Pierce County Council District Boundaries Could Be Done Deal

The new shape of Pierce County’s seven County Council districts already may be decided--and without Districting Committee members ever voting on a final recommendation.

Under the process established by the County Charter, Districting Master Steven Garrett must present his final recommendation by June 28.

The five-member committee, which has been unable to reach consensus on any of the four boundary maps Garrett has presented, then has three options. It can approve or deny his plan, or simply take no action.

In the latter case, Garrett's proposal--whatever form it takes--automatically would apply to the 2012 County Council election and his boundary scheme would remain in place until after the 2020 U.S. census and next round of redistricting.

Garrett, a geographer who was appointed by the committee and has worked at the state level on similar projects, told Patch after Wednesday’s Districting Committee meeting in Tacoma that he plans to .

The “take-it-or-leave-it” possibility has some Pierce County residents, such as Colleen Wise of Edgewood, both irked and concerned about the fairness of the process.

Wise, a former city councilwoman who has been guarding the interests of Bonney Lake, Sumner and Lake Tapps in addition to Edgewood during the months-long redistricting process, said she and other citizens would like to see some of the Districting Master’s authority eliminated during Pierce County’s next charter review.

Suggestions for new County Council boundaries have been plentiful over the past several months, with the committee hosting public hearings in all seven districts.

At Wednesday’s meeting, the Districting Committee for the first time reviewed all of the pros and cons of the different proposals.

The committee is responsible for redrawing district boundaries every 10 years following the U.S. census. Redistricting is done to help ensure equal County Council representation across Pierce County.

Equalizing population and not splitting communities for representation purposes are the top priorities for committee members. Consequently, much of their discussion focused on how actual population would vary from “target”--or ideal--population under each of the four proposals.

“This target variance is what you’d want in an ideal world if you could carve up the districts into seven equal pieces,” Garrett said.

Too much variation among council districts can spark a Constitutional legal challenge, Garrett said, from citizens who believe their district is under-represented.

However, Committee Member Deryl McCarty, speaking to the frustration of the whole committee, said there is “no perfect way” to divide the districts.

Favored by two committee members, Map A offers several benefits, according to the committee, including minimal population variance and few boundary changes. It also keeps community boundaries intact except for Tacoma.

On the down side, some committee members said District 1 is too big, access from east to west is inadequate, and there is no connection between Sumner and the Port of Tacoma. In addition, the plan does not give rural Pierce County residents the level of representation they desire, Tacoma ends up split without regard to neighborhoods, and Graham’s Planning Area also becomes divided.

Map B, which the committee has been all but discarded, solves the problem of linking Sumner with the Port of Tacoma and improves rural representation. But it separates Joint Base Lewis-McChord from neighboring communities of Lakewood and DuPont.

Other potential weaknesses--although some committee members also considered them pluses--are that Point Defiance would be become part of District 7 and University Place and Fircrest would be carved out of it.

Said Gig Harbor City Councilman Derek Young, “In some ways North Tacoma relates better to us. We’ve got maybe a stronger connection to North Tacoma than to University Place.”

The main idea, Young emphasized, is to maintain logical boundaries.

“That’s what appears to be driving the map solution,” he said.

Committee members said Map B takes too much of Tacoma’s population out of District 2 while making District 1 too large for ideal representation. Also, Graham’s Planning Area would be split three ways under this proposal.

If Map C were to be implemented, committee members said it would produce good representation in Districts 1 and 3. Also, District 6, which contains Lakewood and part of South Tacoma, would keep JBLM intact.

One committee member said Tacoma needs to be split because of its massive population.

Potential disadvantages of Map C include population variances “pushing the envelope,” some committee members said. Also, it splits Bonney Lake and Lake Tapps into separate County Council districts and separates Sumner from the Port of Tacoma. Tacoma also ends up dominating District 5 under this boundary scheme.

Map D, the plan seemingly supported by the most committee members, would result in the “highest community integrity,” keep Sumner with the Port of Tacoma and Bonney Lake with Lake Tapps, result in good rural representation, make Tacoma a smaller part of District 5 and address water-shed concerns.

However, some committee members worry that Map D also would create a high population variance while keeping densely populated Tacoma in District 7.

“This is the map that solves all of the community issues that were brought up during these meetings,” Committee Member Sam Ross said of Map D.

“Of all the maps, Map D is far and away the best.  Everyone who has come to us has told us that they want to keep communities together,” he said.

At the same time, Ross and some other committee members said they would not be opposed to seeing a fifth map--Map E--that perhaps does a better job of addressing the various concerns.

Not so quick to agree with Map D were Lakewood city officials and 7th District County Councilman Stan Flemming, who represents University Place, Gig Harbor and Key Peninsula.

For Lakewood Mayor Douglas Richardson, taking University Place out of District 7 and linking it with Lakewood in District 6--as proposed in Map D--would hurt Joint Base Lewis-McChord’s military population.

Flemming’s concerns are more personal.  Both he and  2nd District Councilwoman Joyce McDonald could end being re-drawn out of their districts under Map D.

McDonald represents the north-central portion of the county.  Her problem can be solved with a relatively minor boundary shift on Map D, Garrett said, since she lives right on the border of Summit and Puyallup between Districts 5 and 2. Flemming’s situation is not as easily fixed.

Flemming told Patch that Map D represents a blatant attempt at gerrymandering County Council districts to bulk up Republican influence in District 6.

Meanwhile, Don Anderson, Lakewood’s vice-mayor and a 30-year practicing attorney, said the defects of Map D rise to constitutional significance.

“Map D shows District 6 as 8.8 percent over target (population), while others are significantly under target, most notably District 5 (Parkland, Midland, Summit, Waller, Clover Creek and Summit View) at a minus 4.5 percent,” Anderson said. “This represents a 13.3-percent differential, which is unacceptable.

 “At the same time, there is a rational basis for under-populating District 6. The census population of Joint Base Lewis-McChord is listed at 16,252. This count was taken during the largest deployment of troops in history from Pierce County bases.”

Anderson said the temporary draw-down of JBLM's population was already reversing itself in 2010, but after census takers had completed their count.  Meanwhile, nearly 20,000 troops have returned and District 6’s military population is already significantly under-represented, he said.

“Of all the districts to target with suggested overpopulation, there is absolutely no rational basis to pick District 6,” Anderson said.

While Committee Member Abernathy said Map C makes more sense, McCarty touted Map A, saying it “causes the least amount of disruption and keeps people together”-- even if it does make East Pierce County’s District 1 very large.

Joking that he is “afraid to see” a Map E, member Kenneth Blair said he would support Map D if pressed to vote right now. Likewise, Committee Chairwoman Karen Seinfeld said she would support Map D if District 1’s population were downsized.

“My proposal would be for a Map E,” she told the committee.

In response, Garrett said he would give more thought to the concerns committee members raised Wednesday. But after the meeting, Garrett said Map D is pretty much the operative plan.

The committee meets again July 12 at 7 p.m. in the Pierce County Annex, Conference Room D, 2401 South 35th St., Tacoma.