Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN NOV 20 1990 REGULAR SESSION CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS HELD NOVEMBER 20, 1990 - 1:30 P.M. BE IT REMEMBERED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, Texas, met in regular session this the 20th day of November, 1990, with the following present: HONORABLE: Evelyn M. Lord Mayor Andrew P. Cokinos Mayor Pro Tem Councilman At Large Brian R. Alter Councilman At Large Lulu L. Smith Councilman, Ward I Guy N. Goodson Councilman, Ward II Audwin Samuel Councilman, Ward III David W. Moore Councilman, Ward IV Ray A. Riley City Manager Lane Nichols City Attorney Rosemarie Chiappetta City Clerk -000- The Invocation was given by Mayor Lord. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Samuel. -000- Two Proclamations were issued: "Company C, 143rd Infantry Day, " November 25, 1990; and "MADD's Project Red Ribbon; Tie One On for Safety, " November 20, 1990 - January 1, 1991 (Mad Mothers Against Drunk Driving promoting safe driving during the holiday season) . -000- Citizen comment was invited on the Consent and Main Agendas. District 22 Representative Al Price, 381 Liberty, addressed Council in opposition to Agenda Item No. 1 adopting an ordinance amending Ward boundaries used for electing Ward Councilmembers for the City of Beaumont before the final 1990 census figures are released next year. -000- The following Consent Agenda items were considered: Approval of the Minutes of the Regular Session of City Council conducted November 13, 1990; -390- November 20, 1990 Resolution No. 90-260 authorizing a License to Encroach three (3) feet onto a ten (10) foot utility easement at the rear of the lot and one (1) foot onto a five (5) foot street light easement on the side of the lot described as Lot 18, Block 35, Dowlen West Addition Unit XXI to Mr. and Mrs. Don M. Viguet for a building extending onto easements in the rear of a residence at 7085 Limerick Drive for a one-time fee of $500. 00; and Resolution No. 90-261 authorizing acceptance of a 71.5 square foot easement on the west right-of-way of Highway 69, 96, and 287 adjacent to the State of Texas drainage ditch in the Pelham Humphries Survey from TexasGulf, Inc. , for the sanitary sewer lift station constructed to serve newly annexed areas of South Beaumont. The Consent Agenda was approved on a motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Cokinos and seconded by Councilman Moore. Question: Ayes: All Nayes: None -000- Mayor Lord announced that an Executive Session will be conducted in accordance with Section 2 (e) of the Texas Open Meetings Act to discuss pending or contemplated litigation: J. G. Coward, Jr. ; Bruce Chenault and Ohio Casualty Group vs Spencer Francois and the City of Beaumont; and Susan Shanks vs the City of Beaumont; at the close of the Workshop Session. -000- Ordinance No. 90-69 revising the boundaries of City Council Wards to more nearly equalize constituency based on population estimates by moving Precinct No. 1 from Ward I to Ward III and Precinct 64 from Ward II to Ward IV was considered: ORDINANCE NO. 90-69 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WARDS OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT FOR ELECTION PURPOSES ONLY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL. Councilman Samuel stated he has no question about the validity of Council action to amend Ward boundaries at this time and feels comfortable with the proposal, but questioned the timing of passing this proposal being in the best interest of the entire city. He said there could be an impact on anyone that plans to run for a Council position in the upcoming election and would suggest waiting for passage of this ordinance until after the next General Election for the City of Beaumont and for final census population figures. A discussion followed regarding present wide population variance in wards, an aggressive and voluntary good faith step forward to balance and align population in wards, the fact that if a candidate should be elected from the two -391- November 20, 1990 precincts in question and a boundary change occur after the election, the member would have to resign, and the opportunity for future amendments if the final census figures vary greatly from preliminary estimates. Ordinance No. 90-69 was approved on a motion made by Councilman Goodson and seconded by Councilman Moore. Question: Ayes: Mayor Lord Nayes: None Mayor Pro Tem Cokinos Councilman Alter Councilman Smith Councilman Goodson Councilman Moore Abstained: Councilman Samuel -000- Ordinance No. 90-70 accepting the revised 1990 Certified Tax Roll from Jefferson County Tax Assessor-Collector Nick Lampson showing the net taxable value of property in Beaumont to be $2,790,700, 060. 00, a net reduction of $62,910. 00 from the earlier roll approved by Ordinance No. 90-55 on September 18, 1990, with a revised total levy of $15,069,778. 00, after application of the City tax rate of $.54 per $100 assessed valuation, (an increase of about $100, 000 from the original roll after adjustments by the appraisal district's valuation review board) was considered: (Councilman Samuel left the Council Chambers during discussion, but returned before the vote. ) ORDINANCE NO. 90-70 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND APPROVING THE TAX ROLL FOR THE CITY OF BEAUMONT FOR THE TAX YEAR 1990; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL. Ordinance No. 90-70 was approved on a motion made by Councilman Alter and seconded by Councilman Moore. Question: Ayes: Mayor Lord Nayes: None Councilman Alter Councilman Smith Councilman Goodson Councilman Samuel Councilman Moore Abstained: Mayor Pro Tem Cokinos (Mayor Pro Tem Cokinos is a member of the Board of Directors for the Jefferson County Appraisal District. ) -392- November 20, 1990 (Councilman Samuel left the Council Chambers. ) Ordinance No. 90-71 extending the present reduced speed school zone on Homer Drive (from the boundary line of Homer Drive School to the intersection of Post Oak Drive) 1,200 feet to include the boundary line of Homer Drive School to the intersection of House Road was considered: ORDINANCE NO. 90-71 ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 26, SECTION 26-24 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT TO ADD A NEW SCHOOL ZONE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL AND PROVIDING A PENALTY. Ordinance No. 90-71 was approved on a motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Cokinos and seconded by Councilman Moore. Question: Ayes: All Nayes: None -000- (Councilman Samuel returned to the Council Chambers during discussion and before the vote on Agenda Item No. 4 . ) Resolution No. 90-262 authorizing purchase of three (3) 52 hp diesel tractors in the amount of $43 ,707. 00 ($14, 569. 00 each) from Case Power and Equipment Company for mowing by the Parks Department was approved on a motion made by Councilman Cokinos and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Cokinos. Question: Ayes: All Nayes: None -000- Resolution No. 90-263 awarding a contract to Natkin Service Company in the amount of $39, 130. 00 for furnishing and installing one (1) air conditioning unit at City Hall and to Project Mechanical Services in the amount of $64, 674 . 00, less a 2% ten-day prompt payment discount, making the net cost $63, 380.52, for furnishing and installing two (2) air conditioning units at the Police Station was approved on a motion made by Mayor Pro Tem Cokinos and seconded by Councilman Alter. Question: Ayes: All Nayes: None -000- Resolution No. 90-264 accepting and approving the Community Development Advisory Committee Funding Recommendations for the 1990-1991 Public Service Grants to Family Services Association of Beaumont in the amount of $8, 000. 00; Housing Authority of Beaumont in the amount of $18,597. 00; Nutrition and Services for Seniors in the amount of $19,565. 00; Programs for Human Services (senior aides) in the amount of $9,100.00; Rape and -393- November 20, 1990 Suicide Crisis of Southeast Texas in the amount of $3,765. 00; Shaffer Center of Communication and Development in the amount of $22, 500. 00; The Childrens Center (by Power, Inc. ) in the amount of $8, 373 . 00; and the Women' s and Children's Shelter in the amount of $10, 000. 00 for a total of $100, 000. 00 was considered: Allocations to the Housing Authority of Beaumont in the amount of $18,597. 00; Programs for Human Services (senior aides) in the amount of $9,200. 00; Rape and Suicide Crisis of Southeast Texas in the amount of $3,765. 00; Shaffer Center of Communication and Development in the amount of $22, 500.00; The Childrens Center (by Power, Inc. ) in the amount of $8, 373 . 00; and the Women and Children's Shelter in the amount of $10, 000. 00 were approved on a motion made by Councilman Alter and seconded by Councilman Goodson. Question: Ayes: All Nayes: None An allocation in the amount of $8,000. 00 to Family Services Association of Beaumont was approved on a motion made by Councilman Moore and seconded by Councilman Samuel. Question: Ayes: Mayor Lord Nayes: None Mayor Pro Tem Cokinos Councilman Goodson Councilman Samuel Councilman Moore Abstained: Councilman Alter Councilman Smith An allocation in the amount of $19,565. 00 to Nutrition and Services for Seniors was approved on a motion made by Councilman Moore and seconded by Councilman Samuel. Question: Ayes: Mayor Pro Tem Nayes: None Cokinos Councilman Alter Councilman Smith Councilman Goodson Councilman Samuel Councilman Moore Abstained: Mayor Lord Council expressed appreciation to the Community Development Advisory Committee for their effort and work involved in serving on this board. -000- Councilman Goodson lauded the efforts of Mayor Lord for an excellent job in promoting and participating in the Community Thanksgiving Celebration at the Julie Rogers Theater last night and thanked everyone for taking time to attend this service. Councilman Goodson expressed anticipation -394- November 20, 1990 that soon a larger facility will be necessary to accommodate the attendance. Councilman Alter echoed Councilman Goodson's remarks about Mayor Lord and the Thanksgiving service, added that he was very impressed with the signing of the entire service for the hearing impaired, including even the singing, and wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. Mayor Pro Tem Cokinos also complimented Mayor Lord for a great job at the celebration and expressed his desires for continuation of the event. Mayor Pro Tem Cokinos reported attending a Thanksgiving breakfast at the YMCA this morning where Monsignor Sidney Marceaux was the special speaker. He added that Monsignor Marceaux will be called to active duty in the Mid-East tomorrow. Councilman Moore apologized for missing the Thanksgiving service because of an emergency meeting, but reported that the prayer breakfast at the YMCA was very good. He congratulated the residents at Northridge Manor for efforts in fighting a drug problem in their neighborhood and for participation in a Thanksgiving meeting with members of Council, the Police Department, and the Beaumont Housing Authority. Councilman Moore asked that a Workshop Session be arranged with the Police Department Task Force on Youth Gang Activities to understand the measures they are using and to provide Council input and assistance. Councilman Samuel asked that a Workshop Session be scheduled to reconsider Town Meetings. Councilman Smith expressed her thoughts that last night was a very special evening and complimented Mayor Lord for bringing the entire community together. She said the fourth and fifth grade members of the choir from Beaumont Independent School District revealed faces of Southeast Asians, Indians, Blacks, and Whites typifying all nationalities coming together from diverse religious backgrounds for one purpose--to give thanks. Mayor Lord announced that the Community Thanksgiving Celebration will be rebroadcast throughout the week on Channel 31 because of the videotaping provided by Gulf States Utilities Company. She said this has been a very happy week community-wise, beginning with the grand-opening of the Homer Drive School on Sunday, the joyous occasion last night, and then a luncheon today at Goodwill. She wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving with many reasons to be grateful for the city and country in which we live. -000- Mrs. Jesse Cooper, 446 Georgetown, addressed Council to share an idea and a program whereby money may be borrowed from the Treasury Department without interest to be used for improvements. She submitted to the City Clerk a packet of information to be copied and distributed -395- November 20, 1990 to Council before the Texas Municipal League meeting. Mr. Damon Keeling, 950 Sherman, addressed Council to question revitalization and economic development of the Charlton-Pollard neighborhood. Mr. Keeling expressed concern that low income housing construction is not progressing, the loss of community institutions and to complain about demolishing of structures in the area. Mrs. Alice Brown, 2265 Jacobs, addressed Council to request a bus shelter for children waiting for the school bus at Dunbar Elementary School and commended Councilman Moore for his assistance in ridding neighborhoods of dilapidated and dangerous structures. Mrs. Brown was advised to consult with the Beaumont Independent School District regarding bus shelters. Mr. Forest F. "Ted" Posey, 3695 Edmonds, extended a special holiday greeting in poetic form. Mr. Henry Dannembaum, 1567 Wall, spoke in support of the purchase of air conditioning systems, extended happy holiday wishes, and announced that the management of the Golden Corral will be providing lunches for the needy on Thanksgiving day. Mr. William Gorrell, 1504 Doucette, addressed Council to question demolition of houses near Buford, the possibility of rezoning that area, the Port of Beaumont expansion plans and boundaries, and public housing reconstruction. Mr. E. E. Shackleford, 11755 Carpenter Road, addressed Council to suggest that some kind of recording device be installed in Municipal Court. -000- There being no other business, the meeting was recessed before continuing with the Workshop Session. -000- I, Rosemarie Chiappetta, City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, Texas, certify that the above is a true copy of the Minutes of the Regular City Council Session held November 20, 1990. Rosemarie Chiappetta City Clerk -396- November 20, 1990 EXCERPTS FROM BEAUMONT, TEXAS, CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SESSION HELD NOVEMBER 201 1990 THOSE PRESENT: HONORABLE: Evelyn M. Lord Mayor Andrew P. Cokinos Mayor Pro Tem Councilman At Large Brian R. Alter Councilman At Large Lulu L. Smith Councilman, Ward I Guy N. Goodson Councilman, Ward II Audwin Samuel Councilman, Ward III David W. Moore Councilman, Ward IV Ray A. Riley City Manager Lane Nichols City Attorney Rosemarie Chiappetta City Clerk -000- EXCERPT NO. 1 MAYOR LORD: There are two times at which we invite any public comment on our agenda. One would be at the present time when we would take any comment on Items 1 through 6, and then at the close of our business session, we welcome public comment on anything of public interest. So, I will ask at this time, is there any citizen who would like to address us on Items 1 through 6? If you would just please give your name (laughter) for the records, please, and you may speak to us. STATE REPRESENTATIVE AL PRICE: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I 'm Al Price, citizen of Beaumont, and I 'm very pleased to be here to appear before you, but I shall say very reluctantly that I 'm here to voice my opposition to the proposed ordinance that would alter the boundaries of the present wards. And, very briefly, I 'm here because I wanted to be on record so that when I intervene with the, for the Justice Department, I can at least say that I made my opposition known here. But, I 'm, I'm, I have four basic reasons to be opposed to this. The number one being that I think it is really rushing things before the official census figures are in. The second reason, and very much aligned with that, is that reapportionment based on estimates, I think is legally full of holes. The third reason is once we get the official figures, then we shall have a better idea of the packing and stacking of districts. And, lastly, the fourth reason that I think that the lack of a definite and known schedule for considering reapportionments is something that is absent here and is sorely needed. Justice, normally people, entities are required to wait for the decennial census figures, and it is know that there will -1- be a reapportionment following the official issuance of those figures. In this case, that is not being awaited, and in a sense doing this just with a limited time frame of notification could be very easily viewed as capricious and, I think, for that reason is subject to an awful lot of misinterpretation. But, I did want to go on record as saying that. I didn't want to create a commotion. I think that that is ill advice at this time, and I thank you and appreciate you allowing me to. . . MAYOR LORD: Thank you very much, Mr. Price. Is there any other citizen who would like to speak to us on Items 1 through 6? If not, we will proceed to the Consent Agenda. Is there any item on the Consent Agenda that any member of Council wishes to have separated for separate discussion? If not, I will entertain a motion. END OF FIRST EXCERPT EXCERPT NO. 2 MAYOR LORD At this point we will proceed with our regular agenda, and I will ask the City Manager to please make his presentations. MR. RILEY For the Mayor and Council, Item is an ordinance which is: ENTITLED AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE WARDS OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT FOR ELECTION PURPOSES ONLY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL. As a quick review of what has brought us to the consideration of this ordinance today, some several months ago, I believe it was about last April or May, it was brought to the Council 's attention the disproportionate amount of elected voters which were in the various-- the four wards. Under the terms of the Charter, the Council is to consider making the balance between the wards as reasonable as possible. Subsequently, then after some consideration a number of options, several plans had been considered in an order to balance what would be the qualified electors, which under the terms of the Charter is considered to be those who you know are voters or electors. Subsequently, the, with objections based on it being done on electors, conversation was had with the Justice Department, which time the City Attorney has reported to you that Justice--the Justice Department feels very strongly that population is a--the determining factor, very heavily weighted in that direction. Only if there were some other very -2- heavy factor that would change that, would any other factor be considered. And with that, the Council then considered another option which would be to try to balance it based on what is the current population estimates within the four wards. Currently, there is about a 22% variance between the smallest and the largest wards. The smallest ward is that of Ward 3 which has approximately 24,940 resident population. The next is then Ward 4 at 27,298 moving up to the high-- the largest ward is Ward 2 of 30,536. Upon consideration of this, then Ward 3 and 4 being the smallest, the consideration was on what basis could it be balanced the easiest and manner possible. And, at that point, looking at the existing map, just based on the geographical location that precincts have to be adjacent to the wards which they are to be aligned, then at that point, Precinct 64 which is to the south and immediately adjacent to Ward 4 contains in population about 1, 440. That was proposed then to be realigned from Ward 2 to Ward 4 to increase it as the next to smallest ward. Then, Precinct 1 located here as part of Ward 1 is immediately surrounded, except on one side, by Ward 3, and it became the obvious precinct then to move into Ward 3 to provide the balance. There's about 3 , 366 person population in that precinct. By making these two changes, then, by then it affects squaring off that line with Precinct 1 being included in Ward 3 would move then our variance between the largest and the smallest ward based about 7.4%. Ward 1 would contain about 27, 100 persons, still being the smallest, but a much smaller variance between that and the largest. The largest ward would still be Ward 2 at 29, 096, but with--it would have a reduction of about 1,440 persons by attaching Precinct 64, Ward 2 . I would point out that these precincts, both 1 and 64, were the consideration basis for all of the other plans which might have been based on qualified electors. The only change between this, is that this only contains two precincts. Any other consideration by the Council considered a variation as many as six or seven precincts moving. In the event that that is not acceptable, then there is no other obvious plan--there is no other way being able to balance, in our estimation, nor may we preserve the minority representation which we currently have at about--in excess of 60% Black in both 3 and in Ward 4 by making any other types of switches in order to, you know, balance it based on population. I believe that the Council at last Workshop determined that if there were to be a change made in order to balance, that changing these two precincts are the ones that are obvious. And, the feasible part, anything else would probably no change would be the only other option you'd have at this time. That the ordinance then that is before you provides then at the Council direction to modify the current ward boundaries by taking Precinct 1 and moving it from-- currently from Ward 4 to Ward 3 and by taking Precinct 64 and moving it from Ward 4, excuse me, Ward 2 to Ward 4 . MAYOR LORD: Are there questions? Yes. -3- COUNCILMAN MOORE• Just one question. Ray, in the event that we get information back in regards to the census count that shows numbers contrary to this, that does not preclude us from making changes at that particular point and time. MR. RILEY: Sure does not, not in my estimation. COUNCILMAN MOORE• So, the activity, the action we're taking today are basically pro- active based upon what we have done over the last several months, and if something comes up showing a drastic change in the numbers presented here today, we can make a change at that particular time for Justice Department consideration. MR. RILEY: I believe so. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Ah, MAYOR LORD: I think Mr. Samuel is first and then after that, Mr. Goodson. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Yes, I have no question about the validity of our actions as it regards to the Justice Department. I feel that our Legal Department has done its homework, and I feel very comfortable with the proposal. I can understand taking in 1 (Precinct) into my ward, as well as, taking 64 (Precinct) into Ward 4. However, you know we all have our various means of determining when a proposal is in the best interest of the entire city, and my method is balancing the burden with the benefit. And, in looking at this particular proposal, sure we have something that needs to be addressed, and that's balancing of the population within all the wards. That is the benefit, and the burden I see is--it has an impact on anyone that plans to run for a position in upcoming elections, as well as anyone that--there is a perceived notion that there is some underlying reasons. So, in looking at that, and in looking at the fact that we do not have the verified population count, I see no urgency in moving forward. So, in looking at the burden as opposed to the benefit, I would, I would be asking that this Council defer this until after the elections. -4- MAYOR LORD: Mr. Goodson. COUNCILMAN GOODSON• Well, I just wanted to join in with what David had said. That I appreciate the insight that Representative Price has provided to the City on the population. And, as stated by David--I believe that it was my understanding, that if we determined that there are additional changes that skew the population figures somewhat from where they are on the preliminary numbers, that if those would result in a great variance from the numbers in the preliminary, that we would have the opportunity to go back to Justice Department immediately and ask for an amendment of our plan as presented. I know that it is being considered now. Because of the upcoming election, and I think, that for those who have not had an opportunity to be at our two workshops, Mayor, it would just be beneficial to be advised that the change, even on the preliminary numbers, would drop the variance in the population from better than 22% down to something closer to 7%, and this was what we stated in the last workshop, was the intent was to move towards the balancing of the equities. And, hopefully, the numbers on the preliminary will not be so materially different that it would cause a necessity to go back. But, I, I felt like that the reason why we Were moving towards it now, ah, was because we wanted to achieve a balancing as soon as possible and getting it closer to what the guidelines and criteria that the Justice Department calls for. As I understand it, we are at a population variance right now that is--that would not be acceptable to the Justice Department if we took our existing ward boundaries to them and have those ward boundaries ratified as an existing voting plan. We are at 22%, and as I understand it, and the City Attorney can certainly clarify, that anytime it's skewed above 10% that, that you are looking at the possibility of Justice Department coming in because of the sharp contrast in population. And, it's true, that we do not have final numbers. But, these are, I believe, the best numbers that we have to work with, and it shows that positive movement towards equalization that we don't have now, and I guess I felt most comfortable going forward with an election in 1991 where we had attempted to make the good-faith effort to get it in line with what the Justice Department criteria was, rather than leaving it at 22% knowing that that number existed. And, I don't perceive that from top to bottom that that 22% number will change materially. Individually, the ward numbers may vary slightly, but I feel like we will still be at that plus 20% number, and that's what I was--my reason for moving forward now is to bring that down to that sub-10%. And, that's why I would move to proceed. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Let me ask a question. -5- MAYOR LORD: Surely. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Councilman, I understand your reasoning. Is it not--would it not be the Justice Department's intent to insure that anytime there's an implementation of a plan that there is parity and equity? I think the skew in the population has been a result of transition of people from one ward to another. The, the question I would have is, the Justice Department would not come in and say that we are not acting in good faith for not acting prior to getting the figures. And, my--I guess the main concern I have is that if there's someone out there that has been planning to run for a particular seat in the ward, and they made their plans over the last two years, and now we come up and change it, I think that would be very unfair to that citizen. MAYOR LORD: May I ask a question here in return to you in thinking of that scenario, which I had not done previously with that exact thing in mind. If that person then found himself afterwards, with this movement of the same precincts out of his ward, he would have to resign, would he not? COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Yes, he would. MAYOR LORD: And that would be, to me, more difficult perhaps a situation to find himself in than knowing in the first place that he might not be there. You know--I mean, talk with me, Audwin, and you know COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Yes, that's, that's a very valid assessment. However, I, I think that anyone that has made their plans, they will have to make an adjustment as opposed to making--we making the adjustment for them. COUNCILMAN ALTER: May I ask a question, now? MAYOR LORD: Certainly. -6- COUNCILMAN ALTER: Isn't that going to always occur anytime that there is a reapportionment process? I mean, I don't think there's any question that in some point and time, this Council, or whatever Council will be of, you know, elected at that point and time, is going to have to rebalance these wards. I think the preliminary figures are--don't have nearly the margin of error that would change substantially the figures that we're looking at. At some point and time, that, the predicament you're describing is going to occur for anybody who may be planning to run for office at some point and time in the future. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Okay, I understand that, and it's a valid assessment, but, again, that is not the essence of the entire--of the question. The question is, in balancing as to why we should do this now. What, why are we moving forward? To balance the populations in the wards. Is it essential that we do that now? No, it's not. The burden's that, that potential scenario of someone running for office, okay, the, the other thing is, we have to deal with perceptions because perceptions are reality. Some, there are some that feel that we're moving capriciously, we are moving with underlying intents. It's not so. I know it's not on my part, but ' if that's perceived by them, that's real to them. So, we can eliminate that. What do we have to lose by putting it off? I don't see anything that we're going to lose by it. The figure's going to come back. I agree with you. The figures are not going to be significant. The changes won't be significant. As the plan is, it's not making a significant difference in the minority representation. It's, all that is insignificant. But, all I 'm doing--I, basically, I 'm looking at perception and what we're, we're doing in moving forward. If it's the Council's pleasure to move forward, I will move along with you. I will vote in favor of the program, the project. But, I 'm only saying it's not essential. I see no need for us to do it, if we don't have to. COUNCILMAN ALTER: May I have a point of information? MAYOR LORD: Certainly. COUNCILMAN ALTER: Lane, what is in the Charter our obligation to balance the wards? Do we, is there a specific time period, is there a specific frame that we have to look at it? -7- MR. NICHOLS• No, there isn't. It's just gives, gives the Council affirmative duty to assure the voters that the wards are--it talks about electors--but have approximately the same number of electors. There's no time limit associated with that. Two other things about the Justice Department and they're, whether they're going to sue us and what not. We've only been talking with the Voting Rights Division, Section Five Preclearance Division, and they don't file lawsuits against people. They merely approve plans, and even the one-man, one-vote issue is not as important to them as the assurance of equal representation on the elected body, and the, they want to be sure that we're not diluting minority voting strength. Those are the two prime issues. I also asked them, "Would it seem unusual that we would do this the year before the census numbers would be certified?" and he said that "we would look to see if there was any other reason, some sub-rosa reason for that occurring. But, no, we wouldn't care that it was happening before the official census figures were received, so long as your methodology of arriving at census numbers was reasonable to us. " So, I don't, I don't whether that helps of not. The lawsuits that arrives from variances in the sizes of precincts come from individual voters who are, come in as, as litigants, and sometimes the Justice Department joins when it's a pattern in practice. So, they believe a pattern in practice of. of setting these wards in place in such a way as to dilute minority strength is taking place or has taken place. I don't know if that clears up anything. MAYOR LORD: Councilman Smith. COUNCILMAN SMITH• Well, don't we what the approximate--what the census figures are for our city now, the what they have done--what, how is that likely to change, I know it's not official? MR. RILEY: I think the point we have not been able to make in the last couple of weeks is that the census tracts do not relate to the precincts. There is an overlap, and there is always even back these current precincts or the alignment of the wards is done on, on neighborhood statistics with the application using the 1180 census based on the households that we have. We've applied the same information. The preliminary population figure is that of the total figure, but the households we do have by neighbor, by the census tracts. We've had to interpolate just as we did, or as they did, in 1985 in order to put them back, and, as, as we say there, yes, the numbers are subject to change because of the relationship between the households, but so were they back in 1985. What could be subject to change in which, if, if, in a particular -8- neighborhood, there is a material change in the size of the household, in other words, the population per census tract or by that neighborhood, then would, could cause us a skew because of the number of households and the application of it. But, I doubt that it's going to be very big, you know, between, between the various wards. COUNCILMAN SMITH• So, we're not anticipating that there would be MR. RILEY: I doubt that there' ll be a major change. COUNCILMAN MOORE• One other thing, I mean, the action we're taking today is simply submitting a plan to the Justice Department for approval. They have the, the final call, anyway. So, if there's something they feel is out of character for the changes we're making, they going to reject that anyway. It's not like we're approving it, and it's getting done, am I correct? MR. NICHOLS• I think that's correct. I think we have plenty of time now to receive their approval or disapproval. Actually, they don't ever approve anything. They just say they don't disapprove it. But, if they don't, if they don't approve it, or give us an indication that they will not approve it, then I think we would not, would not and could not hold the election using the new precincts that we had submitted to them. We would then fall back to the existing ward boundaries that we have now. COUNCILMAN MOORE: Based on the present boundary lines and the way they are constructed, as Ray pointed out, to do anything different from what we're proposing would bring about considerable gerrymandering of those boundaries again in order to, I guess, get what we have in presently in places for the racial percentages in terms of the balance within each respective district. Right now, we're looking at 63% in 3 and 4 and that's based upon just putting the areas that some are continuous with each particular ward right now, a little bit different from what we presently have in place where we had to really do some creative dividing in order to create them, those single ward districts with majority population. So, based on where we've been--where we initially started out looking at changing several precincts and trying to create equity or some type equalization within the city, I think we've come like full circle around. And, it looks like this is the best possible plan, and I guess I 'm somewhat anxious to see what the Justice Department would think of the activity we take somewhat pro-active -9- rather than it coming back to us in the form of you must do this. I think it makes a better statement that we've taking somewhat of an aggressive action to bring about equality as opposed to it being pointed out to us that we need to do it. MAYOR LORD: I think I 'd like to make a statement, too, if I might at this point. I know when we stared out on this, obviously, the beginning idea was to assure that minority representation, and I think probably at our very first meeting or workshop on it, I made the statement that I wanted to see strong leadership from our own present members from those minority representation wards, and we were getting that leadership and participation. And, although, now it seems to be somewhat divided, I won't say divided because I don't think we really are. As Audwin pointed out, he'd be willing to go along with it. But, I think the work has been done, and I like the words that have been used here--pro- active. I like the words good faith, and we are working in the direction to assure that representation. So, I think that I personally will be going along with the ordinance in front of us as it's been presented today. Is there any other discussion or statement? COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Yes, I have another question? Counsellor, in the event, okay, when would this take effect, the ward changes? Would it be upon acceptance by the Justice Department, or, or how would that, how would that work? MR. NICHOLS• It would take effect today, if it were passed, but we wouldn't be able to use it in an election until we have preclearance review. And, that's about a 90-day period of time. You know, I think, we're, we're talking about, as far as we're concerned, a valid, a valid action by the Council would be taken whenever they vote on this. From our point of view, I think though, the truth is that we will not be able to use those new, new wards until we receive that approval from the Justice Department. I suspect, I hadn't thought about this, if we don't receive that sort of approval, then we would have to pass another ordinance establishing the old ward boundaries. MAYOR LORD: In time for the election? MR. NICHOLS• In time for the election. COUNCILMAN GOODSON• . . .time for the people to file the candidate application. -10- MR. NICHOLS• In February, by February. So, because we are going to actually amend the ward boundaries, sometime, if we do that. If it's passed, that's, that's when it's effective. COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: Okay, so MR. NICHOLS• You have to take a, you have to take action, you can't submit five plans to Justice Department. They only COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: I understand that. That brings about another question. Those individuals in Ward 1 in 64 (Precinct) will not really know by time, by filing time as to whether or what seat to file for? MR. NICHOLS• Well, maybe not the beginning day of filing, but COUNCILMAN GOODSON• Yeah, but what are 45 days COUNCILMAN SMITH• Ninety days would be the 16th of February. COUNCILMAN GOODSON• Sixty, sixty, sixty days, it runs from the end of February until COUNCILMAN MOORE• We can't, we can't file for office until what, February anyway? MR. NICHOLS• February MRS. CHIAPPETTA: Middle of February. COUNCILMAN GOODSON• 'Til the middle of April -11- MRS. CHIAPPETTA: Forty-five days. COUNCILMAN SMITH: So, we MR. NICHOLS• Where are we now in November? COUNCILMAN SMITH• How long does it have to be approved before MR. NICHOLS• We ought . to be able to receive a response back before the end of filing, certainly. The only unknown factor is, once you submit it, they have sixty days, but if they write and request additional information, Justice Department writes and requests additional information, then they can toll that sixty day period until you provide it to them. MAYOR LORD: of course, there's a great span of the calendar in which we will fall into this dilemma each year, anyhow. MR. NICHOLS• . . .We submit, almost every year we submit changes to Justice Department without you even knowing about it. We change voting places. The precinct lines have been changed by the County, and it a regular, they have a big file on us up there, and they're used to dealing with us, and they know people in the community to call and contact about the attitudes of good-faith and pro-active and those sorts of things. MAYOR LORD: Are there any other questions? If not the Chair will entertain a motion. COUNCILMAN GOODSON• Move for approval of ordinance. -12- MAYOR LORD: It's been moved COUNCILMAN MOORE• Second. MAYOR LORD: And seconded. All those in favor, please say aye: Ayes: Mayor Lord Mayor Pro Tem Cokinos Councilman Alter Councilman Smith Councilman Goodson Councilman Moore MAYOR LORD: Naye. - COUNCILMAN SAMUEL: I abstain. MAYOR LORD: One abstention, the rest ayes. Motion is passed. Mr. Manager, Item No. 2, please. END OF EXCERPT NO. 2 -13-