Miami County begins review of commission districts after population shifts
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
County commissioners said a multiyear review of commission district population counts shows potential variance beyond allowable limits; staff will seek more granular state population data to determine whether lines must be redrawn.
Miami County commissioners said Sept. 17 they are reviewing whether county commission district lines remain within legally allowed population variances after local growth in some townships.
The review matters because commission districts must remain roughly equal in population; commissioners said preliminary checks suggest at least one district may now exceed acceptable variance and staff will pursue more detailed population data from state sources to confirm.
Commissioners said the county routinely checks district population every three years and last enacted new commission boundaries after the 2010 census (implemented in 2012). Commissioners noted certified population figures lag by a year — for example, the figures certified July 1, 2025, reflect 2024 data — and that the county’s current summary does not include precinct- or block-level breakdowns needed to test proposed line changes.
County leaders described township-level pressure points in growth, naming Mountain Township and a township the transcript records as Osuwami Township, and noted U.S. 69 runs through some split townships, complicating how a new line would divide neighborhoods and precincts. Commissioners said the Secretary of State’s office told county staff it does not provide the finer-grain population breakdowns the county requested; commissioners asked staff to pursue alternate contacts who can provide certified population counts by smaller geography so the county can produce accurate redraw options.
Commissioners repeatedly emphasized the statutory tolerance they use when sizing districts, saying the working tolerance has been about a 5% target between the smallest and largest districts and that some districts were intentionally created smaller in prior plans to account for future growth. Commissioners recalled the last comprehensive redistricting work occurred following the 2010 census and flagged that current growth — particularly north of County Road 68 and in and around Spring Hill — makes rebalancing more likely.
Next steps, as the commission described them, include staff continuing the numeric review, contacting state offices and other data sources for precinct-level counts, and returning with an options memo to the commission. Commissioners did not take a formal vote in the study session; they described this as a fact-finding review to determine whether redraws will be required.