Agenda - Council - 03/22/2022 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Councilmember Musgrove referenced the greater portion of Ward Four into Ward Three and asked why that was done if it is anticipated that Ward Three is going to increase in potential housing over the next ten years. She also asked why it wasn't left where it was so those residents in Ward Three, Precinct Two, and Ward Four, Precinct One don't have any changes. She proposed that be kept the same, noting there would still be an awkward boundary line area but there would be consistency for those residents with existing boundary lines. She felt there would be growth in Ward Three and Ward Two to the north so the proposals are calculating for some growth in Ward Two but not in Ward Three. She noted that Ward Two is six points lower than the average and they will see an increase in growth over the next ten years but Ward Three will see growth but it is a plus one. She didn't want to take away from Ward Four any more than what is already being done and why it would need to be changed. Civil Engineer IV Linton replied that before the adjustments, Ward Four was greater than 5%, closer to 10%, above the average. By doing the adjustments and moving some of it to Ward Three brought it below that. He stated continuous streets were used as much as possible in making the adjustments. He stated it is known that Ward Three is growing and will continue but it isn't known how much. He emphasized that the City Attorney recommended to be reasonable in the estimates. Councilmember Woestehoff asked what the population break would be. Civil Engineer IV Linton replied he didn't know off the top of his head. There was brief discussion among the Council with Civil Engineer IV Linton as they looked at the map together. Councilmember Woestehoff stated the population counts are listed in each of the districts on the previous case. He agreed with avoiding as much change as possible but expressed concern that in keeping that particular piece in Ward Four it looks roughly like an additional 400 or so. Councilmember Specht replied that it looked to him like he would be losing. Councilmember Heineman agreed, Councilmember Specht would be losing and Councilmember Musgrove would be gaining. Councilmember Heineman commented that in looking at the map, when it comes to Ward One, they have north of Alpine and that triangle north of Alpine between Sunfish and County Road 5, that is a chunk that Ward One could give up to lower the number that could go to Ward Four. Mayor Kuzma replied that is a lot of people. Councilmember Heineman replied or Ward One could lose some to Ward Two because in looking at south of Nowthen Blvd, west of Sunfish Blvd that is a new addition to Ward One that used to be a different ward. Councilmember Specht asked if it would make sense to give a little bit of Ward Three to Ward Two, given the addition of the Riverstone South development, even the stuff that borders it. City Council Special Work Session/March 1, 2022 Page 4 of 15