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 reyiewing 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 moying 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 subdiyision is split and may not have common interests with District 4. <br /> The committee looked at moying some of the lines and had Mr. Litchfield check the <br /> results of the moves. Several changes were discussed and moyed.. <br /> Based on discussed changes tv1r. 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,O5l -4.93% <br /> District 6 5,4l7 + 1.96% <br />