Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Galt holds third public hearing on redistricting; council asks for more draft maps and public input
Summary
At the third public hearing on shifting to council districts, the city’s demographer presented six draft maps (three with five districts, three with four). Council asked for revisions that reflect projected growth and for more public-submitted maps before the next hearing on Feb. 18.
The Galt City Council continued its process to consider transitioning from at-large council elections to districts on Tuesday, receiving a presentation of draft maps and holding a third public hearing on the subject.
Frank Splendario and a demographer from Redistricting Partners presented six preliminary maps — three configured for five districts and three for four — and explained the criteria used under the Fair Maps Act and the Federal Voting Rights Act. The presentation stressed the ranked legal requirements: equal population, contiguity, communities of interest, easy-to-follow lines, and compactness. The demographer also said the city must use 2020 Census data to calculate district population equality and that total deviation must remain under 10 percent.
Council members and members of the public focused discussion on whether to adopt four or five districts, how to treat Highway 99 as a natural boundary and whether districts should cross the freeway for travel contiguity, and how to account for imminent subdivision growth — notably Liberty Ranch and Summerhorn Ranch — that planners estimate will add several hundred homes in coming years. Former councilmember Tom Malson and other residents submitted draft maps and supported five districts; staff noted some public-submitted maps exceeded the 10 percent deviation limit and would require adjustment.
The demographer explained that every draft map shown included at least one district where the citizen voting-age population (CVAP) of Latino residents would be a majority, a factor intended to address the California Voting Rights Act and the federal Voting Rights Act concerns about vote dilution. Councilmembers asked how to preserve communities of interest such as school attendance areas and requested maps that better reflect projected growth in the Liberty Ranch area.
Councilmembers differed on the preferred structure: some favored keeping an at-large mayor combined with districts (a 4 + mayor model) to retain citywide representation, while others expressed support for five districts. No final decision was taken; the city invited additional map submissions from the public by Feb. 11 and will hold a fourth public hearing Feb. 18 to review revised drafts and public-proposed maps. The demographer offered to deliver updated maps, including changes to make any favored draft travel-contiguous and within the 10 percent deviation requirement.
The council emphasized transparency and public input; staff and the demographer said the maps will be posted online with links enabling residents to zoom to street-level detail and check potential district assignments for specific addresses.
Council asked staff to return revised draft maps and additional analysis at the Feb. 18 hearing, with a later schedule to narrow options and aim for a final vote after the city has completed public outreach and iterative map revisions.
