►
From YouTube: November 29, 2021 Redistricting Group
Description
Additional information at
https://lims.minneapolismn.gov
B
B
Welcome
to
this
live
broadcast
of
our
virtual
meeting.
This
meeting
includes
the
remote
participation
of
members
as
authorized
under
minnesota
statutes,
section
13d
.021,
due
to
the
declared
local
health
pandemic.
The
city
will
be
recording
and
posting
this
meeting
to
the
city's
website
and
youtube
channel
as
a
means
of
increasing
public
access
and
transparency.
B
D
A
F
B
H
C
D
A
C
C
B
B
C
D
D
A
B
The
next
item
is
the
chairs
report,
and
the
only
thing
I
have
to
report
is
that
I
received
an
email
communication
from
the
minneapolis
school
district,
their
administrator
of
board
and
government
relations
related
to
redistricting,
just
pointing
us
to
the
website
that
they
have
established,
which
largely
points
to
the
city's
website.
As
you
know,
the
minneapolis
public
schools
are
and
school
board
are
free
to
adopt
their
own
redistricting
boundaries,
but
have
traditionally
adopted
the
same
boundaries
as
the
park
districts,
since
they
also
have
six
districts.
B
So
I've
had
the
clerk
forward
that
email
to
all
of
you
just
for
your
information,
and
it
has
the
link
to
the
school
board
website
on
redistricting.
That's
all
I
have
in
my
report.
So
next
we'll
begin
considering
on
the
agenda
establishing
priorities
for
redistricting.
As
you
know,
our
second
public
hearing
is
coming
up.
I
believe
on
the
15th,
and
I
want
to
use
the
same
map
for
that
public
hearing
as
we
did
on
the
first
public
hearing.
So
this
session
tonight
is
not
a
map
drawing
session.
B
B
For
example,
one
of
my
priorities
might
be
keeping
ward
5
as
a
single
minority
majority
ward.
We
heard
several
comments
last
time
from
people
who
live
near
the
marcy
holmes.
Neighborhood,
who
thought
mercy
home
should
either
be
together
in
ward
3
or
together
in
ward,
2
or
split
at
the
freeway,
not
split
as
we
did,
which
was
sort
of
inelegant,
and
we
heard
from
the
park
board
suggesting
that
the
park
districts,
5
and
6
should
gain
population.
B
So
I
think
we
can
consider
things
like
that.
Raising
from
the
big
picture
things
to
keeping
award
a
single
minority
majority
ward
to
the
small
picture,
things
like
how
a
neighborhood
is
divided,
I
think
if
we
can
come
up
with
a
fair
number
of
priorities
that
will
make
trying
our
final
map
much
simpler,
I'm
going
to
perhaps
walk
through
those
that
I
just
suggested
to
get
us
started
on
the
discussion,
largely
because
I
think
they
will
be
fairly
easy.
B
But
if
somebody
calls
out
an
issue
for
discussion
or
for
as
a
potential
priority,
don't
be
shy.
If
you
don't
agree
with
it
call
for
discussion
either
shout
it
out
or
put
it
in
the
chat,
then
we
will
discuss
it.
If
there
is
clear
consensus,
one
way
or
the
other
and
consensus
by
the
way
doesn't
necessarily
mean
unanimity
it.
It
means
a
clear
consensus
if
there's
clear
consensus
one
way
or
the
other
it
either
will
or
won't
be
established
as
a
priority.
B
And
if
it's
unclear
we'll
vote
on
it,
and
although
I
will
call
out
if
I
sense
what
a
priority
is
any
one
of
you
is
free
to
ask
for
a
roll
call
vote.
If
you
are
in
doubt
as
to
the
will
of
the
pie,
so
if
somebody
raises
a
priority,
just
call
for
discussion,
if
you
would
like
it
discussed,
doesn't
necessarily
mean
you
don't
agree
with.
It
might
mean
you
want
to
find
out
more
about
it.
B
We
may
end
up
with
priorities
that
conflict
and
that's.
Okay,
that's
okay!
For
tonight,
when
we
get
to
map
drawing,
we
may
have
to
make
compromises.
If
we
adhere
to
priority
a,
it
may
be
impossible
to
achieve
priority
b,
but
tonight
is
just
priorities.
What
we
want
in
a
perfect
world,
so
I'm
going
to
start
with
the
ones
that
I've
already
thrown
out
as
examples
and
see.
If
there's
any
discussion
around
those,
so
we
can
see
how
this
works.
B
B
I
picked
an
easy
one
to
start
with,
so
we'll
put
that
on
the
priority
list.
Next,
let's
talk
about
the
marcy
holmes
neighborhood.
As
you
know,
in
our
draft
map,
and
I'm
going
to
ask
as
we
talk
about
wards
I'll,
ask
the
clerk
to
put
up
our
tentative
draft
ward
map.
If
we
shift
the
discussion
to
park
districts
I'll
ask
her
to
put
up
the
park
district
map,
but
why
don't
we
start
with
the
ward
map?
B
As
you
know,
we
split
the
marcy
holmes
neighborhood
between
wards,
2
and
ward
3..
We
started
out
making
the
dividing
line
at
the
freeway,
but
we
needed
more
people
in
ward
3,
so
we
came
across
the
freeway
and
into
ward
2
and
basically
cut
a
neighborhood
in
half.
B
G
This
is
commissioner
sandberg.
Just
a
quick
question:
have
we
thank
you?
Have
we
heard?
Oh
I'm
supposed
to
turn
on
the
camera?
Okay,
sorry.
I
have
we
heard
from
the
neighborhood
organization
or
similar
in
that
area
about
their
thoughts.
I
couldn't
I
just
don't
remember
if
some
of
the
speakers
last
time
actually
were
with
that
organization.
B
I
don't
know
if
the
speakers
were
with
the
neighborhood
organization.
We
heard
a
couple
of
speakers
from
the
neighborhood
and
there
were
also
a
number
of
comments
on
the
in
the
with
the
bulldogs.
B
But
I'm
gonna
say:
there's
consensus
on
that.
How
about
somebody
else
who's
got
a
proposal
for
priority
chair
cling.
This
is
muggin.
Go
ahead
group
member
muggin.
E
My
only
concern
is
people
are
blindly
saying
yes
to
all
the
things
you're
saying
and
then
later
on,
it
might
conflict
with
other
priorities
right.
So
I
don't
know
how
we're
going
to
balance
that
if
people
are
just
saying
yes,
because
they
may
not
be
interested
in
that
area
of
town
or
that
ward
and
then
later
on.
As
we're
making
the
map,
then
we're
locked
into
what
you
just
said.
So
I'm
just
kind
of
concerned
down
the
road
that
it
might
not
give
us
any
leeway.
B
That's
that's
a
fair
comment.
I
I
think
that's
why
I
encourage
people
to
speak
up.
If
you
are
in
doubt
about
what
a
proposal
means
feel
free
to
say,
let's
discuss
what's
this
about,
and
it's
also
why
I
pointed
out,
we
might
have
conflicting
priorities
down
the
road
and
if
we
do,
we
will
have
to
resolve
them
at
the
time.
A
Mr
chair,
this
is
group
member
perry
go
ahead.
Group
member
perry.
Thank
you.
When
we
talk
about
priorities,
I
I
want
to
piggy
tail
on
to
what
group
member
mogan
was
saying
it.
It's
easy
to
get
into
looking
stuff
in
isolation
and
agreeing
and
not
recognizing
the
conflicts,
and
I
realized
that
you
said
that
conflicts
could
be
dealt
with
by
compromise.
A
Can
we
look
at
these
more
I
I
would
make
a
suggestion
instead
of
priorities,
look
at
them
as
guidelines
so
that
we
can
have
some
ability
to
veer
from
them
in
our
actual
map,
making.
E
All
right-
and
I
concur
what
the
member
just
said-
yeah
just
guidelines,
so
that
we're
not
stuck
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place
down
the
road.
B
Any
other
suggested
guidelines
group
member
kozak.
I
thought
I
saw
your
hand.
H
Well,
I
I
meant
to
address
the
the
previous
issue,
which
was
the
marcy
holmes,
and
it
seems
to
me
that,
and
I
agree
with
you-
we
should
keep
it
all
together
or
split
it
at
the
freeway,
which
is
a
a
very
natural
border
between
the
two
sections
of
marcy
holmes.
H
I've
lived
around
here
for
over
50
years,
and
I
I
didn't
realize
that
marcie
holmes,
the
dinky
town
was
actually
part
of
marcy
holmes
because
it's
always
been
dinky
town
and
the
free,
10th
avenue
or
the
freeway
is
the
natural
boundary,
and
it
seems
to
be
that
that
would
be
the
good
place
to
start
looking
because
if
you
try
to
put
all
of
marcy
holmes
in
one
word
or
the
other
you're
going
to
do
damage
to
what
one
of
our
other
priorities
is,
which
is
we
and
that's
to
do
as
little
make
as
few
changes
as
possible.
H
I
Is
it
that
you're
saying
that,
if
possible,
we
will,
we
would
keep
marcy
holmes
all
in
one
ward
or
if
we
can't
we'll
split
it
at
35,
w
is
the
natural
barrier
and
in
which
case,
it
seems
to
me
that
both
of
those
suggestions
were
made
by
people
who
lived
in
marcy
homes,
and
so
I
think
it's
useful
to
make
it
clear
that
we
want
to
accommodate
as
much
as
peop
as
much
as
possible
the
people
living
in
that
district,
but
that
we
may
not
be
able
to
keep
it
all
in
one
board.
B
Thank
you
remember.
Mechy
has
a
comment.
F
Okay
thanks:
I
just
wanted
to
concur
with
your
ideas
about
marcy
holmes
and
I
think,
before
the
next
meeting,
it
would
be
good
for
us
to
reach
out
to
their
neighborhood
association,
like
commissioner
sandberg
brought
up
just
to
reiterate
that
it
had
been
appointed
discussion
today,.
B
Thank
you
and
group
member
sandberg
had
a
comment.
G
Actually,
I
think
it
agrees
with
your
idea
for
word
five,
but
it's
broader,
because
I
guess
my
priority
is
to
avoid
diluting
minorities
in
existing
wards
where
they
have
a
significant
presence.
Now.
Obviously,
there's
wards
where
minorities
have
a
very
tiny
presence,
and
I
the
numbers
just
don't
work
but
in
words
where
they
have
a
significant
presence.
I
think
we
really
do
want
to
avoid
that
delusion.
We
worked
so
hard
10
years
ago
to
develop
some
minority
boards.
I,
but
I
think
that
yours
is
related
to
that.
B
I
think
it
would
be
a
separate
thing.
I
think
the
words
that
you're
talking
about
are
words
where
we
have
multiple
minority
majority
wards
which
are
awards.
Four,
six
and
nine.
G
G
B
Well
again,
it's
a
guideline
and
we're
saying
as
much
as
possible.
So
if
we
propose
a
change
to
those
those
ward
boundaries,
that
would
be
an
issue
we
would
want
to
look
at.
H
Just
to
affirm
reaffirm
what
commissioner
sandberg
said.
We
did
work
very
hard
last
time
on
four
five,
six
and
nine
to
to
maximize
the
minority
strength
in
those
wards,
and
I
think
the
results
of
the
two
of
the
elections
we've
had
subsequently
have
have
proved
that
we
were.
We
did
a
good
job
and
I
think
if
we
were
to
change
that,
I
think
it
would.
H
Whoever
suggests
we
change
that
the
burden
should
be
on
them
to
say
why
we
have
to
do
that
because
some
of
them
are
on
the
margin
of
they're
in
good
shape,
but
it
doesn't
take
much
to
knock
a
few
points
off
and
change
the
outcome
of
of
future
future
elections.
E
Yes,
one
of
the
guidelines
I
would
like
is
to
move
downtown
east
back
to
ward
three
because,
as
many
people
have
already
mentioned,
that
is
a
high
turnout
award
and
it
would
change
drastically
the
composition
of
the
ward
6
on
who
they
can
vote
for
and
then
my
other
thing
is
to
make
up
for
that
to
take
the
rest
of
elliot
park,
and
this
is
something
I
have
come
up
with
after
talking
to
many
people
in
the
east
african
community.
E
B
So
I'm
gonna
say:
there's
consensus
around
the
four
six
and
nine
keeping
them
multiple
minority
majority
wards.
Now
we'll
go
on
to
group
member
muggins
proposed
guideline,
which
is
to
move
three
nine
out
of
ward
six
and
make
up
for
that
by
putting
the
rest
of
elliott
park
back
into
ward
six.
A
Chair
this
is
group
member
perry
go
ahead.
I
actually
have
a
question
for
mr
mogan
that
can
I
address
him
directly.
B
E
Yes,
the
one
that
had
unanimous
support.
B
K
I
just
have
a
procedural
question
on
this.
Just
thinking
about
at
the
beginning,
you
said
we
weren't
going
to
necessarily
be
drawing
maps,
or
this
isn't
a
map
making
session,
I
think,
is
what
you
said,
and
I'm
just
curious
about
in
this
discussion
having
detailed
priorities
around
specific
neighborhoods
or
specific
wards.
That's
that's
on
the
table,
even
though
this
isn't
a
map
drawing
session,
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
the
process
in
my
own
head.
B
B
I'm
going
to
err
on
the
side
of
considering
things
if
people
bring
them
up,
and
you
know
when
we
get
to
it
later.
If
we
find
it's
impossible
to
do
that,
because
we
can't
make
the
numbers
work,
then
so
be
it,
but.
K
B
Will
the
clerk
please
zoom
in
on
this
map?
I
believe
you
can
do
that
right
around
the
dividing
line
between
wards.
H
B
D
A
question
this
is
a
group
member
kim.
Remember
kim,
are
you
referring
to
when
you
say
the
university?
Are
you
referring
to
the
like
university
as
defined
by
like
the
formal
neighborhood
boundaries,
or
are
you
taking
maybe
a
bit
more
of
a
slightly
more
broad,
take
I'm.
I
B
H
I
I
think
there
is,
I
think,
what
we
did
last
time
was
we
kept
augsburg
itself
in
the
second
ward,
but-
and
I
don't
know
if
I'd
have
to
take
a
look.
We'd
have
to
take
a
look
at
the
block
data,
but
I
I
think
most
of
the
somali
population.
We
made
sure
stayed
in
the
sixth
ward
and
if
you,
if
you
extend
the
sixth
ward
farther
into
the
west
bank,
you're
going
to
start
picking
up
more
more
white
folks.
H
L
Thank
you
chuck
like
this
is
a
little
bit
broader,
so
perhaps
at
the
clerk
put
up
the
the
data
layer
with
the
existing
word
boundaries.
Some
of
the
comments
have
related
to
this
that
we've
gotten
in
in
the
public
portal
about
you
know
the
competing
interests
of
having
minimal
change,
but
then
also
communities
of
interest.
It's
like
we've
discussed
here,
too,
and-
and
one
thing
I
noticed
is
that
we
made
fairly
significant
changes
on
the
ward
one
boundaries
with
three.
L
We
then
also
made
ward
one
boundaries
with
ward
two,
and
I
just
had
a
question
about
you
know:
did
we
actually
need
to
do
this
because
we
ended
up
putting
more
of
ward
three
into
ward
one
than
we
actually
needed
to
do
based
upon
the
population
and
then
took
away
part
of
ward
one
on
the
other
side
to
give
to
two,
because
we've
made
other
shifts,
including
marcy
holmes,
and
I
just
wanted
to
bring
this
up
as
a
you
know-
is
minimum
change
only
something
we
want
to
overrule
when
there's
a
community
of
interest
question,
because
in
that
case,
then
we
have
a
few
spots
where
we
actually
have
made
changes
beyond
minimum
change
and
haven't
necessarily
justified
them
based
upon
communities
of
interest.
H
Yeah
so
sorry
again,
mr
chair,
that's
a
that's
a
point
well
taken
and
I
can't
speak
for
the
rest
of
the
first
word,
but
I
do
know
that
the
the
piece
that
that
went
into
the
second
word
over
by
cuomo,
that
was
that
was
done
to
to
acknowledge
a
community
of
interest
because
it
put
the
como
neighborhood
back
together
for
the
first
time
in
a
long
time,
but
by
making
the
second
word
boundary
is
now
larpenter
rather
than
cuomo,
because
so
I
think
that's.
H
I
think
that
that
was
done
to
to
put
the
cuomo
neighborhood
back
together.
It
had
been
split
for
a
long
time,
and
this
doesn't
this:
does
it.
K
Just
going
off
of
that
and
thinking
about
some
of
the
other
I've
got
the
map
up
on
my
other
screen
too,
and
I've
been
playing
with
some
of
the
numbers
here.
But
what
is
the
primacy
of
minimize
change
in
comparison
with
some
of
these
other
elements?
I
I
know
I
have
that
question.
B
I'll
I'll
give
you
my
two
cents
and
then
I'll
ask
our
attorney
to
address
the
issue,
but
the
the
charter
itself
mentions.
You
know
contiguous
compact
minimum
change,
their
case
law
guidelines
like
communities
of
interest.
These
things
aren't
ranked.
B
There
is
nothing
that
says
one
is
more
important
than
the
other,
so
it's
really
up
to
us
to
decide
what
might
be
most
important
in
each
case
and
what
might
be
important
in
one
case
might
be
uniting
a
neighborhood
and
what
might
be
important
in
another
case
might
be
something
completely
different
might
be
we're
just
making
a
more
compact,
contiguous
ward,
and
that's
that's
up
to
us.
That's
our
job
is
to
balance
those
competing
priorities
without
them
being
ranked
ms
bushoon,
do
you
care
to
correct
me
or
have
anything
to
add.
M
Yeah,
I
just
I
mean
I
just
was
looking
at
the
different
requirements
and
the
the
different
criteria.
I
mean
there
are
certain
things
that
we
have
to
do
like.
We
have
to
follow
the
voting
rights
act
and
the
charter
requirements,
and
then
there
are
some
a
couple
charter
requirements
that
are
only
necessary
when
possible,
but
the
recommended
principles
include
communities
of
interest
and
the
boundary
changes
that
we
should
change
the
boundaries
as
little
as
possible.
M
Whatever
the
interest
is,
that's
typically
a
traditional
principle,
so
the
changing
the
boundaries
as
little
as
possible.
That
was
a
principle
that
was
set
up
by
the
charter
commission,
but
you
know
to
some
extent
I
could
see
that
as
a
lesser
valued
principle
based
on
traditional
redistricting
principles.
However,
however,
you
know
there
is
no,
there
is
no
criteria.
B
And
the
communities
of
interest,
as
you
point
out,
can
be
something
like
neighborhoods.
It
can
be
race-based,
it
can
be
downtown
and
not
downtown,
correct
east
side
of
the
river
or
west
side
of
the
river.
There
are
lots
of
different
ways
to
put
together
a
community
of
interest.
M
L
Sorry
jerk,
like
I,
had
to
jump
in
a
couple
minutes
to
another
meeting
for
20
minutes,
just
checking
the
time
yeah.
I
think.
That's,
that's
probably
fair.
L
I
think
group
member
carrie
really
got
to
what
I've
had
as
a
concern
is
that
we
sometimes
decide
that
minimal
change
is
the
most
important
thing
for
this
particular
boundary
and
other
times
it
might
be
a
community
of
interest,
and
I
think
it's
just
good
for
this
group
like
if
we
have
a
reason
to
change
a
border
that
we
actually
like
laid
out
and
established
that
this
is
the
reason
we
did
it
and
again,
I
believe
for
the
combo
neighborhood.
L
It
has
a
big
impact
and
if
I
can
just
add
on
to
that,
I
don't
want
to
say
it's
just
the
word:
one
boundary
it's
just
maybe
the
one
that's
most
obvious,
but
you
know
we've
made
a
decision
in
this
to
move
the
ward
9
boundary
a
tremendous
amount.
You
know
it's
shifting
a
lot
from
the
last
time
around.
There
are
reasons
for
that
for
population,
but
that's
just
something.
I
wanted
to
point
out
that
we're
really
making
some
ward
shift
quite
a
bit
and
others
will
not.
So
thank
you
for
that.
B
I'm
just
going
to
say
that's
a
summary
of
that
is
to
take
another
look
at
areas
where
we've
made
significant
changes.
I
think
in
some
of
those
cases
it's
like,
like
ward
9,
for
example,
it's
because
of
population
shifts,
and
I
think
ward
9
is
going
to
have
to
change
regardless
and
it's
going
to
be
significant,
but
I
think
it's
fair
to
take
another
look
at
those
areas.
H
I
agree
with
that,
mr
chair.
That
was
going
to
be
one
of
my
suggestions
that
we
took
take
a
look
at
that
over
by
the
river,
the
border
between
9,
12
and
2.,
and
moving
nine
over
that
way
is
that
was
that
was
a
literally
a
stretch,
so
I
think
we,
I
don't
know
exactly
how
to
fix
it,
but
I
think
we
should
put
down
that
on
our
list,
but
to
take
a
further
look
at
that:
okay,.
K
So
I
was
looking
over
the
charter
and
just
thinking
about
you
know,
especially
now
as
we're
talking
about
potentially
ward
9
and
changes
that
could
be
made
in
order
to
if
we,
if
we
prioritize
minimizing
change
over
other
things.
I'm
just
thinking
about
the
length
and
width
element-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
a
guideline.
So
much
as
something
perhaps
aspirational-
that
I'd
like
this
group
to
be
able
to
put
out
there
for
the
public
to
see.
K
But
is
there
a
specific
definition
that,
for
example,
the
gis
people
would
be
using
to
determine
whether
we've
qualified
that?
And
can
we
publish
that
as
something
that
the
public
can
see
is
going
into
our
decision
making.
B
M
Yes,
there
is
a
court
case,
I
think
it's
the
johnson
case,
and
it
specifically
tells
us
how
to
measure
that,
and
we
have
to
measure
it
from
the
most
northern
point
to
the
most
southern
point
and
the
most
west
point
to
the
most
east
point
and
compare
those
now.
I
know
that
we
have
had.
I
t
look
at
one
of
our
wards
to
see
if
it
meets
that
criteria
or
not.
M
I
have
not
looked
at
the
details
of
that,
but
I
I
I
think
they
were
doing
it
by
mileage,
how
many
miles
from
north
to
west
and
north
to
south
and
east
to
west
and
making
that
comparison.
But
I
think
that.
M
That
the
city
clerk's
office
could
get
you
more
information
on
how
it
is
actually
doing
that
doing
that
analysis,
it'd.
K
K
Because
of
that
and
being
able
to
point
to
that
and
say
based
on
this,
this
wouldn't
qualify
and
and
have
a
firm
guideline.
You
know
like
one
of
my
examples
that
I've
seen
is
a
lot
of
eight
drawings
that
look
like
it's
very
boxy,
very,
very
rectangular
and
most
definitely
taller
than
it
is
wide
by
by
a
significant
amount
and
by
by
more
than
the
I
think,
two
to
one
ratio
or
whatever
it
would
be,
it's
very
large.
K
M
Yeah
I
I
would
think
that
maybe
greg
should
work
on
something
like
that
and
work
with
I.t
barry
or
commissioner.
B
Whatever,
yes,
greg
is
on
vacation
until
next
week,
but
I
think
I
know
there
are
issues,
because
if
we
go
to
the
third
party
website,
there
are
limitations
on
what
we
can
change.
But
if
it's
on
the
city's
website,
we
can
change
it
and
it
would
be
useful
if
we
had
that
information
included.
So
I
believe,
there's
a
difference
as
well.
B
The
I
think
that
twice
as
long
as
it
is
wide
is
absolute
for
wards,
but
only
if
possible,
for
park
districts
and
because
there's
only
six
park
districts
so
and
if
you
want
to
maintain
the
river
as
a
boundary,
one
of
them
might
be
pretty
long.
So
something
else
to
consider
when
we
get
to
park
districts.
G
Sure
clay
this
is
commissioner
sandberg
or
group
member
sandberg.
I
just
had
a
comment
that
there's
a
similar
issue
with
respect
to
compactness
and
I
think
that
commission
group,
member
kim,
might
have
some
ideas
on
that.
There's.
I
think,
there's
at
least
three
four.
I
don't
know
how
many
formulas
for
measuring
compactness,
but
it
would
be
nice
if
we
had
that
information
somewhere,
and
I
certainly
do
not
have
that
information.
So
just
a
thought.
B
There
are
a
number
of
tools
that
you
can
use
to
determine
how
compact
it
is,
and
I
re
remember
the
last
time
around
we
did
a
post
map
compactness
comparison
with
a
pre-map
compactness
comparison
and
we
ended
up
being
more
compact
than
we
had
been
before.
B
Again,
that's
it's
not
ranked,
but
it's
on
the
list
so
and
group.
Member
kim.
If
you've
got
some
suggestions
on
on
software
tools,
we
can
use
that.
I'm
sure
our
city,
gis
people
can
can
incorporate
those.
D
Yeah,
I
guess
I
I
did
have
a
one
quick,
clarifying
question.
The
charter
says
that
wards
should
not
be
longer
than
twice
the
width,
but
does
that?
Is
it
acceptable
for
them
to
be
wider
than
twice
the
length.
B
D
It,
I
think
I
don't
know
attorney
as
I've
mentioned
before,
but
I
in
my
reading
of
the
johnson
lee
at
all
view
city
of
minneapolis
lawsuit.
D
I
think
that
was
one
of
the
things
that
the
plaintiff
suggested
that
length
and
width
could
be
interchangeable
and
the
language
and
the
court
ruling
suggested
that
length
is
exclusively
north
to
south
and
width
is
exclusively
east
to
west
and
that
the
charter
only
says
no
longer
than
twice
the
width.
But
again
I'm
not
a
lawyer.
So
that
was
just
a
question
I
had.
M
Yeah,
I
can-
I
can
reread
the
case,
but
I
I
thought
it
was
very
specific
that
it's
only
one
way,
but
I
can
double
check
the
case
law
on
that.
I
know
we
haven't
gotten
close
to
that
yet
so
that
hasn't
been
much
of
a
problem,
yet
that
we're
not
looking
at
that.
M
But
with
this
with
respect
to
the
compactness,
I
know
that
I
t
they
can
run,
they
can
run
the
compactness
analysis
and
there
are
various
ones
that
can
be
done
like
I
don't
know
if
there
are
five,
six
or
seven
of
them
and
they're
able
to
do
that
with
their
current
software,
and
I
thought
they
did
it
for
our
current
maps,
but
I
I
could
be
mistaken.
M
I
thought
they
provided
some
data
on
our
current
maps
that
we
drew,
but
I
could
be
mistaken
on
that,
but
they
do
have
the
ability
to
do
that.
I'm
actually
meeting
with
it
this
week
to
go
over
redistricting
data,
so
I
can
definitely
bring
up
the
any
issues
that
are
brought
up
during
this
meeting
with
them.
B
I
have
a
suggestion
about
park
districts.
If
we're,
we
can
move
away
from
wards
for
a
minute.
B
You'll
recall
that
we
got
a
letter
from
the
park
board,
suggesting
that
well
noting
that
park,
districts,
5
and
6,
which
are
the
southernmost
park.
Districts
in
the
city,
are
the
least
populated
in
this
proposed
map
and
suggesting
that
we
might
want
to
increase
population.
There.
B
So
as
to
make
the
other
park
districts
less
populated-
and
I
would
like
us
to
look
at
that
under
the
charter,
we
are
obligated
to
consider
advice.
We
get
from
the
park
board,
so
it
is
not
obligatory
that
we
make
changes,
but
I
think
we
should
consider
increasing
the
population
in
park,
districts,
five
and
six.
That
would
obviously
move
every
everything
a
little
bit
north.
If
we
did
that,
but
I
think
we
should
consider
it
group
member
kerry.
K
Okay,
sorry,
I
was
muted,
so
I
I
agree
with
that
concept
entirely.
I
think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
One
of
my
concerns
about
that
is,
I'm
looking
at
the
northside
park
district
and
just
thinking
about
how
right
now,
it's
overpopulated
and
I'm
wondering
how
we
could
go
about
changing
that
and
this
might
get
in
too
into
map
making
here.
K
But
I
wonder
how
we
could
go
about
changing
that
without
taking
away
from
harrison,
which
has
expressed
a
whole
lot
of
interest
in
keeping
themselves
together,
at
least
from
the
ward
perspective,
I
would
imagine
there
might
be
a
similar
concern
about
the
park
board
the
park
district
situation,
so
I
just
I
wanted
to
throw
that
out
there
as
a
concern
I
have
about
making
changes.
I
agree
with
the
idea.
I
just
I'm
not
sure
how
we
do
it.
K
B
B
Might
be
to
move
some
of
the
north
loop
out
of
park
district
two,
because
that
would
also
increase
the
the
minority
population
of
park
district
2,
because
the
north
loop
skews
non-minority,
remember
kim.
Did
you
have
a
comment.
D
Yeah,
I
was
just
I
was
going
to
more
or
less
say
the
same
thing.
I
think
the
north
loop
is
probably
the
most
obvious
candidate
with
respect
to
that
and
yeah
I
was
just
gonna
say
I
think,
did
we
want
to
respond
specifically
to
the
park
board's
concern
about
districts,
five
and
six,
or
did
we
want
to
make
it
a
more
broad
priority
to
keep
the
all
populations
as
equal
as
possible,
because
I
know
that
was
something
else
that
they
they
mentioned.
D
Did
we
want
to
make
that
the
the
that's.
B
K
Yes,
I
did
just
about
the
north
loop
situation.
I
had
it
in
my
notes,
and
maybe
this
isn't
as
big
of
a
deal
for
park
board
as
it
is
for
the
wards,
but
I
had
it
in
my
notes
that
we
snuck
by
with
the
width
and
length
discussion
with
district
2
because
of
north
loop
and
that
making
a
change
there
might
make
that
part
harder.
That
was.
That
was
the
reason
in
my
mind.
I
was
imagining.
K
We
have
to
keep
that
if
that
isn't
the
case,
if
we're
able
to
dispense
with
that
particular
guideline
for
park
district
by
all
means
that
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense
to
me,
this.
J
Is
davis
carter?
Thank
you,
carrie,
remember,
carrie!
You
were
answering
all
my
questions.
I
believe
that
we
we
need
to
keep
it
the
same
because
it's
going
to
be
in
is
it's
indented
already
we're
overpopulated,
and
so
why
are
they
picking
five
and
six?
That
doesn't
mean
five?
It's
if
we
do
that,
it's
gonna,
take
it's
gonna,
take
away
from
the
five
and
six
underpopulated
okay.
So
maybe
I'm
misunderstanding:
what
the
park
board
is
asking?
Can
you
repeat
it.
B
The
park
board
is
asking
you
that
we
increase
the
populations
of
five
and
six
to
make
the
the
numbers
closer
together.
So
everyone
is
closer
to
the
mean.
J
So
basically
they're
asking
us
to
do
what
member
kim
it's
make
everyone
equal
across
the
board.
J
Okay,
so
then
I
would
ditto
with
member
kim
and
thank
you,
member
carrie,
for
asking
all
the
great
questions
and
I'm
sorry.
I
do
not
have
a
hand,
so
I
don't
mean
to
keep
on
interrupting,
but
they're
gonna
fix
that.
J
B
D
Yeah,
just
like
I
said,
I
know
that
we
do
have
the
five
percent
margin
of
error
granted
by
the
charter,
but,
as
I
think
the
park
board
resolution
points
out
because
there
are
fewer
park
districts,
the
average
park
district
is
larger.
A
five
percent
deviation
ends
up
meaning
a
larger
number
of
people,
so
I
guess
it
would.
I
think
it's
understandable
to
that
a
five
percent
margin
of
error
might
seem
too
big
for
the
park
districts.
D
So
so,
yes,
I
would,
I
guess,
propose
if
we
wanted
to
discuss
trying
to
make
them
more
equal
than
just
five
percent.
B
I
have
I
have
some
discussion
on
that
one.
I
I
think
the
five
percent
is
useful
for
putting
communities
of
interest
together.
I
I
agree
that
it's
it's
unfortunate.
Its
use
was
unfortunate
in
this
park
board
current
map
because
it
resulted
in
the
the
two
south
side
wards
being
the
least
populous,
and
I
think
we
can
fix
that.
But
five
percent
is
what
gives
us
the
latin
I
mean
if
we
wanted
to.
B
We
could
draw
these
maps
to
0.5
percent
down
to
the
nearest
census
block,
but
then
we'd
split
a
bunch
of
neighborhoods
we'd
split,
a
bunch
of
communities
of
interest
that
that
five
percent
enables
us
not
to
do
that.
The
last
time
around
we
made
the
east
side
of
the
river
park.
B
District
number
one
was
the
entire
east
side
of
the
river,
and
that
was
too
big
at
the
time
it
was
bigger
than
the
mean
by
4.9,
but
it
meant
we
could
keep
the
east
side
of
the
river,
which
is
a
logical
community
of
interest,
especially
as
regards
parks
together,
and
we
can't
do
that
now.
Unfortunately,
but
but
that's
that's
an
example
of
how
we've
used
that
deviation
and
I
don't
want
us
to
lose
that
flexibility,
but
anybody
else
on
that
subject.
A
The
reason
why
I
suggested
we'd
go
in
the
order
that
we
did
is
it
could
have
been
a
little
bit
more
clear
is
that
I
think
we
need
to
as
we
expand
the
populations
of
the
two
districts
that
the
park
board
brought
up,
that
we
recognize
communities
of
interest
and
park
district
locations
as
we
did
when
we
were
constructing
this
map
in
the
first
place.
I
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
Your
comment
that
five
percent
has
been
useful
for
putting
communities
of
interest
and
together
I
certainly
agree
with,
but
I
think,
what's
emerging
from
this
discussion,
the
notion
and
the
important
one
to
me
that
this
five
percent
should
be
used
to
ensure
that
people
who
have
been
been
or
felt
underrepresented
in
the
past
should
be
given
within
the
rules
and
within
the
guidelines
some
more
advantage
than
they
have
gotten.
B
But
it
sounds
like
there
is
consensus
that
we
grow
the
populations
of
five
and
six
in
a
way
that
honors
community
interests.
I
B
B
D
Chair
clerk,
I
I
had
one
go
ahead:
crew,
member
kim
yeah-
I
guess
kind
of
going
along
that.
I
know
that
another
part
of
the
park
board
resolution
had
to
do
with
citing
a
1992
law
that
more
or
less
seem
to
be
like
a
stronger
version
of
the
voting
rights
act.
That's
specifically
applied
to
park
board
districts.
I
was
curious,
if
maybe,
if
ms
bushoon
or
someone
else
had
anything
to
weigh
in
on
what
the
implications
of
that
1992
law
might
be
for
our
districting.
B
D
Okay,
great
because
it
seemed
to
me-
and
I
know
I
think,
I've
I've
heard
commissioner
meyer-
make
this
point
too-
that
it
it.
I
think
some
of
them
are
interpreting
it
to
mean
that
we
should
prioritize
making
like
an
additional
district
like
district
three
like
to
maximize
its
like
non-white
population,
I
guess
in
their
interpretation
that
would
be
necessary
to
comply
with
this
law,
although
it
would
probably
mean
several
major
and
non-minimal
changes
to
the
map
so
yeah.
D
K
Not
necessarily
a
guideline
per
se,
but
just
a
question
about
where
these
guidelines
might
live,
and
this
might
be,
you
know
another
question
for
greg,
who
I
don't
believe
is
is
going
to
be
in
this
week.
But
where
would
these
guidelines
live
once
we've?
You
know
kind
of
gone
through
them.
I'm
assuming
they'll
live
in
the
minutes,
and
I'd
like
to
be
able
to
point
people
to
that
as
we're
having
these
discussions
in
the
world.
B
They
they
will
live
in
the
minutes.
Definitely,
and
I
think
it
might
be
handy-
and
I
will
volunteer
with
mr
munson's
assistants
to
go
through
and
make
a
a
cheat
sheet
for
all
of
us
saying
these
are
the
issues
we
discussed
and
again
they're
not
binding.
They
may
conflict,
but
it's
it's
the
directions.
These
are
the
directions.
K
I
I
think
it
would
be
helpful
to
have
these
posted
online
as
these
guidelines
as
the
term
we're
using.
So
that
way
we
can
gather
feedback
on
them
from
the
community.
I
I
think
you
know
I
found
the
feedback
that
we've
received
to
be
helpful
and
it'd
be
nice.
If
we
could
post
it,
perhaps
as
a
comment
on
the
portal
and
then
see
the
literal
comments
coming
in
from
community
members,
who've
been
engaged
with
this
process
so
far.
B
I
know
we
can
do
that.
We
can
post
it
as
a
comment
on
the
portal,
just
as
we
posted
our
draft
maps
as
draft
maps
on
the
portal,
so
at
a
minimum
we'll
do
that
if
we
can
find
a
place
to
more
prominently
feature
them
we'll
do
that
as
well.
B
I'm
not
hearing
anything
else,
so
it
looks
like
we'll
be
able
to
cancel
our
december
7th
meeting
but
I'll
wait
a
day
or
so
and
see
if
I
get
any
other
suggestions
or
issues
that
people
want
to
discuss,
just
email
them
to
me
and
if,
if
I
don't
we'll
cancel
the
december
7th
meeting,
give
us
all
a
night
off
thanks
everyone
for
your
participation.
I
think
this
has
been
useful
and
has
given
us
some
directions
to
explore.