Lacey Equity Commission reviews draft equity map; staff asks commissioners for feedback

City of Lacey staff presented a draft equity map to the Lacey Equity Commission at its March meeting and asked commissioners for feedback on data, accessibility and usability before the tool is published.

The map, built with outside consultants and City of Lacey staff support, displays block‑group level indices — an overall equity index and subindices for accessibility, livability, education, economy and environment — and compares Lacey to Thurston County. Staff members said some datasets used in the draft are incomplete or surprising and will be revised before final publication.

“The map is a draft,” staff member Veronica said as she shared the screen and explained functionality. She described a left‑hand toolbar where users can toggle between the equity index and separate indexes (accessibility, livability, education, economy, environment), search by address, ZIP code or block group, draw selection areas and download or share the resulting data. Veronica said the map will be embedded on the city web site and include a landing page and a data dictionary explaining sources and weights.

The commissioners focused on three primary concerns: locating features on the map, accessibility for users with vision or color‑vision differences, and apparent dataset anomalies. Commissioner Clay and others said the overview map would be more usable if major streets (for example, Martin Way, College Way and I‑5) or a few main thoroughfares were visible at the macro zoom level. Veronica replied users can zoom in to see individual roads and can switch to satellite view; she acknowledged the macro view can appear cluttered if too many lines are visible.

Commissioner Hegwood asked about alternative text and color schemes for people with visual impairments. Veronica said the map has some read‑aloud functionality, that users can hover over block groups to see details, and that the city and consultants are reviewing color schemes to improve color‑vision accessibility.

Commissioners and staff also identified specific data points that appear inconsistent. Veronica said the consultants reported a transit accessibility figure that the group flagged as implausibly high (for example, a figure described in the meeting as “350%”), and staff have asked the contractors to verify the underlying dataset and calculations. Veronica emphasized the draft nature of the map and told commissioners that the consultants had not been able to find some datasets the group requested — for example, adult literacy rates — so other education measures were used instead.

Staff described the provenance and documentation available in the map’s user guide: a data dictionary that lists each indicator, whether the indicator is used in an index or neutral, and links to original sources. Veronica said the method references an institute used by the consultants (reported in the user guide as the Curon Institute of Race and Social Justice) and that the map’s weights and indicator choices will be documented and linked on the site.

Commissioners asked how often the map will be updated; staff said the plan is to refresh the map every two years. Veronica gave an estimated project cost in the meeting of about $40,000 for the work overall and said additional internal city reviewers and advisory boards (including the Human Services Commission and youth councils) will be invited to test the tool before broader public release. Staff expect to finalize the map and public launch in quarter 3 pending consultant updates and additional testing.

Commissioners suggested several next steps for staff and the consultants: add a modest set of labeled thoroughfares at the macro level, test and add alternative text and screen‑reader compatibility, adopt an accessible color palette, clarify the definition and calculation of the transit accessibility and heavy‑traffic indicators, document where census or other self‑reported data are used, and include clear guidance on the landing page about intended use and data limitations.

Veronica said staff will collect written feedback from the commission and other advisory bodies over the next two weeks, work with the consultants to correct flagged datasets and user‑experience issues, and return with updates to commissioners and to the Human Services Commission for further review.

The Equity Commission did not take a formal vote on the map; the presentation concluded with staff requesting written comments and promising further outreach to community stakeholders and advisory groups.