[PAGE 1]
City of Cambridge
CITY HALL
410 ACADEMY STREET
CAMBRIDGE, MARYLAND 21613
TELEPHONE: 410-228-1955
E-Mail: info@choosecambridge.com
The City of Cambridge Ward Realignment Committee meeting will be held on Thursday,
September 21st at 6:00 pm at the City Hall Conference Room, 410 Academy Street, Cambridge,
Maryland 21613. These are the following items scheduled:
AGENDA - REVISED
1. Approve meeting minutes from Sept 14, 2023.
2. Discuss consequences/impacts of changed numbers to “Option 1” results
3. Proposed adjustments
4. Discuss and vote on adjusted model
5. Discuss presentation to City Council
6. Schedule next meeting
* Please note the agenda is subject to change, the final agenda will be approved by the
Committee at the Meeting.
S:\City Hall\Admin\Working Agendas\WardRealignmentCommittee\2023-09-21\2023-09-21-WRC Agenda.docx

[PAGE 2]
Ward Realignment Committee
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, September 14, 2023
6:00 PM
The Empowerment Center, 615B Pine Street, Cambridge
Committee Members Present: Jim Sicks (chair), Greg Meekins (vice chair), Lou Hyman,
Barbara Knepp, Talibah Chikwendu, Carlos Estin (attended virtually)
Committee Members Absent: Tabria Cornish
Staff present: Cheryl Hannan, Scott Shores
Chairman Sicks called the meeting to order at 6:05 PM with a quorum present of himself, Mr.
Hyman, Ms. Knepp, and Ms. Chikwendu.
Talibah Chikwendu made a motion to approve the minutes from last week’s meeting. Barbara
Knepp seconded the motion. All voted in favor. Motion carried.
{Vice Chair Meekins and Mr. Estin joined the meeting.}
Chairman Sicks asked for a recap of where we are from last meeting to help shape the direction
for tonight’s discussions. All agreed the focus should be on keeping Wards compact and
contiguous as possible and that the main priority was to fix the Wards which are out of
compliance. Secondarily, if existing issues with Ward boundaries can be addressed without
doing a wholesale change, they would be considered.
The committee worked collaboratively from large printouts of the ward maps with the census
blocks which are on the borders of each ward highlighted. A census block is the smallest
designated area with population which can be considered for movement from one ward to
another. A census block does not necessarily equal a geographic block.
The committee began by focusing on Ward 5, which is currently the smallest ward and out of
compliance. They discussed several potential census blocks which could be moved to Ward 5
and settled on several that are in “the corner” of where wards 3, 4, and 5 meet. The objective of
focusing on these blocks was to maintain the principles of contiguous and compactness to move
these adjoining blocks from Wards 3 & 4 into Ward 5. These movements resulted in all 3 Wards
being within tolerance, with Wards 3 and 4 being slightly smaller.
The next area considered was to reduce the size of Ward 1, currently the largest ward, by again
looking for a census block that would be contiguous to Ward 3 and maintain the principle of
compactness and racial diversity. A block was identified that brought Ward 1 within tolerance
while bringing Ward 3 closer to the goal.
So, the next focus for the committee was on finding a block that was contiguous between Ward
2 (too large) and Ward 4 (too small) with enough population to smooth out the differences in
sizes. A block was identified. This resulted in an almost equal distribution of population across
Page 1 of 2

[PAGE 3]
Ward Realignment Committee
the 5 Wards. Wards 1, 4, and 5 are slightly over the 100% target and Wards 2 and 3 are slightly
under at 99% and 97%, respectively.
The committee agreed that this result was a thoughtful approach to rebalancing the wards and
was acceptable to all of them and asked City staff to put it into the model to validate the above
calculations and ensure racial distribution in the wards was not diminished by these movements.
The revised model will be the beginning of the conversation for next week’s meeting. Where it
will be decided whether to make further adjustments or to move forward with this proposal.
A motion for adjournment was made and approved. Meeting adjourned at 6:59 pm.
Page 2 of 2

[PAGE 4]
Legend
H
A OPTION #1
M
B
R
G O
A R D O K Ward One_Option1
E S
N B
L N L V
D Total Population = 13,096
Ward Two_Option1
M
IM
O
S
A
C Ward Three_Option1
T G White: 5,129 (39%)
L
A
S
G
REGULATOR
DR
S R EG
U LATO
R
O
W
S
T
E
T
A V
E
Black: 6,294 (48%)
W
W
a
a
r
r
d
d
F
F
o
iv
u
e
r
_
_
O
O
p
p
t
t
i
i
o
o
n
n
1
1
D S
R N E R
M
R O R
M A K O D A N S C T S D R S K L E Y S T K L E Y T E Other: 1,673 (13%)
JEN KIN S C R E V EEK
R D
F &
M A R K
E
L Y C T
B A Y B E
R R K
D R T A L B
O
T A V E T U B M A
N
S T
B
E L V E D E R E A V
E
S C H O O L S T
O A O A H A M
B
R O O K S A V E
W To a t r a d l P 1 o : p: 2,647 C L IF T O
R Y
W A Y E D L O
N P A
G L E N B U R N M I A L V B E O U R N E S T
T R A
V E R S S T W E S T E N D A V E A V E W A T E R S T
W
T W o
a
h t
r
a it
d
l e P :
3
o
:
8 p 59 : 2 (3 ,5 4 4 % 2 )
N K
White: 1,631 (62%) W
O
BEECH ST
P
T
A N
O H O Black: 1,372 (54%)
Black: 673 (25%) D S
D
O L L A
N
C H
D
R A Other: 311 (12%)
V
E
Other: 343 (13%) G
L C
O L H
V O U
E C R
D R U C
U A S H
N
D
V E T S
T
S T
E
A
N
A
V
E
S
S T
A
V E
L
S T
WI L LI D E N T S T MI L
N R
LI O
H
S
WAY
MARIINERS
Y
OSPRE
N E
Y D R CT
A S
S C O
S B O D
A V E P A R K L N
C
A M P E R S
T
S C
T
N S
T BYRN ST
RADIANCE
H I L
L D R DR O C E A N
G
T
W
LI Y P Y A W O E R LI E
W O O D D U C K D R Y E L L O W B IL L L N SNO S M A W
B
A
O
D
W
R Y D A E L B G E O H R B U U E I D L W T L S W A C O Y A I N R Y RD D BI L L L N
W E S T SI D E B F O X T AI L D R ZACH
A L E
X W
A
A Y
RY D
F O
R
X T
AI L W O O D S C T
L E O N A
R D S L N
S AI N T C L AI R A V E JIM S O N R D G R W E E E N A V W E O R O A D V E A V E
V E
C O R R N O I S S E H M R D O I G R N B T Y A A V V E E C A S M TI E L E L I S A R C S
E
O W I T
D
R
G
O
E
O D T S
H
R T
U
U
B
M
E R
A
T
N S
S
L
T
A C U M S T E A R N L O E B
C
S L
L
E T
I
F
N
S A
T
T I
O
R
N
M S
S
O A
T
U
U
N
N
D
T
E
A
R
V
S
C E
A
H
V
E
E
S A P E A
S
K
K
E
I N C
C C
N H
T R
A
O
R L
S S C
E
H O O
S
L S H O U S
S
B E L S N
T
E T THEL ST
HI
G H
D
H S
U
U T
D N
G
O
H
N
E
B S
S
S
C
C O
T
T N E L S M T S C T M E
G
U D
A
I A R
Y
R
S
S S
T
T T PLEASANT ST C A C D E M Y S T EM B E U T N E
M
K R
A
E Y
R
R A
K
V S
E
E T
T
C H E R R Y
S T
SQ
T R E N T
O N S T M SA A I R
H
L S E
A
A
Y
C W O S A
W
A T Y T
A
A L
R
H N R IL
D
C
S
V Y S
T
C LN T V ID E W A T E R D R S
F R
H
A N
H
K
IP
E
Y
N
A A U
R
R O R R
Y
A D S T
S
D
T
L R ECOM
M
P
A
TE
R Y
S
L
T
AND
D O
A
R C H
V
E S T E
E
R A V E S U N B U R S T H W Y
R O S
ROSLYN AVE R A M B L E R R D
R A D IA N C E
KI L L A
D
R N E Y
R
R D C R U HI S A W A A T H D A R E D R R D S M G A I B T R H A E C S C E T O N L W N A Y D R
T E A L L N
C A N V A S
P
A B U
I
A D
N
C U
T K A W IL A C Y T R E O S E V E L T S T S T LINC
T
OLN TE
W
R
ASHINGTON
D
S
O
T
UGLA W
S
E
S
L
T
LS ST LIG
T T S T
HT ST A
M O R E L A N
D A V E
R E S T E CEDAR ST C R U S A
D E R R D
A N S A V E V E
N IG H T H E R B O N C T ROBBINS ST A L L E N S T T E R S T H U G H L E A D O W A V E M A V E P E RI M O VIRGINIA AVE METEOR AVE R D N A T H E L M A
O N C T A R D S C E N M E L O S S O BRAMBLE ST A D E R
PARK A W ME AY S S C T T
MOORES AVE
P H I L L I P S S T C
H
U
A
B B
RLT
M
O
O
N
O
C
R
T
ES AVE
PI N E S T C E S T PHILLIPS AVE P
E A
C
H B
RI N G FI E L D A V E
WASHINGTON
ST F R O N
T S
T
BROHAWN
L A
A
K E S
V
T
E
O N S T S A D E R R D
C
R
C
U S
A M B R ID G E M A R K E
W
To
a
t
r
a
d
l P
2
o
:
p: 2,607
MCBRIDE AVE
NORTH
DR V
E
R A
BOUNDARY
AVE
S P C LI F T
P
A
R
K
D R C R U T P L A C E B
LV
D
A L
L A
A RI
White: 416 (16%) R T
BRADLEY
AVE N
T
U
S
E
D
C
Black: 1909 (73%)
BAYLY
AVE
S
I
N
P
I
L
Other: 282 (11%) L
I
H
G P
M A C E
S L N
E S A
V E W APPLEBY
AVE
H IC
K
S
S
H
A
E
V
P
E
HERD AVE
O
O
D W IL L R D PI N K S L N
W O
O D S R D
MI
L
T R
AI N B
O
W
A V
E
O
NI A L
A
V
E
BU
RTO
N
ST
ROBIN
K E
S
N
O
T
N
S
A
T
VE
I
N S L E
Y
S
T
APPLEBY
SCHOOL
RD
L E
XI N G T
O N
G
S
OVERN
G
O
O
R
L
S
D
A
S
V
B
E
OROU C O
G
L
H AVE PENNSYLVANIA
AVE
E A P P LE
B Y A V E G O O
D
W
IL
L
A V
W
T
W
o
a
h
t
r
a
it
d
l
e
P
:
5
o
:
1
p
,3
:
7
2
5
, 6
(5
7
1
7
%)
E
Black: 953 (36%)
ATLANTIC
AVE
Other: 349 (13%)
HARRINGTON
AVE
CARIBBEAN
AVE
CHESAPEAKE
DR
PACIFIC
AVE
D
L Y R D CHESTNUT PL LITTLE LEAGUE PARK RD
ROBBINS
FARM
RD
R
HIBISCUS
LN W O O
D
S
R
B
A Y EAGLES
NEST
WAY
R
R
A
PI
N
CI
TERRAPIN
CIR O A
K
E
R
L
N
OSPREY
CIR
T E
C
R
FE
ATH
E
R D
R A
Y
A
Y FIE
LD
T W W C
C E
S
E
R
O
N
R E
S
T R
H C S E B D
E A N G L U
CH
OPTANK C P
A
T
T
A M
S A P
E
A
K E
R
M
E
R G A WI D E W
IN
G
C T
O
S
K T
E
W
A
Y
PAULMAN
ST
T
S
E CAMBRIDGE BELTWAY
C
P A R A CAMBRIDGE BELTWAY CAMBRIDGE BELTWAY
X
M
O
CESSNA XING
R
E
L
N
G
CHURCH
CREEK RD
D
L O
B
A
D
BLV L
C
ROCK DR W E
ST
WI N
G L
IR
W AY WINTERS LN
S
T O
G
WAY O B
A L
E A R
W
N E
B
N L
O EI C IN O
B IR T E U N GALLIUM CT
A S T H A W K E R L N D G M BLV D R S C T D A R Y R D ASTOR CIR
R E A
A T R
W
A G
ULF
S
Y
Ward 4: PRIMROSE CT
Total Pop: 2,623
E
G
Y
White: 848 (32%) P
T
R
D
R
D
Black: 1,387 (53%) M
A
D
Other: 388 (15%)
M
A
P
L
E SOUTHSIDE
AVE
N
L
G
A
Y C
P
C
S
Y E
D E
B
R R
LANCE DR

[PAGE 5]
City of Cambridge
Ward Sizes 2020 is based on proposed realignment of census blocks
TOTAL POPULATION
1 2 3 4 5 Total
2010 2,472 2,389 2,506 2,399 2,583 12,349
2020 - Proposed 2,647 2,607 2,542 2,623 2,677 13,096
Difference 175 218 36 224 94 747
2010 2020
Total 1 2,349 13,096
Divided by 5 2,470 2,619
+5% 2,593 2,750 Allowable tolerance threshhold
-5% 2,346 2,488 of variance per election law.
Ward population compared to "ideal" population (outside +/-5% are highlighted in red)
2010 2020
"Ideal" or equal ward
2,470 2,619
sizes:
1 100.1% 101.1%
2 96.7% 99.5%
3 101.5% 97.1% All Wards are within Tolerance
4 97.1% 100.1%
5 104.6% 102.2%
Wards-2010v2020-2023-09-14Total Printed: 9/15/2023 3:51 PM

[PAGE 6]
City of Cambridge
2020 uses proposed census block changes
Ward Sizes RACIAL COMPOSITION
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TOTAL
2010 2020-P Difference 2010 2020 Difference
Black 5,941 6,294 353 48.2% 48.1% -0.1%
White 5,611 5,129 (482) 45.5% 39.2% -6.3%
Other 777 1,673 896 6.3% 12.8% 6.5%
Total 12,329 13,096 7 67 100% 100%
WARD 1
2010 2020-P Difference 2010 2020 Difference
Black 572 6 73 1 01 23% 25% 2.3%
White 1,785 1,631 (154) 72% 62% -10.6%
Other 115 3 43 2 28 5% 13% 8.3%
Total 2,472 2,647 1 75 100% 100%
WARD 2
2010 2020-P Difference 2010 2020 Difference
Black 1,874 1,909 35 78% 73% -5.2%
White 401 4 16 15 17% 16% -0.8%
Other 114 2 82 1 68 5% 11% 6.0%
Total 2,389 2,607 2 18 100% 100%
WARD 3
2010 2020-P Difference 2010 2020 Difference
Black 1,501 1,372 (129) 60% 54% -5.9%
White 819 8 59 40 33% 34% 1.1%
Other 186 3 11 1 25 7% 12% 4.8%
Total 2,506 2,542 36 100% 100%
WARD 4
2010 2020-P Difference 2010 2020 Difference
Black 1,192 1,387 195 50% 53% 3.2%
White 1,053 848 (205) 44% 32% -11.6%
Other 154 3 88 2 34 6% 15% 8.4%
Total 2,399 2,623 2 24 100% 100%
WARD 5
2010 2020-P Difference 2010 2020 Difference
Black 802 9 53 1 51 31% 36% 4.3%
White 1,553 1,375 (178) 61% 51% -9.2%
Other 208 3 49 1 41 8% 13% 4.9%
Total 2,563 2,677 1 14 100% 100%
Wards-2010v2020-2023-09-14Racial Printed: 9/15/2023 3:52 PM