought they were handling that”. With a large number of people per district; are we doing this justice to our constituents? It is very hard to reach everybody in a large district. Are we making this competitive so that all people of all walks of life can run for office? Are we making this so only those with a large amount of resources can be successful? Those are the pros I see for the smaller districts. Obviously, there are some cons. I would love to hear the thoughts of others on the larger versus smaller districts. I am not a fan of the 6 District map, but I like the first steps taken by keeping all of the cities together. I would like to see a map like this divided into smaller districts, along township or community lines. Keeping cities together is important. It really helps to navigate down to where people know who their reps are.
Mr. Gould stated I can briefly shed some light on what we did ten years ago and what I think will help us today. Today is our first look at some proposals. We probably met 10 or 12 times ten years ago, as a Committee, before we finally came up with something that was sent to the County Board. Today is not to vote on anything, it is merely for discussion. Hypothetically, if no member wanted a 6 District map, then we would not proceed with and entertain proceeding with proposals with that number of districts. Being the Republican spokesman on this Committee, we think we owe it to the people of Will County that we be afforded the opportunity to make a proposal. I would like to bring a map forward, from our side of the aisle, at our next meeting. Of course, we will be getting a proposal from the County Executive and probably a proposal from the Democratic side. As we discuss the remaining items on our agenda, we will be able to narrow the focus a little. At the next meeting, we can review the maps from the Executive, Republican and Democrats and continue to refine the process. This is going to take time. It is not something we can do if we meet every three weeks or so. If we do that, we will be into June and we have a problem. This Committee will have to ramp it up and meet more often if we are going to get our work concluded. This is a long process and it is going to take a lot of work. We are not working off of official census figures, we are working from estimates. Nothing here is accurate. Ten years ago we had the U.S. Census figures and we knew precisely what the numbers were. We are not at that point today; the Census figures are not available. I would like us to support the opportunity for the two parties to propose something at the next meeting.
Mr. Moustis stated my comments were going to be similar to Mr. Gould’s. Once we narrow down the number districts or if various maps are going to be drawn, GIS can put on the overlays and you can see where the precincts and streets are. GIS can put any type of overlays or as much information on these districts as you want. I am not as concerned about where current County Board Members live; I don’t think that comes into the process. But, you should have an idea of the overall map and how it keeps precincts together, or splits precincts or townships. That detail comes when we narrow down the number of districts we would like to see. How many members are in a district, is a separate issue. You can have single member districts on any map, including our current configuration of 13. You can have a 13 Member Board, if that is the desire. I agree, we are in very preliminary discussions and you don’t need a lot of detail; we are looking at the concept. If we narrow it down to how many districts we want to move forward with, then we can put the overlay details on those maps. I do not favor a 6 District map; I think the districts are too large. I would like us to eliminate a 6 District map. That is what we can do at these meetings, if there is a consensus that a 6 District map does not work in the best interest of representing people. We can eliminate a 6 District map and we can do that with all the others. Perhaps today we narrow it down and say we are only going to look at a 13, 17 and 21 District map or maybe a 13 and 17. I think we can eliminate some today. I agree, we are going to have to meet often. It is a long, detailed, philosophical process, but at the end of the day, I hope we are trying to keep communities of interest together and give people the best representation we can and we give everybody an equal opportunity to run for office. We don’t need a lot of detail today, but, if there is no support for a 6 District map, I think we can eliminate that today.
Ms. Winfrey stated I am against the 6 District map. The last time we did eliminate it down to just a couple maps after a couple of meetings. We did the concepts, like we are now, and got it down to a couple of possible maps. Once we were clear about what the maps might look like, then we were able to overlay the information about where the precinct lines were and the actual numbers. Then we were able to move the lines in order to balance things out and make it happen. That is further down the line. We knew some maps were not going to work and we got those off the table so we don’t spend time talking about them. I would like us to do that today, get those off the table so we can get down to some that might be workable and go forward with those.
Ms. Fritz stated I want to talk about politicizing this process. I was very encouraged and impressed by Speaker Cowan’s decision to have this Committee be an equal number of Democrat and Republican Members. I think that shows her dedication to not politicizing this process. I think if we spent time discussing this would be my district or this would be Ms. Ventura’s district, we would be politicizing the process. I think that is inappropriate. We need to draw the best map we can and let the political chips fall where they may. In 2012, you saw a huge turnover in who decided to run for Board. A number of people decided to run for something else, a number of people retired and I think we will see that again. I think that is influenced by the map, but it is not dependent on the map. I think it has more to do with other factors. I think we need to focus on the map. We have such a brief window of time to do this, we need to focus on this and not be worried about who is going to run and what their district will be. We need to be grownups here, put on our big kid pants and do the hard work that needs to be done.
Ms. Mueller stated I am also concerned about the population in the 6 District plan, it is so many people. With the size of these districts, even with three people representing the district, it could be difficult. I don’t like the 6 District plan.
Mr. Fricilone stated I disagree with Mr. Moustis. When we start looking at maps, especially in a short timeframe, if we don’t have a realistic map, it is hard to make the decision whether it makes sense or not. I am not in favor of the 6 District map. As we start looking at the other maps, if they are not broken down, with overlays so we can see what they are about, it is hard to make a decision on a 17 or 21 District map. I don’t know who drew the 21 District map, but it is an embarrassment. We gave strict instructions to GIS. We all said we wanted the districts to follow the guidelines Mrs. Tatroe presented about like communities of interest with the hope of keeping municipalities whole. Instead, we get a map with nine districts, all with a piece of Joliet. That is about as political of a map as Michael Madigan ever drew. If we don’t see a map coming from GIS that gives us some indication of what things would look like, how do you decide on how many members it is? You can’t unless you have some basis to go on. Even with the overlays with 21 Districts it is going to be hard to keep five municipalities whole. You have to have more of a realistic map to make a decision on. Certainly, the 21 District map is ridiculous.
Mrs. Ogalla stated this is the first time we are looking at this map and the first time many of us have been on this Committee. I think it is important to see what streets are in these districts. I can’t tell where things start or end, so we need that level of detail. I disagree with Ms. Fritz, I think it is important to see where the Members live. I don’t know, without that data, if there is any behind the scenes things going on. It is government and I don’t always trust everybody in government, including a lot of people among us; I don’t know if you trust me. I think it is important to see where Members live for the proposed districts. If we see where the Members live it does give somebody an advantage to running over somebody who might be interested. I would like to see an overlay of that. We need to have the townships and roads delineated. I can’t blow the map up well enough to read where roads are, so I am not sure where things are. I think we might be able to eliminate one of these maps. We are having a lot of conversation on this map and probably will have less on the others. We need to see more detail and I don’t know if we can get rid of all the different maps. I like Mr. Gould’s suggestion that we come together. Let’s say we like the 13 and 21 Districts maps presented today, we could have the County Executive, the Republicans and the Democrats draw a map from those to see who comes up with the fairest maps so everyone is represented fairly. I like two people representing an area. In District 1, the advantage we have is Ms. Newquist comes from Steger, which is in the far north part of the district and I am from the Monee/Peotone area, which is the far south part of the district. Ms. Newquist doesn’t know a lot about the things that happen down here and I don’t know a lot about the things that happen up there. I think people in the northern part would call her and in the southern part they would call me. It is nice for people to have an option. They also have the advantage because there is one Republican and one Democrat. I am supportive of two people and I would like to see the overlays and where the Members live.
Ms. Newquist stated I agree with everyone else; these districts are too large. Geographically, District 1 is over half of the county. I can’t imagine dealing with that large of a district.
Ms. Freeman stated I am curious about the numbers for the unincorporated population. In some districts, the unincorporated population is upwards of 34,000 and one district with only 1,400 people. I think there is a big discrepancy in the numbers. In some of the upcoming maps, there are districts that have zero unincorporated residents. Can anyone explain why they are so different? Don’t we represent the unincorporated areas?
Mrs. Traynere stated we always have had it that way.
Mr. Moustis stated that is not unusual; a lot of areas don’t have a lot of unincorporated areas. Areas like Bolingbrook, Joliet and Romeoville don’t, but the Lincoln-Way area has a lot of unincorporated areas. There are some very densely populated unincorporated subdivisions. For the most part, the reason you don’t see it is because it doesn’t exist.
Mrs. Kraulidis stated I agree, 6 Districts are just way too big.
Mr. Van Duyne stated I don’t think it should matter where a current Board Member lives or in which district. There are plenty of good people who can run for this position. Our job is to stick up for the residents, not for ourselves. I hope the Committee will take that into consideration.
Mr. Palmer stated I was involved the last time and we drew a lot of maps. We can toggle on or toggle off the municipalities on these maps, to show where they are so you can see the unincorporated areas. The map in front of us, the jagged line between Districts 6 and 5, is the DuPage River, which is a good natural boundary between districts. It is also the boundary between Naperville and Bolingbrook. If the goal is to keep municipalities whole, that is sometimes a good barrier. It helps people in the area know which district is which by using a major roadway like Laraway Road or Peotone-Wilmington. We can go into the details, but we are not there yet. I can’t remember if this Committee set out specific targets, but last time we kept the townships and municipalities as whole as possible. When you get to deciding which way to go, that is where the local perspective can help to keep the communities of interest together, such as the same school district. We can do all the things Board Members have asked. I had several Board Members ask me about the municipal boundaries and even the precinct boundaries. We can show the precinct boundaries right now, but those will change when the Clerk’s Office does their work. Ms. Freeman asked about the unincorporated areas; there are lots of areas where there is virtually no unincorporated residents versus the southern and southwestern part where there are larger areas. That is the nature of the development in this County. Some districts are going to be much more unincorporated and have more Land Use cases where the Bolingbrook area is not going to have that.
Mrs. Traynere stated I am not a fan of the 6 District map. I don’t care where each of the Board Members lives, I would like a map that makes some logical sense. I am not even sure if I care if they are competitive, although we clearly seemed to do that last time around. I would be a little concerned about making sure we have at least a couple of majority minority districts. I currently represent a majority minority district and that is important to me. I would hate to do what they did in the past to Chinatown in Chicago and split it into umpteen different packages so that the community was not whole. That I care about, but I don’t really like the 6 District map.
Mr. Marcum asked is there anyone who likes the 6 District map?
Mr. Moustis stated I have been involved in three other redistrictings and in those three, never did current County Board residency even come up and it was never discussed. Quite frankly, when you do that, you are opening the door to a legal objection to a map, if you are basing a map at all on where current Board members live. The conversation should be dropped and it should not be considered.
Speaker Cowan stated that is false Mr. Moustis. It was talked about last time. criteria for drawing a reappointment map. It is not a criteria.
Ms. Ventura stated I was clear in my comment. It was not to be a criteria, I was asking for the data. Please don’t take what I said out of context.
Mr. Marcum stated if anyone wants to speak in favor of the 6 District map, now is your chance. Do we need a motion and a vote, or can agree by consensus?
Mrs. Tatroe stated I think you should have a vote.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated a Commissioner can be more effective when the community is kept whole, for example the City of Naperville. Speaker Cowan and I are quite engaged and if you create a map with four different townships that can be very challenging to understand what is happening in your community. Also, the size of these, especially District 1, is impossible. It is impossible for a Commissioner to represent their constituents with that much size. It is important to keep communities as whole as possible that are growing like Naperville, Tinley Park and New Lenox. There are unincorporated areas in our districts, where the potential growth is coming. That is where the subdivisions are going up. I want to remain engaged with the community. If it is all chopped up, I can’t do my job the way I want to do it. I don’t like it when you are putting multiple townships in these districts; it is not practical when you are chopping up the municipalities. If one district is slightly larger than another but it is contiguous and allows the Commissioner to interact with a community, then we don’t have to have each district the same size in population. As time goes, that will naturally shift. The 6 District map is not ideal.
Motion to Eliminate the 6 District Map from Consideration.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Marcum, Gould, Cowan, Fricilone, Fritz, Moustis, Mueller, Ogalla, Traynere, Winfrey |
Mr. Johnson stated I will take any feedback and incorporate it into future maps. When I created this map, I used the work done ten years ago. Each district has approximately 54,000 residents; which is about 2,000 more than last time.
Mr. Johnson reviewed the 13 District 2 Member map. I can show the municipalities, but I thought this meeting was to get the concepts put together for the different plans. We can go more in-depth and get involvement of the Board Members and the public in coming to a consensus.
Mr. Fricilone stated along with the overlays I asked for before, it would be nice to have an overlay of our existing districts so we can see where the changes happened. Then we can delve into the changes to understand why the changes happened. Some of it is population, but you don’t want to change, just to change. As I said in our last meeting, I am in favor of the 13 District 2 Member map. I still think two people per district is good. We continue to say this is a part-time job, which is the way we are classified. Since several Board Members work, it is nice to have two people in a district, to afford one of them the opportunity to go to local events in the district. That is why I support two members the most, it gives coverage. When this was drawn ten years ago, it was drawn as a fair map and I believe that has been shown over the ten years. Our first election was a 13-13 split, we had Republican majority and a Democrat majority. It shows there is equal representation throughout the County with this map; regardless of the changes we make based on population.
Mr. Gould stated I am also in favor of a 13 District map. My complements to GIS on this one. Of the four plans, this one is the most compact and the most contiguous of the plans we have seen. There is still work to be done to meet the law and comply with what we set out as far as trying to keep townships together out east and in the south. But, it seems this is a very compact map. I see where you followed the municipal boundaries, the same as the current map, because I can see the similarities between the current map and the map here. Picking up on Mrs. Berkowicz’s comments; I looked at the detail of the northern end of the County. I see where the Naperville population was divided between District 12 and 13. At the last meeting, some members commented that there were certain large minority populations in that area. This seems to be dividing the minority populations between District 12 and 13. Mr. Johnson can you focus on the demographics and why Naperville seems to be divided between each district? I think the current district is Aurora, Plainfield and the other is Naperville alone.
Mr. Johnson replied the last time, District 10 on this map was more similar to District 3 which took a portion of the western part of District 11 and the eastern part of District 12. The Bolingbrook area was more or less attached with District 10, the eastern portion of District 9, the western portion of District 10 and the southern part of District 12 was District 13 that wrapped around Plainfield to the north and south.
Mr. Gould stated you did a great job. I can see you were more compact and it looks like you followed the interstate highway as a natural boundary. Perhaps Speaker Cowan or Mrs. Berkowicz can answer my question about the demographics in Naperville.
Speaker Cowan stated Mr. Gould you are correct; mine and Mrs. Berkowicz’s district is only Naperville. We might be the only ones with only one municipality. We have portions of two townships but our job is made easier than others because of that fact.
Mrs. Traynere added District 4 is only one municipality.
Speaker Cowan continued that is because our areas are denser. Mr. Johnson could probably pull up the demographics numbers, but we have seen a significant increase since 2010 and certainly since 2000 in our Asian population. On this map, I can’t tell if they are in District 12 or in 13. There is a strong Asian presence in Districts 11 and 9 as it shows on this map. No matter how we cut it, it still would not end up being a majority of any district unless we have very small districts. Mr. Johnson could probably show us where that increase has been. My local knowledge is the increase is mostly in District 13. I could be wrong, because it is off the cuff, just looking at the map. On the last map we talked about majority minority districts and I know folks on both sides of the aisle brought this up as something that is important; if not majority then plurality minority districts. That is one of my problems with this 13 District map. We still only have one district that is a plurality minority district; District 4 with 44% Hispanic. I think the way we solve that, is having more districts. We have two more plans to discuss today. I am not strongly opposed to the 13 District 2 Member map, but I think we might be able to come up with something better that allows us to better represent communities of interest. Right now, I am a no on the 13 District 2 Member map.
Mr. Moustis stated I am in favor of the 13 District map for all the reasons Mr. Gould mentioned. I think the map needs to be tweaked, but this helps create the fairest map. Regarding Speaker Cowan’s comment about minorities being appropriately represented; the last two maps we tried, unsuccessfully, to create some Hispanic districts. If you look at the current districts, they are the largest minority population in a number of the current districts. We have tried to encourage the Hispanic population to get involved. As much as we have tried, we still have work to do. It is up to the parties to get this Hispanic population involved in the political process. I think we have created an opportunity for minority groups currently and perhaps some have not taken advantage of that. Hopefully, we can encourage them to be involved and run for office. When I look at this current configuration, I think it needs to be tweaked, but I think it can be tweaked to meet everybody’s goals. I think the 13 District map, as a concept, should stay on the table and not be eliminated for consideration.
Mrs. Ogalla stated the backup with this current map shows Districts 4, 10 and 11 all have very high Hispanic percentages, with District 1 having the largest African American population. I think there is some relevance to having kept like communities together. This map, is splitting Green Garden and Wilton Townships. Could we look at the school districts? I am not sure if all of Green Garden goes to Peotone schools or if it is split into the Frankfort school system. I know most of Wilton Center goes to Peotone. I am not sure if they split off to another one.
Mr. Johnson replied yes, we can overlay school districts. If I remember correctly, Peotone School District is pretty much to Dralle Road. I am not sure of the breakout to the west. I am not sure if the entire Wilton Township goes to Peotone or not. We can add that the next time we look at the 13 District plan, if that is what the Committee recommends.
Mr. Moustis stated Green Garden Township goes to the Peotone School District; they have their own elementary district, they are not part of the Frankfort School District.
Mrs. Ogalla stated it is nice to keep certain districts together so people know where they are based on things. I would be supportive of this, with some tweaking.
Mr. Johnson stated District 11 has the largest percentage of Hispanic population. It is about 1.5% higher than the white population in District 11.
Mr. Pretzel stated based on appearance alone, this one has lots of straight lines and it makes more sense. I don’t know why we are trying so hard to change what we have that we know is working. As Mr. Fricilone and Mr. Gould mentioned, we have had both parties in the majority. The map has served Will County well over the last ten years. Why are we not using what we currently have as a foundation and building off of that? Going in a completely different direction to 6, 17 or 21 Districts, it sounds like we are looking to change, for the sake of changing. I support having two members in each district. As you attend village and township Board meetings, it is nice to alternate with your counterpart. It gives us an opportunity to represent the County Board at those meetings. If someone is unable to answer their phone, the resident will call the other Board Member. I think this has served our community well over the last ten years and I would favor sticking with something similar.
Ms. Ventura stated between District 6 and District 2 there are several jet outs; perhaps that is along municipalities, because I see similarities in the other maps. In District 8, 4 and 5, you see two jet outs; they are within the City of Joliet and they don’t fall on township lines, so that is not clear to me. On District 9 where it overlaps with District 5, they are not similar with the other maps. I have questions on that. Similarly, at the top of District 9 where Districts 13 and 12 are, can you explain how those decisions were made? They are obviously not population driven because we don’t have the final numbers.
Mr. Gould replied I can respond to the one in my district. Ten years ago we tried to take communities of under 25,000 people and keep the smaller communities together. The jet out in District 3, along the Des Plains Rives, is the Village of Rockdale; which has a population of about 1,800 people. The one in District 6 is the boundary of the Villages of Mokena and Tinley Park along I-80.
Ms. Ventura asked can someone speak to Districts 8 and 9. There is a jet out in District 9 going to the south and one to the north; could some of that be moved around so there are less jet outs? Where were those decisions made?
Mr. Johnson continued in District 8 that is the boundary of Crest Hill. The part that is in Districts 9 and 13 is trying to get the population numbers. Those boundaries are fluid, as long as they are within the criteria or within 1% or 4% of the population. Between District 9 and 3 that jet out is Joliet as it goes west into Troy Township.
Ms. Ventura stated I am in favor of more districts because of something Speaker Cowan said. The breakouts in Districts 10 and 11 split the Hispanic population fairly evenly. If you created a different district, you might have a Hispanic rep there. The same with Districts 12 and 13; it splits the heavy Asian population. Districts 4 and 5 splits the Hispanic population. We have kept most of our black communities together with this map, so in that regard we have done a good job. With those numbers, splitting them out like that tells me if we have smaller districts, we would be able to create areas that were more representative of those communities. To the point about Hispanics not showing up; that is not true. We really need to be careful what we say. We have a State Rep who ran in Districts 10 and 11 and now holds that seat. In Joliet Township we flipped three seats to be Hispanic and elected our first Hispanic City Council Member. Make no mistake, Hispanics have been running in many of these areas for years, if not more than a decade. To say we have to excite the Hispanic community is just not correct. By creating a more diverse area we allow for a more diverse Board who represents their communities, their culture and the things they would like to see in government. It is important that we are not splitting up some of these populations. For that reason, I am not in favor of this map.
Ms. Fritz stated Ms. Ventura’s very specific questions about why we carved out a particular area, will be clarified with municipality and township overlays. I think it will be clear when you look at it. We should not take too much time on specific questions until we get those overlays we are asking for.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated it sets me back when I hear about how certain heritages are focused on in certain areas and not in other areas. In the Pacific Islander community, we are all over Will County; we are in every community, we are not clustered in a three square mile area. When we have our (inaudible) we have Filipinos from all over Will County come together. When I look at the communities in my district, I see a mix of people from all different heritages and walks of life. Why do we have this focus on the Mexicans are here; the Hispanics are here; the Asians are here; that is not the world I see. There are some areas where it may be a little more concentrated than others and the exception is in Joliet. I am only going to comment on Districts 12 and 13, because that is where I live and work. I think you were going in the right direction as it more clearly resembles what we have today. What we have today has been working for the last ten years. I was hoping we would take what we have already, get input, comments and concerns from the individual Commissioners and tweak it. You have split Naperville with Districts 12 and 13. If municipalities can be kept together, we can do a better job and we can be engaged in our community. I recommend you don’t split Naperville. Put Bolingbrook back with Bolingbrook; put Plainfield back with Plainfield and if you would like more contiguous lines add Aurora to Naperville. The population in Naperville is far greater than 54,000 and it is going to continue to grow because we have 2,000 housing units going up right now. I feel I can do my job better when I can stay engaged with my community. The people in my community go to the same schools, churches and sporting leagues and that allows people to communicate and to stay engaged with the issues; none of this revolves around race. It is about every person needs the same services and support. You need to put Aurora with the Naperville area and give Bolingbrook back to the rest of Bolingbrook and give Plainfield back to Plainfield. I am confused because there is a dip where Naperville goes north of 87th and I don’t see it on this map. I really wish we could see streets on this map. I am trying to figure out which street is which. I don’t see the dip north of 87th that is part of Will County. Why do you have Woodridge on here? I was not aware Woodridge was a part of Will County.
Mr. Johnson replied the Woodridge portion is the ROW of Route 53 at County Line. I only put that on there so you knew there was a small portion of Woodridge with zero population. We could make adjustments to District 11 to be 100% Bolingbrook and move District 12 further west and then make adjustments. This is just the starting point.
Mrs. Berkowicz continued is there the potential for population in the Woodridge area?
Mr. Johnson replied no.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked do my recommendations make sense to you? How do you feel about what I suggested?
Mr. Johnson replied if we try to get all of Naperville in District 12; then in order to keep District 13 around 50,000 to 55,000 people, we would have to take from the unincorporated portions of Wheatland Township and a little more of Plainfield. It is a matter of give and take and working all of the numbers.
Mrs. Berkowicz asked why are we so hung up on the population number? I am asking, because this is going to change; there is growth in our district and it is not over. If my district is set up with 5,000 more people, I am not concerned about that, if we are able to have a relationship. I don’t know why we are sticking to that particular number.
Mr. Fricilone replied Mrs. Berkowicz it is the law. It is the law. We have to stay within certain population numbers based on the overall population. If you have 100 people and 10 districts; everybody has to have 10 people in the district or 11 maybe; but you cannot have 15. It is the law.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated but we are doing this without the results of the census.
Mr. Marcum stated we have census data that has come through during the last decade; it is just not the finalized data. We have data, we are not doing this blindly.
Ms. Mitchell stated I know our practice is to go in one of two directions in the Wheatland area of Bolingbrook and that will either be Plainfield or Naperville. I know my area and if that area has to get divvied up, it would make sense community wise for it to go in either the northern end of Plainfield or the very south end of Naperville.
Mrs. Traynere stated I could be okay with 13 districts. I am still in favor of single member districts and I would like to see more minority districts. I know we are going to talk about a 17 member plan, but I would be interested in a 15 District Single Member plan.
Speaker Cowan asked Mrs. Tatroe when we are discussing population that is obviously part of the law, but I believe there are stipulations about needing to keep communities of interest together and that includes racial and ethnic groups based in part on the Supreme Court ruling on mapping, is that correct?
Mrs. Tatroe replied the number one thing you have to follow, above all else is equal population to maintain the one person one vote objective as closely as possible. The statute requires you do your utmost to keep municipalities and townships together. It provides some leeway to break them up for the reason of maintaining the population as equally as possible. You should also strive to keep precincts together, although precincts are redrawn by the County Clerk after the reapportionment, to try and keep precincts together. You are right, the Supreme Court has also indicated that you should strive to keep communities of interest together. That is why we continue to talk about keeping those interests together. They can be racial in characteristics, they can be ethnic, they can be religious, but trying to keep those interests together so you do not water down the impact of their votes.
Ms. Ventura stated I wanted to second Mrs. Traynere’s proposal of a 15 District map. It would be nice to see a 15 District plan based on some of the information we talked about today.
Mr. Marcum stated I believe this 13 District map is good to go for our next meeting. Next month we will get into deeper details. Do we need to make a motion to keep a 13 District map or can we just keep it on the agenda?
Mrs. Tatroe replied for the clarity of the minutes, it is very helpful to have a vote. Motion to Keep the 13 District 2 Member Map on the Table.
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Marcum, Gould, Cowan, Fricilone, Fritz, Moustis, Mueller, Ogalla, Traynere, Winfrey |
Mr. Johnson reviewed the 17 District map and explained how it was created. For this map the population would be around 41,521 per district.
Ms. Ventura stated I would be interested in a 15 District plan or one similar to this, but cutting up those communities of interest first, in additional to what has been done for the city and township levels. The Asian population is split between Districts 15, 16 and 17; but the northern part of that has a lot of Southeast Asian communities. Identifying those areas, drawing those out and seeing what is left along the township and city lines might be interesting. On this one, it seems like we carved the districts too small. In District 6 you have 25% of a black communities and in District 7 you have 12% of the black community. If you look at any of these districts, none of them are over or close to 50% of the black community. We would not want to lose representation in those communities. We added a 35% black community in District 2; University Park is heavy in that district and it is good to have that area be more diverse. My concern is we are splitting up those other areas. District 6 is 53% Hispanic and District 7 is a little less. By redrawing these lines, perhaps we have more black communities in Districts 6 or 10 and our Hispanic community expanding into District 7. I don’t know if Mr. Johnson has driven around and seen some of these populations versus just looking at a map. We have our Cunningham and Collins Street areas that are heavily Hispanic. I feel we have carved up some of these groups too much, which is why a 15 District map might incorporate some of those communities of interest a little better.
Mrs. Ogalla stated when we talk of communities of interest, we can’t just talk about race. We have to talk about agricultural. If you take District 1 from the state line to almost the next county line, that is a large district. I don’t know why we went up, rather than down toward Kankakee County. The entire Will Township currently has one precinct and that township is being split between Districts 1 and 2. District 2 takes in part of Green Garden and again that is a different school district. I would like to see if we can keep the school districts together. If you are just looking at the map, the bottom portion has lots of straight lines. But if you look at Districts 5, 4 and 9 they share one little area that is split up and District 7 is quite squiggly. I would have to see this map with some overlays on it. I think a 17 District map would have very little representation for eastern Will County. If you lose that, you are losing your farming communities.
Mr. Moustis stated I have similar concerns as Ms. Ventura; when you start making these districts too small you wind up with weird boundaries and it does not work, in my opinion. I think 17 districts is too much and certainly 21 districts is too many. I will jump on the 15 District map bandwagon. I think we should consider a 13 and 15 District map. I imagine the thought would be a 13 District 2 Members or a 15 District Single Member map; which is still a big district, with over 43,000 residents. With a 15 District map, you could probably keep all of Frankfort Township together which would be Frankfort, Frankfort Square and Mokena, then eliminate some of Manhattan and give it New Lenox; which makes geographic sense. There are synergies between New Lenox and Manhattan, they are communities that interact quite a bit. There are a lot of synergies between Frankfort and Green Garden. Green Garden is not heavily populated but they identify with Frankfort and come to Frankfort for many of their activities. The same in New Lenox, they have a kinship with Manhattan. A 15 District map could perhaps accomplish some of that. I may be jumping the gun, but 17 or 21 District map have too many districts. I don’t think it works very well for the residents to have appropriate representation. Communities of interest are communities of interest. It is not that some ethnic and racial demographics don’t come into play, but people in a community, have very similar values and interest. A lot of that has to do with schools, parks, libraries and all of that comes into play. I would like us to look at the 13 District map, but let’s take a look at a 15 District map. Anything else, I think we have too many districts. I do not favor a 17 District map concept.
Mr. Fricilone stated I agree, we are starting to get too many districts and we are chopping things up too much. I disagree with Ms. Ventura. When we look at communities of interest, much like Mr. Moustis said; it is not just about minority interest, it is about community interest. Whatever the makeup of Homer is, they have a community interest in Homer and the same for Lockport. If we start chopping all of those up, regardless of the racial makeup we are not keeping communities together. People move to Homer or Lockport for a reason, whatever their ethnicity is. We need to look at the municipalities and townships first, as well as the individual racial makeup. It is almost impossible to do that when we start adding districts and chopping things up smaller and smaller, it waters down any importance for any of those smaller districts.
Ms. Mueller stated I would also like to see a 15 District map. The school district borders would be really helpful, as well. I agree with what everyone has said about the communities and the importance of keeping communities that seem to flow together, together.
Ms. Mueller left at this juncture.
Ms. Fritz stated I disagree. I think this is too large of an area for one person and I think a 15 District map will have the same problem. We can’t have a 15 District 2 Member map because it would go over the 29 max we can have. I am going to disagree and say, smaller is better; then you can more easily and competently handle the issues of your smaller district. Also, the community is more relatable to you; it is the people closest to you, the people around you. I think the smaller districts, with one person, if we want to go with one person, is better. Otherwise, I think we should just stay with 13.
Mr. Marcum stated I agree with Ms. Fritz. I also agree this map is a little funky looking. I don’t think 17 is a good number by looking at this. I think it puts us in an awkward position, where these districts are either too big or too small to accomplish what we want.
Mrs. Parker stated it sounds like people want more people to participate in government. By doing the 13 Districts with 2 Members, you are allowing for more people to have a voice and participate. I am in favor of a 13 District 2 Member map.
Mr. Moustis asked how do we move forward? The reason I support looking at a 15 District map, is because there is an interest amongst many Board Members to have single member districts. If you are going to have single member districts, I think 15 Districts is a good number. If we start getting more districts than that, you come up with very funky looking maps. I think there are all types of challenges with a 17 or 21 District map. I want to leave a 13 District 2 Member map on the table. I think we should look, for those who want a single member district Board, at 15 District map, which would significantly lower the number of members. It will put additional work on a single member Board, but we can talk about that later; how that might work and be compensated. I would like to eliminate the 17 District map and also the 21 District map, although we have not discussed it yet.
A motion was made by Mr. Moustis, seconded by Ms. Winfrey to eliminate the 17 District Map from consideration.
Mr. Marcum asked is there anyone who favors a 17 District map? I want everyone to have a fair say and not dismiss anyone.
Ms. Ventura stated I was going to say a different 17 District map might work. But this one seems to not do the job. I don’t want this to sound like it is just about race, but the information we were given was population and race breakdowns. If it sounds like I am hyper vigilant about that, it is literally the data that was attached to those maps. There was age data as well, but we did not go into that. I think Mrs. Ogalla, Mr. Fricilone and Mr. Moustis all make a very good point about the school districts and the overlays of cities and townships. That is why that information is important for us to look at. If we have all that information on a 17 District map, while this one does not do the job, it does not mean a different 17 District map would not. What I would like to see, based on the law that allows us to, carve out some of those communities so they have representation based on race, but equally the school districts and keeping some of them together. We have already talked about cities and townships. I would then like to see that data and maybe we could advocate for why some of these areas might need to have special carve outs and then do everything else along a city or township line. I am not necessarily against a 17 District map, but I am against this 17 District map because it does not seem to meet the guidelines of what we have talked about.
Mrs. Traynere stated I agree with Ms. Ventura. I would like to look at 13, 15 and 17 District maps with more data on the map as an overlay. A 21 or 6 District map is crazy.
Speaker Cowan stated I support continuing to look at a 17 District map. I am in the 15, 17 or 19 camp. I agreed to allow us to consider the 13 District 2 Member map, but I don’t want to look at a 15 District map and have everyone say the districts are too big. I think it is important to keep the 17 District map in consideration.
Mr. Moustis stated I am going to withdraw my motion to eliminate as it seems like there is support. I understand what is being said about reconfiguration. If there is support for a 17 District concept, I will withdraw my motion.
A motion was made by Mrs. Traynere, seconded by Speaker Cowan, to consider a different configuration of the 17 District map and eliminate a 21 District map.
Mr. Marcum stated let’s stick to the issue of a 17 District map now and then we will deal with a 21 District map next.
Speaker Cowan seconded the motion to keep a 17 District map in consideration.
Mr. Johnson stated Mr. Shay and I are hoping in the next few days to set up a site so County Board Members can look at the different breakouts you have asked for, the municipalities and townships. The current precinct lines, will more than likely change after the County Board District map is approved. A couple of people have asked for school districts and we will put those on the site also. I will send that to Mrs. Adams and Mr. Palmer and they can pass it along to the Board Members. Hopefully, by the end of the week, we will have that link sent to you so you can look at it on your own time. You are welcome to come to GIS, contact me or contact Mr. Shay and we can get together. You can also contact Mr. Palmer to discuss questions or ideas from your local perspective. We want to make these maps so there is an agreement by all.
Mrs. Ogalla stated I think the 21 District map is crazy; it looks dysfunctional to me. I could look at a larger one of 19 as well. We have never discussed how many County Board Members support one or two member districts. In the rural areas, which would be eastern and southern Will County, townships are a cohesive neighborhood. You may not think so up north, because you have so many different areas within your township because of the population. In our areas, they mean a lot and that is a big difference for us versus you guys up there. It makes sense to have representatives elected from those rural townships, rather than one large municipality with a ton of votes that could override and eliminate somebody who would be a rural representative and understand the rural area. Most people don’t live in the unincorporated area nor understand the different way of living. How do I know? I grew up in the City of Chicago, lived in Bensenville and Park Forest and now I live on a farm. I understand the differences in the way people think on all those different levels. It is important to look at the townships. It would be good for us to have those overlays before we make any more decisions. We might look at those overlays and come up with a different number afterwards.
Mr. Marcum stated I want to remind everybody we are still on the 17 District map. We have not made a decision on that yet.
Mrs. Berkowicz stated on this map, Naperville and Plainfield are split between three districts. Why wouldn’t you put all of Naperville in one and all of Plainfield in the other; rather than splitting them up into three districts? If we are considering reducing Commissioners to one per district, what will the time commitment be for these 17 Commissioners to serve on all of the County Board Committees? The time commitment is going to increase; do we know what the time commitment is going to be? When you look at all of our meetings and all of our commitments, have we talked about the time commitment? We have had conversations where our cohorts have said they did not realize the time commitment. Has it been considered? If you want to reduce the number of Commissioners, then people have to be onboard to pick up the extra obligations and commitments.
Mr. Marcum stated the motion on the floor is for a completely different 17 District map. When we talk about it, it will be completely different.
Mr. Moustis stated even though I withdrew my motion, I am going to vote no for a 17 District map. The difficulty, as you make more districts, is we have legal guidelines and guidelines and objectives the County Board wanted to see. We talked about the legal guidelines a number of times today and Mrs. Tatroe has gone over them, at least once. When there are more districts, you get further away from those guidelines and objectives of not splitting communities. If you looked at the 21 District map, even though there are no overlays, I guarantee you that map even splits precincts. When you get into 17 you are going to split more municipalities and townships because of the smaller population numbers. That is why smaller districts just don’t meet our objectives. I will consider a 15 District map, if someone wanted to put it on the table, but I am going to be a no on this. For these reasons, we cannot meet the objectives of keeping communities of interest together with more districts. You are going to be splitting more townships and more municipalities. This does not meet the overall objective of the County.
Mr. Balich stated I am not liking a lot of what I am hearing and I thought I had better point it out. We need two person districts, no matter what. What happens when somebody is not able to work in the district; do you say “go to hell” to all the people in your district? If the other person is on vacation or sick, someone has to fill in for that person. There are a lot of things that happens in a district where you have to go to their houses or fields to look at. Sometimes, it is overwhelming, unless you have two people, because you can get it done. With one person you will have to tell residents to wait a couple of days until I can get there. I am against anything that is going to lessen the number of members per district. I don’t know if my vote matters that much, but I am going to be a no vote unless it is two people per district.
Mr. Marcum stated we will do a rollcall vote to keep the 17 District map plan on the table, with it being a different presentation at our next meeting.
A motion was made by Mrs. Traynere, seconded by Speaker Cowan, to keep the 17 District Map on the table, with it being a different presentation at the next meeting. On a roll call vote, Marcum, Cowan and Traynere voting yes. Gould, Fricilone, Fritz, Moustis, Ogalla and Winfrey voting no. MOTION FAILS.
Mr. Marcum stated the motion has failed, so that will not be presented at our next meeting.
Mr. Moustis asked for clarification on the last motion. Mrs. Tatroe, the last motion was to move forward the 17 District map and the vote results were no. Do we need to do another motion to eliminate the 17 District map from consideration?
Mrs. Tatroe replied no, it dies. If you are not moving forward, there is nothing more to do on it.
Motion to Keep the 17 District Map plan on the table, with it being a different presentation at the next meeting.
| RESULT: DEFEATED [3 TO 6]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Mimi Cowan, Member AYES: Marcum, Cowan, Traynere NAYS: Gould, Fricilone, Fritz, Moustis, Ogalla, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: Mueller |
Mr. Marcum asked does anyone have new comments on a 21 District map? I think it was taken into account with the 17 District map. Before we ask Mr. Johnson to go through the 21 District map, does anyone have feelings different from the 17 District map?
Motion to Eliminate the 21 District Concept Map.
| RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 4]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Denise E. Winfrey, Member AYES: Gould, Fricilone, Moustis, Ogalla, Winfrey NAYS: Marcum, Cowan, Fritz, Traynere LEFT MEETING: Mueller |
Mr. Gould stated it seems like we are looking at either a 13 or 15 District map. Mr. Marcum stated my next motion is going to be to have a 15 District map presented.
Mr. Gould asked could I have space saved on the next agenda for me to submit a 13 and 15 District map?
Mr. Marcum stated I think that is appropriate and I will save a space on the agenda. Mrs. Ogalla asked we are talking 15 Districts with a single person?
Mr. Moustis replied it would have to be, yes.
Mrs. Ogalla continued we are dropping down a lot of County Board Members. I think we should look at a 14 District 2 Members map; that would give us an opportunity to have more people. I think 15 Board Members to represent this area would be a very small group of people. I don’t support a 15 District map. I think 17, 19 or 21 was better than 15 districts.
Mr. Moustis stated for those who want single districts, it is an opportunity. It may not go forward. A majority of the Board can say we are going to have a 13 District 1 Member map. It allows an option for those who want to look at one member districts. Let them have the opportunity to discuss it. Mr. Gould would like to work on some maps and he is more than capable of doing that. I think he is capable of showing us very fair maps. Will GIS do a 15 District map based on the criteria we have used of keeping communities of interest together and so forth?
Mr. Marcum replied yes. At our next meeting we will have more data available for the maps.
Mr. Moustis stated a 15 District map would be 45,000 to 47,000 residents per district; that is a lot for one person to represent. Let’s take a look and let the folks that want a single member districts make the argument. Let’s put it out there for the full Board to consider. I am going to support doing a 15 District map.
Mr. Johnson stated there was a typographical error on one of the maps that was sent to the Committee. It was my fault and it does not reflect anything that might or will be done by the County Executive.
Ms. Fritz stated I would like to point out that you already killed the 21 Districts 1 Member map. Now we are talking about a 15 District 1 Member map. Going from 26 Board Members to 15 is a huge change. Going from 26 Board Members to 21 would have been a more gradual change, easing us into the one member per district concept and duties. I am not understanding why the 21 District map was killed so quickly. Sure, it needs refinement, but they all need refinement. If we want to consider or have an option for one member districts, I would strongly favor the 21 Districts versus the 15 District map. I think 15 Districts is too much area for one person to handle. I am in favor of a more gradual change, if we are going to have a change. I am going to be a no on the 15 District map. At some point, I think we should bring back the 21 District map.
Mrs. Traynere stated I tend to agree with Ms. Fritz and her argument of it being a less shocking change. I did vote no for removing the 21 District map. Obviously, I am not the right person to bring it up for reconsideration. I think Ms. Fritz’s comments were spot on.
Mr. Marcum stated there is a motion on the floor. Next month we will have more in depth information to overlay over the 13 and 15 District maps and Mr. Gould’s presentation.
Mrs. Traynere clarified we are only considering a 13 and 15 District map right now. Mr. Marcum replied that is what has come out of today.
Mrs. Traynere stated since a 21 District map failed, we should consider the 19 District map. I like Ms. Fritz’s logic; it is a big jump to go from 26 Board Members to 13 or 15. Since a 17 District map failed, maybe we should try 19.
A motion was made by Mrs. Traynere, seconded by Speaker Cowan to have GIS present a 19 District Single Member map.
Ms. Ventura asked if this does not pass, could someone on the Committee please reconsider a different 17 District map? The issue I see with the 19 District map might be carving up those communities of interest too small. The 17 District map might be able to do the job, just not the map that was shared with us. I don’t know exactly how the vote before was worded, but if this does not pass; would you please consider that and not just ignore any future maps of that size?
Mrs. Ogalla asked can you clarify; we are considering a 13 District map with 2 Members, is that correct?
Mr. Marcum replied it is a separate conversation, but that has been the leaning of the discussion, so yes.
Mrs. Ogalla continued the State’s Attorney told us we cannot have more than 29 County Board Members, is that true?
Mrs. Tatroe replied that is correct.
Mrs. Ogalla stated so the only way we could have a different map is if we had 14 Districts with 2 Members. Because with a 15, 17 and 19 map you are looking at only one Board Member. That is a big jump from 26 down.
Mr. Marcum stated the motion is to have a 19 District map presented at our next meeting.
Motion to have GIS Present a 15 District Map Single Member Map.
| RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 3]
MOVER: Jim Moustis, Member SECONDER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member AYES: Marcum, Gould, Cowan, Moustis, Traynere NAYS: Fricilone, Fritz, Ogalla LEFT MEETING: Mueller AWAY: Winfrey |
| RESULT: DEFEATED [3 TO 6]
MOVER: Jacqueline Traynere, Member SECONDER: Mimi Cowan, Member AYES: Marcum, Cowan, Traynere NAYS: Gould, Fricilone, Fritz, Moustis, Ogalla, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: Mueller |
Mrs. Jakaitis announced there were no public comments.
X. ANNOUNCEMENTS/REPORTS BY CHAIR
Discussion took place regarding the next meeting date and time.
Mr. Marcum stated my plan is to meet on Tuesdays at 1:00 p.m. We can tentatively schedule meetings for May 4, 11, 18 and 25.
XI. EXECUTIVE SESSION
XII. ADJOURNMENT
1. Motion to Adjourn at 1:21 PM
| RESULT: APPROVED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Mike Fricilone, Member SECONDER: Donald Gould, Vice-Chair AYES: Marcum, Gould, Cowan, Fricilone, Fritz, Moustis, Ogalla, Traynere, Winfrey LEFT MEETING: Mueller |
Alerts Sign-up