Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />Page 2 <br />He further explained the Committee might have had some confusion due to census block <br />numbers being the same in different census tract numbers. Committee member Betty <br />Waters indicated she determined the same thing in reviewing the calculations. <br />All agreed that the spreadsheet numbers being used are correct. <br />6. COMMITTEE REPORT FROM ED MATUSZAK ON REDISTRICTING MAP <br />#R-008 <br />Mr. Matuszak informed the group he would use the numbers provided since they were <br />correct. It was determined the population numbers on the map were printed incorrectly <br />on the new map. They should be as follows for districts 4, 5 and 6: <br />4=4,944 <br />5=5,519 <br />6=5,585 <br />The percentages were correctly printed on map R-008. This results in the following: <br />District 6 has 272 people over. <br />District 4 is 369 people under. <br />District 5 numbers are acceptable. <br />The committee discussed moving population between the districts that would bring them <br />within the guidelines. <br />Assistant City Attorney John Armstrong noted the following concerns with the map R- <br />008: <br />Glen Meadows subdivision is split and may not have common interests with District 4. <br />The committee looked at moving some of the lines and had Mr. Litchfield check the <br />results of the moves. Several changes were discussed and moved. <br />Based on discussed changes Mr. Litchfield estimated the following percentages: <br />District 1 5,467 +2.9% <br />District 2 5,306 -0.13% No Changes <br />District 3 5,444 +2.47% <br />District 4 5,195 -2.22% <br />District 5 5,051 -4.93% <br />District 6 5,417 +1.96% <br />