Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-2002 Regular Meetingi ~ AGENDA REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF CITY OF LA PORTS REDISTRICTING COMMITTEE TO BE HELD MARCH 5, 2002, IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF CITY HALL, 604 W. FAIRMONT PARKWAY, LA PORTS, TEXAS, BEGINNING AT 6:00 P.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 11, 2001 3. CONSIDER APPROVAL OR OTHER ACTION REGARDING THE FINAL REPORT TO BE SUBMITTED TO CITY COUNCIL 4. PREVIOUS BUSINESS 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. CALENDAR Discuss Future Redistricting and City Council Meeting Dates 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 8. ADJOURNMENT THIS FACILITY HAS DISABILITY ACCOMMODATIONS AVAILABLE. REQUESTS FOR ACCOMMODATIONS OR INTERPRETIVE SERVICES AT MEETINGS SHOULD BE MADE 48 HOURS PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. PLEASE CONTACT CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AT 281-471-5020 OR TDD LINE 281-471-5030 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. • Final Report of Re-Districting Committee to La Porte City Council The Redistricting Committee of the City of La Porte, Texas, heretofore established and appointed by the City Council of the City of La Porte, Texas in Ordinance No. 2000- 2460 in December 2000, and as directed to reconfigure single-member city council districts pursuant to the procedures set forth and established in City of La Porte Ordinance No. 2001-2502, hereby submits this its Final Report to the City of La Porte City Council recommending the establishment of new boundaries for the election of district Councilpersons. Attached to this report as "Exhibit A", and incorporated by reference herein, is the proposed map of the City of La Porte containing the reconfigured district boundaries, as is herein officially recommended by the Redistricting Committee for adoption by City Council and for submission for preclearance to the Department of Justice pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C., §1973c. Based on the directives established in Ordinance No. 2001-2502, the Re-Districting Committee followed the following criteria in redrawing district lines for the election of district Councilpersons: 1) Each district was redrawn so as to achieve relative parity in population size, based on an ideal population of 5313 for each of the 6 redrawn districts, and working with a new total city population of 31,880. (31,880 / 6). The directive followed in establishing the population for each district was that the highest population district would not exceed the lowest population district by 10% (plus or minus five percent deviation in population between districts). 2) The Committee based each new district as closely as possible on the boundaries of existing districts. To this end, the Committee sought to preserve present incumbent/constituency relationships, with consideration toward the residence of existing members of City Council, and their history in representing their current districts. 3) The Committee focused on maintaining easily identifiable geographical boundaries for redrawn districts, with a premium placed on drawing each new district to be compact and contiguous. 4) The Committee acted so as to maintain historic communities of interest contained within existing districts when redrawing district lines. This was accomplished by maintaining these communities entirely within newly created districts. 5) The Committee worked to draft the proposed new district lines to follow as closely as possible the existing Benchmark plan, which sets out the present district lines as reconfigured and adopted by City Ordinance No. 1775, and passed by City Council on August 12, 1991, and as precleared to the Department of Justice by letter dated January 21, 1992. • • 6) The Committee's proposal for redrawn city council districts was narrowly tailored to avoid retrogression to the greatest extent possible in the position of racial minorities and language minorities as defined in the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended, with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise. Set out below is a brief description of each of the proposed single-member districts, including information as to total population, breakdown of the population in terms of race, boundary lines forming the district, and its general character based on zoning classifications, housing, and industry. Based on the mandate of Ordinance 2001-2502, and as defined immediately above, each existing district within the city was reconfigured so as to fully comply with the criteria and standards as set out by Section 5, of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C., §1973c, and in each case, all guidelines and governing standards were fully satisfied. District 1 District 1, under the proposed boundary lines, contains a population of 5,569, a variance of +5% from the ideal population of 5313 for the 6 reconfigured districts. District 1 generally encompasses what was until April 10, 1980 the incorporated municipality of Lomax. On that date, it was annexed by the City of La Porte. District 1 is currently represented by Councilperson Guy Sutherland. The ethnic composition of District 1 is as follows: Hispanic 1,192, White 4,088, Black 168, Asian 48, American Indian 23, Pacific Islander 2, Other 48. District 1, as proposed, is bound by State Highway 225 on the north, Sens Road on the east, the north line of the La Porte Municipal Airport, Glenvalley Drive, Big Island Slough, north from Glennvalley to the north boundary line of the Creekmont Subdivision to Underwood Road then north to State Highway 225. District 1 is generally made up of homes located on property one half acre to ten acres in size, with many residents utilizing property for agricultural and farming purposes. Two La Porte Independent District schools are located in the district, Lomaz Elementry and Lomax Junior High School. There are three churches, a rodeo arena, and a city park with soccer fields, swimming pool, and walking trails. District 2 District 2, under the proposed boundary lines, contains a population of 5,306, a variance of 0% from the ideal population of 5313 for the 6 reconfigured districts. District 2 will be comprised of 2 subdivisions, Spenwick and Brookglen. The area constituting the bulk of District 2 was annexed by the City of La Porte on November 22, 1983. District 2 is represented by Councilperson Chuck Engelken. The ethnic composition of District 2 is as follows: Hispanic 1,271, White 3,699, Black 129, Asian 111, American Indian 18, Pacific Islander 8, Other 70 District 2 is formed by Spencer Highway to the north, Underwood Road on the east, Fairmont Parkway on the south, and San Jacinto College on the west. District 2 is predominately zoned residential, made up of moderately priced homes, and interspersed with a handful of general commercial areas along the north, south, and east boundaries. The district includes a city park, a civic center, 3 churches, a gated apartment complex and a group of town homes. District 3 District 3, under the proposed boundary lines, contains a population of 5,373, a variance of 0% from the ideal population of 5313 for the 6 reconfigured districts. District 3 is comprised of the Creekmont and West Fairmont Park areas, and is bordered by Underwood Road to the west. District 3 is currently represented by Councilperson Howard Ebow. The ethnic composition of District 3 is as follows: Hispanic 881, White 4,171, Black 168, Asian 48, American Indian 23, Pacific Islander 2, Other 48. District 3 is generally zoned residential, with subdivisions including sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. Two La Porte Independent District schools are located in the district. There are two well-planned apartment complexes and several churches, and neighborhood parks. District 4 District 4, under the proposed boundary lines, contains a population of 5,020, a variance of -5% from the ideal population of 5313 for the 6 reconfigured districts. District 4 is largely constituted by the original City of La Porte as incorporated in 1892. Included in District 4 are the Main Street Area, as well as the Union Pacific terminal. Generally, the district contains low and medium priced homes. District 4 is currently represented by Councilperson James Warren. The ethnic composition of District 4 is as follows: Hispanic 1,383, White 2,609, Black 886, Asian 57, American Indian 12, Pacific Islander 17, Other 38. District 4, as proposed, is bound by the Houston Ship Channel to the north, the Municipal Airport to the west, and the Barbours Cut Terminal to the east. District 4 includes several schools, baseball parks, tennis courts, a swimming pool, roller hockey field, outdoor basketball court, playgrounds, and a civic center. Also located in the district are eight churches and the new public library. ~ i District 5 District 5, under the proposed boundary lines, contains a population of 5,031, a variance of -5% from the ideal population of 5313 for the 6 reconfigured districts. District 5 is made up of the former BayMud municipal district, annexed by the City of La Porte in October of 1988. District 5 is currently represented by Councilperson Charles Young. The ethnic composition of District 5 is as follows: Hispanic 909, White 3,666, Black 327, Asian 15, American Indian 34, Pacific Islander 0, Other 71. District 5, as proposed, is bound by Galveston Bay to the east, the Bayport Industrial District to the west, and Shoreacres to the south. District 5 is includes bayfront homes, expensive residential homes, and contains the municipal golf course, Sylvan Beach park and Sylvan Beach Pavilion, the La Porte Fitness Center, and Little Cedar Bayou Park. Three La Porte Independent District schools are located in the district, as well as several small apartment complexes, a gated townhome complex, and five churches. District 6 District 6, under the proposed boundary lines, contains a population of 5,581, a variance of +5% from the ideal population of 5313 for the 6 reconfigured districts. District 6 is made up of a portion of old incorporated La Porte, and a section of Glen Medows subdivision and all of central and Fairmont Park and Fairmont Park East. District 6 is currently represented by Councilperson Guy Jerry Clarke. The ethnic composition of District 6 is as follows: Hispanic 884, White 4,278, Black 247, Asian 77, American Indian 19, Pacific Islander 13, Other 63. District 6 is generally a residentially zoned area, with some general commercial areas. Several schools, parks, churches, as well as the La Porte City Hall, are located in the district. As reconfigured, each and every proposed district contains easily recognizable boundaries, and is drawn to be compact and contiguous. Each proposed district closely follows and approximates the size and character of the pre-existing district, and, preserves the historical communities of interest within each district. Also, in every case the proposed lines adequately protect the current incumbent/constituency relationship. Finally, as can be determined by comparing the numbers listed above for each district reflecting the ethnic composition of the district with current totals, retrogression in terms of minority voting strength is avoided. EXHIBIT A -LARGE MAPS WILL BE AT THE MEETING FOR YOUR REVIEW O~ ~ q0 T ~~ u` m rExAs • ~T~ City of La Porte Estuhlishcd 1892 Cih~ of I.a ,Porte Redistricting Committee want to commend the committee. for all the time and hard work that went into tke redistricting plan. I think that you did an exceptional job within tke framework that. you were given and I can accept tJxe plan as was last presented I do have some comments and concerns relative to some council input on. the plan. First with regards to Councilman Sutherland's recommendation I do not really have any strongfeelings one way or the other, however, I do not recognize the current presentation as being a concern or a problem. Wit,/r. that being said I do not believe there is any real need to make a change other than maybe cleaning up the lines a little. Councilman Warren has expressed some concern that the Spencer Landing subdivision should possibly go into one of the districts on the western end of the city. He cited a basic concern that development was more in "character" N~ith the other developed subdivisions This has some merit, in particular, if we start to re-draw some of the lines. ,Finally with regard to Councilman Clarke's recommendation, I do not believe that any more of the residents East of the railroad tracks should be incorporated into District 6 for a number of reasons. First, I realize that every effort. was made to not displace incumbent councilmen and 1 understand that although I do not agree with it I realize that the " anger" or strip was included exclusively for that purpose, however, it will pose some immediate problems due to nwst of the curre~i new growth /housing starts are just west of the railroad tracks between Fairmont Parkway and Spencer Highway in Fairmont Park ,East fl dding anything more is going to cause a signif::cant disparity in the voters /district balance in the immediate future. If in fact the District d lines are changed I would Like to see the District 6 eastern boundary stop at the railroad tracks and possibly consider adding the Spencer Landing subdivision. This will create a more legitimate boundary line and will also incorporate these neighborhoods into a district. that is more consistent in the character of the neighborhon~ls than is presently set nut I want to close with the thought that I am not advocalin~ these changes, however, if changes are made relative to these o,(jerings I definitely would like these things considered Tkank you again for all the fine work. Respectfully, R E ~ E ~ ~/ E ~~'''' ~'~`~'" MAR 0 5 2002 Alton E. Porter Councilman at-Large "B" CITY I~ANA~ER'S ~~~I~E P.n. T3ox 1115 • T.a Porte, TcxaS 77572-1 1 1 5 • (2~1) 471 5020 ~~ ~ q0 T ~ a m u rExAs • n.T~ City of La Porte Escahlished 1892 City of La ,Porte Redistricting Committee I want to commend the committee for all the time and hard work that went into tke redistricting plan. I think that you did an exceptional job within the framework that. you were given and I can accept tl:e plan as was last presented I do have some comments and concerns relative to some council. input on the plan.. First with regards to Councilman Sutherland's recommendation I do not really have any strongfeelings one way or the other, however, I do not recognize the current presentation as being a concern or a problem. Witlr. that being said I do not believe there is any real need to make a change other than maybe cleaning up the lines a little. Councilman Warren has expressed some concern that the Spencer Landing subdivision should posssihly go into one of the districts on the western end of the city. FIe cited a basic concern that development. was more in "character" with the other developed subdivisions. This has some merit, in particular, if we start to re-draw some of the lines. p'inally with regard to Councilman Clarke's recommendation, I do not believe that any more of the residents East of the railroad tracks should be incorporated into District 6 for a number of reasons. First, I realize that every effort was made to not displace incumbent councilmen and 1 understand that although I do not agree with it I realize that the "anger" or.rtrip was included exclusively for that purpose, however, it will pose some immediate problems due to nsost of the current new gmwth /housing starts are just west of the railroad tracks between. Fairmont Parkway and Spencer Highway in Fairmont Park ,East Adding anything more is gor'ng to cause a sign Jcant disparity in the voters /district balance in the immediate future. If in fact the District d lines are changed I would like to see the District d eastern boundary stop at the railroad tracks and possibly consider adding the Spencer Landing subdivision. This will create a more legitimate boundary line and will alcn incorporate these neighborhoods into a district. that is more consistent in the character of the neighborhoods than is presently set nut. I want to close with the thought chat I am not advocatinP these changes, however, if changes are made relative to these o,,Q`erings I definitely would like these things considered Tkank you again for all the fine work. Respectfully, . f~.-~~ Alton E. Porter Councilman at-Large "B" RECEIVED MAR 4 5 2002 CITY NiANAGER'~ ~FIF~~E P.Q. F3ox 1115 • T.a Porte, Tcxas 77572-1 11S • (281) 4715020