Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews proposed 2024 redistricting map as district 3 grows faster
Summary
Community Development Director Donna Ferguson presented a proposed redistricting map to rebalance three voting districts after District 3 gained roughly 2,416 residents since March 2023; the plan would shift Districts 1 and 2 east toward I‑25 and was placed on the agenda for first reading.
Get email alerts on the Redistricting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community Development Director Donna Ferguson presented a proposed redistricting map at the Castle Pines City Council study session, saying population shifts since March 2023 require boundary changes to preserve equal representation. "When created, each district had roughly the same population," Ferguson said, then noted updated counts showing District 1 fell, District 2 fell slightly and District 3 increased dramatically.
Ferguson gave the March 2023 baseline figures — District 1: 4,807; District 2: 4,781; District 3: 4,906 — and said a mid‑August 2024 recalculation found District 1 down about 137 residents, District 2 down about 81, and District 3 up about 2,416. She said staff ran scenarios guided by six factors, including minimizing dilution of minority or community‑of‑interest votes, keeping neighborhoods intact and maintaining contiguity.
The staff‑preferred map moves portions of Districts 1 and 2 easterly toward Interstate 25 and shifts some parcels so the largest population differential among districts falls to about 9.1%, under the 10% target discussed by the council. Council members asked whether that margin could require another redraw by March 2025 if growth continues; Ferguson said District 3 has the most room to grow and could again change the balance.
Council discussion touched on whether I‑25 could be avoided as a dividing line. Ferguson said pulling units across I‑25 in the proposed scenarios would push the population differential above the 10% threshold. The matter was scheduled as a first‑reading public hearing item on the council agenda, with second reading anticipated on October 8.
The council did not finalize any boundary changes at the study session; staff presented the map for consideration and said it would accept feedback before the formal hearings.
