Morgantown GIS Ward Boundary Analysis Final Report

The Morgantown Ward and Boundary Commission must, by City Charter, analyze and confirm the boundaries of the City's wards every even-numbered year in preparation for the following municipal election cycle. The Charter states that the wards must be balanced, as much as possible, by counts of registered voters and population based on the most-recent American Community Survey (ACS) or decennial Census. The latest report ( click here ) from the Ward and Boundary Commission from 2018 acknowledged numerical imbalance (see: Existing Ward Counts below), but recommended no changes be made to the ward boundaries at that time. The reasons for this recommendation were:

• Late delivery of the needed data prevented proper analysis to be completed in the available time.
• The known imbalance of both registered voters and population across each ward required more time to balance than was available.
• The Commission had a desire to explore GIS analysis tools to aid them in the following cycle.

The following report details the role GIS played in the 2020 review of the ward boundaries and provides the information utilized by the Commission to reach their decisions.

Ward #: Count (Numerical Deviation from Ideal, % Deviation)

Population (2020 American Community Survey estimate)

• Ward 1: 2,985 (-1,518, -33.7%)
• Ward 2: 3,027 (-1,476, -32.8%)
• Ward 3: 6,623 (+2,120, +47.1%)
• Ward 4: 6,707 (+2,204, +48.9%)
• Ward 5: 6,696 (+2,193, +48.7%)
• Ward 6: 2,696 (-1,807, -40.1%)
• Ward 7: 2,790 (-1,713, -38.0%)

Registered Voters

• Ward 1: 2,239 (-272, -10.8%)
• Ward 2: 2,415 (-96, -3.8%)
• Ward 3: 3,012 (+501, +20.0%)
• Ward 4: 2,768 (+257, +10.2%)
• Ward 5: 2,533 (+22, +0.9%)
• Ward 6: 2,156 (-355, -14.1%)
• Ward 7: 2,453 (-58, -2.3%)

The Ward and Boundary Commission issued guidance for the analysis in the form of the following goals:

1. Balance population and count of registered voters across all seven wards as evenly as possible. If both criteria cannot be balanced evenly, provide greater weight to balancing the count of registered voters across all seven wards.
2. Preserve existing neighborhoods as much as possible.
3. Utilize physical boundaries and ensure contiguity by preserving street connections across each ward.

This report evaluates the work done against these three goals. The analysis did not consider criteria such as:

1. Preservation of existing ward boundaries.
2. Maintaining separation of members of the current City Council.
3. Future areas considered for annexation.

Secondarily, the City Charter emphasizes that "compactness" shall not be sacrificed for balancing of numbers. Although the term is used in the following section, it is defined in the realm of the tool used, and may not reflect the type of "compactness" mentioned in the Charter. However, the analysis was performed, and results produced, to maintain "compactness," as intended in the Charter, as much as possible.

Data

Tax Parcel "Blocks" - Tax parcel polygons combined with 2010 Census block polygons to fill in rights-of-way that are not depicted in the parcels. Data was cleaned up for most block boundaries to be the street centerlines or where natural borders exist. Parcel boundaries were useful in blocks that were oddly-shaped or did not clearly indicate a natural boundary.

2020 American Community Survey Estimated Population - A total population of 31,516 was apportioned to the parcel blocks layer using ESRI's Data Enrichment tool in ArcGIS Pro. The data is apportioned from American Community Survey data at the Census Block Group level, which are much larger and are not totally within the City's boundary. The result was checked by running the same tool against a layer of the City's boundary, which generated a result of 31,524. Due to the closeness of the results, the result for the parcel blocks layer was used as-is for the analysis.

Registered Voter Data (2018) - Tabular street address data was imported and geocoded through ArcGIS Pro using the West Virginia GIS Technical Center's "WV_Composite" geocoder, which placed points for the associated structure and/or side of the street based on the address. A total of 17,576 registered voters were geocoded, then a Spatial Join tool was run to provide a count of voters located within each parcel block to provide a combined layer that had population estimates and registered voters for each parcel block.

City Council Wards (2019-2021) - The existing ward boundaries were used as a reference for visual aid and to attempt a manual assignment for one example to balance the wards based on the criteria chosen by the Commission.

Tools

ESRI Business Analyst (Trial) - A software package typically intended for business and market analysis, Business Analyst possessed a tool that was proposed to help with balancing wards known as the Territory Design toolset. ESRI provided an extended Business Analyst trial as support for this effort and to see if the results showed possible uses for the tool in the local government sector instead of only private industries.

ESRI Data Enrichment - A tool used through ArcGIS Pro and ArcGIS Online that adds demographic data to existing GIS layers. This tool assigned 2020 American Community Survey population estimate data to the parcel blocks layer.

Geocoding (WV_Composite Locator) - A workflow within ArcGIS Pro that takes tabular data and maps a location based on locations, such as street addresses. This tool took street address locations of registered voters and assigned their locations based on the West Virginia GIS Technical Center's "WV_Composite" address locator.

Spatial Join - A tool used to combine two different layers in the same spatial area as one another into one common layer. This tool provided the count of geocoded registered voter locations for each parcel block feature.

Primary Territory Design Variables

• Balance Weighting - A value between 1 and 100 so the tool knows which value to balance more than the other when assigning parcel blocks to territories.
• Constraints - A minimum, maximum, ideal value, and weighting value for each criteria for the analysis. The registered voter ideal value is 2,511, while the population ideal value is 4,502. Both ideal values represented the mean value for each criteria for seven territories. The other values were adjusted depending on how the tool responded in each run and are explained in each map.
• Compactness - A value between 1 and 100 that tells the tool how "rounded" the territory should be, with 100 being "most rounding." This does not necessarily equate to the definition of "compactness" used in political redistricting. Due to the City's unique boundary, the tool had to be run with compactness values of 75 to 100 to maximize adjacent parcel blocks being assigned to similar territories. Lower compactness values resulted in a greater overlap in parcel blocks being assigned to nonadjacent territories, creating a "checkerboard" pattern as seen in the Tool-Only maps below.

Types of Assignments

• Tool-Only Assignment - The raw result of balancing 7 territories, without any manual reassignment after processing. These are helpful in visual and data comparisons.
• Manual Assignment - Territories are assigned manually, with reference layers such as existing ward boundaries or known neighborhood boundaries used as guides.
• Tool-Assisted Manual Assignment - The raw result of balancing 7 territories is kept as close to the output with random and nonadjacent parcel blocks reassigned to adjacent territories, with consideration of known neighborhood and physical boundaries where possible.

It should be noted that results from this analysis was left with the name of "Territories" instead of "Wards" to prevent confusion, since numbering of the territories was left to the tool itself. To aid in understanding the proceeding maps, the bold outline of the existing ward boundaries are overlaid on the territories to understand each map's distribution in that context.

The following maps and data are shown for the purpose of illustrating the Territory Design tool's raw output. These maps were only considered in comparison to the Tool-Assisted maps. Tool parameters are in the blurbs for each slide and stats for each run are below the slideshow.

Maps shown below have the existing ward boundaries (bold outlines) on top of the analysis layers (filled colors). Legend button is in the bottom left of the maps.

Territory #: Count (Numerical Deviation from Ideal, % Deviation)

Tool-Only Assignment, Run 1

Population

• Territory 1: 4,818 (+316, +7.0%)
• Territory 2: 5,660 (+1,158, +25.7%)
• Territory 3: 3,290 (-1,212, -26.9%)
• Territory 4: 3,532 (-970, -21.6%)
• Territory 5: 5,359 (+857, +19.0%)
• Territory 6: 4,024 (-478, -10.6%)
• Territory 7: 4,833 (+331, +7.3%)

Registered Voters

• Territory 1: 2,647 (+136, 5.4%)
• Territory 2: 2,321 (-190, -7.6%)
• Territory 3: 2,662 (+151, +6.0%)
• Territory 4: 2,604 (+93, +3.7%)
• Territory 5: 2,291 (-220, -8.8%)
• Territory 6: 2,604 (+93, +3.7%)
• Territory 7: 2,447 (-64, -2.5%)

Tool-Only Assignment, Run 2

Population

• Territory 1: 4,023 (-479, -10.6%)
• Territory 2: 4,435 (-67, -1.5%)
• Territory 3: 4,254 (-248, -5.5%)
• Territory 4: 4,639 (+137, +3.0%)
• Territory 5: 4,355 (-147, -3.3%)
• Territory 6: 5,196 (+694, +15.4%)
• Territory 7: 4,614 (+112, +2.5%)

Registered Voters

• Territory 1: 2,522 (+11, +0.4%)
• Territory 2: 2,449 (-62, -2.5%)
• Territory 3: 2,983 (+472, +18.8%)
• Territory 4: 2,401 (-110, -4.4%)
• Territory 5: 2,474 (-37, -1.5%)
• Territory 6: 2,329 (-182, -7.2%)
• Territory 7: 2,418 (-93, -3.7%)

Tool-Only Assignment, Run 3

Population

• Territory 1: 4,856 (+354, +7,9%)
• Territory 2: 4,616 (+114, +2.5%)
• Territory 3: 3,841 (-661, -14.7%)
• Territory 4: 5,117 (+615, +13.7%)
• Territory 5: 3,958 (-544, -12.1%)
• Territory 6: 5,316 (+814, +18.1%)
• Territory 7: 3,812 (-690, -15.3%)

Registered Voters

• Territory 1: 2,501 (-10, -0.4%)
• Territory 2: 2,531 (+20, +0.8%)
• Territory 3: 2,818 (+307, 12.2%)
• Territory 4: 2,349 (-162, -6.4%)
• Territory 5: 2,535 (+24, +1.0%)
• Territory 6: 2,268 (-243, -9.7%)
• Territory 7: 2,574 (+63, +2.5%)

Tool-Only Assignment, Run 4

Population

• Territory 1: 4,461 (-41, -0.9%)
• Territory 2: 3,698 (-804, -17.9%)
• Territory 3: 4,111 (-391, -8.7%)
• Territory 4: 4,995 (+493, +10.9%)
• Territory 5: 3,664 (-838, -18.6%)
• Territory 6: 5,069 (+567, +12.6%)
• Territory 7: 5,518 (+1,016, +22.6%)

Registered Voters

• Territory 1: 2,562 (+51, +2.0%)
• Territory 2: 2,899 (+388, +15.5%)
• Territory 3: 2,547 (+36, +1.4%)
• Territory 4: 2,304 (-207, -8.2%)
• Territory 5: 2,593 (+82, +3.3%)
• Territory 6: 2,300 (-211, -8.4%)
• Territory 7: 2,371 (-140, -5.6%)

An attempt was made, using the Territory Design tool, to manually assign the territories using the existing ward and known neighborhood boundaries as much as possible while improving the balance of registered voters and population. This effort served a dual purpose of: 1) testing the workflow of manually assigning parcel blocks to territories toward refining raw outputs and 2) sampling how much of a geographic deviation from the existing ward boundaries balanced both criteria to acceptable levels for the Ward and Boundary Commission.

The map shown below has the existing ward boundaries (bold outlines) on top of the analysis layer (filled colors).

Territory #: Count (Numerical Deviation from Ideal, % Deviation)

Population

• Territory 1: 3,517 (-985, -21.9%)
• Territory 2: 3,200 (-1,302, -28.9%)
• Territory 3: 2,803 (-1,699, -37.7%)
• Territory 4: 6,175 (+1,673, +37.2%)
• Territory 5: 4,234 (-268, -6.0%)
• Territory 6: 5,652 (+1,150, +25.5%)
• Territory 7: 5,935 (+1,433, +31.8%)

Registered Voters

• Territory 1: 2,640 (+129, +5.1%)
• Territory 2: 2,436 (-75, -3.0%)
• Territory 3: 2,462 (-49, -1.9%)
• Territory 4: 2,383 (-128, -5.1%)
• Territory 5: 2,677 (+166, +6.6%)
• Territory 6: 2,384 (-127, -5.1%)
• Territory 7: 2,594 (+83, +3.3%)

Due to the raw tool-only output assigning non-adjacent parcel blocks to similar territories, additional manual inspection and assignment was necessary. Preservation of the raw output, while minding known neighborhood and physical boundaries where possible was the intention in the four runs that were presented to the Ward and Boundary Commission. After review and deliberations, Tool-Assisted Manual Assignment, Run 4 was chosen as the map to proceed to the next stage of the project.

The map shown below has the existing ward boundaries (bold outlines) on top of the analysis layer (filled colors).

Territory #: Count (Numerical Deviation from Ideal, % Deviation)

Tool-Assisted Manual Assignment, Run 1

Population

• Territory 1: 4,867 (+352, +7.8%)
• Territory 2: 3,174 (-1,341, -29.7%)
• Territory 3: 4,456 (-59, -1.3%)
• Territory 4: 5,113 (+598, +13.2%)
• Territory 5: 4,352 (-163, -3.6%)
• Territory 6: 3,213 (-1,302, -28.8%)
• Territory 7: 6,431 (+1,916, +42.4%)

Registered Voters

• Territory 1: 2,619 (+108, +4.3%)
• Territory 2: 2,417 (-94, -3.7%)
• Territory 3: 2,462 (-49, -1.9%)
• Territory 4: 2,549 (+38, +1.5%)
• Territory 5: 2,456 (-55, -2.2%)
• Territory 6: 2,466 (-45, -1.8%)
• Territory 7: 2,607 (+96, +3.8%)

Tool-Assisted Manual Assignment, Run 2

Population

• Territory 1: 4,153 (-349, -7.8%)
• Territory 2: 3,841 (-661, -14.7%)
• Territory 3: 3,561 (-941, -20.9%)
• Territory 4: 6,222 (+1,720, +38.2%)
• Territory 5: 3,201 (-1,301, -28.9%)
• Territory 6: 5,523 (+1,021, +22.7%)
• Territory 7: 5,015 (+513, +11.4%)

Registered Voters

• Territory 1: 2,543 (+32, +1.3%)
• Territory 2: 2,355 (-156, -6.2%)
• Territory 3: 2,576 (+65, +2.6%)
• Territory 4: 2,408 (-103, -4.1%)
• Territory 5: 2,534 (+23, +0.9%)
• Territory 6: 2,573 (+62, +2.5%)
• Territory 7: 2,587 (+76, +3.0%)

Tool-Assisted Manual Assignment, Run 3

Population

• Territory 1: 4,792 (+290, +6.4%)
• Territory 2: 6,549 (+2,047, +45.5%)
• Territory 3: 3,472 (-1,030, -22.9%)
• Territory 4: 2,739 (-1,709, -38.0%)
• Territory 5: 5,666 (+1,164, +25.8%)
• Territory 6: 3,215 (-1,287, -28.6%)
• Territory 7: 5,029 (+527, +11.7%)

Registered Voters

• Territory 1: 2,622 (+111, +4.4%)
• Territory 2: 2,458 (-53, -2.1%)
• Territory 3: 2,533 (+22, 0.9%)
• Territory 4: 2,453 (-58, -2.3%)
• Territory 5: 2,423 (-88, -3.5%)
• Territory 6: 2,544 (+33, +1.3%)
• Territory 7: 2,543 (+32, +1.3%)

Tool-Assisted Manual Assignment, Run 4

Population

• Territory 1: 3,434 (-1,068, -23.7%)
• Territory 2: 3,342 (-1,160, -25.8%)
• Territory 3: 4,456 (-46, -1.0%)
• Territory 4: 4,886 (+384, +8.5%)
• Territory 5: 4,173 (-329, -7.3%)
• Territory 6: 5,543 (+1,041, +23.1%)
• Territory 7: 5,682 (+1,180, +26.2%)

Registered Voters

• Territory 1: 2,628 (+117, +4.7%)
• Territory 2: 2,550 (+39, +1.6%)
• Territory 3: 2,462 (-49, -1.9%)
• Territory 4: 2,449 (-62, -2.5%)
• Territory 5: 2,502 (-9, -0.4%)
• Territory 6: 2,550 (+39, +1.6%)
• Territory 7: 2,435 (-76, -3.0%)

The Tool-Assisted Manual Assignment, Run 4 map was chosen for further refinement by the Ward and Boundary Commission. At this time, the "territory" naming conventions were changed to reflect the ward number whose existing boundary mostly encompassed the territory (i.e. Territory 2 was assigned as First Ward). Adjustments were manually made to "smooth" boundaries in areas the Commission identified as a group. An area near Beverly Avenue and University Avenue was adjusted to prefer a natural boundary not reflected in the parcel blocks layer, and an area near Falling Run Road and Outlook Street was adjusted to ensure locations did not require travel through another ward to access their assigned ward.

The map was put out for public comment until August 24th, 2020 to determine if further adjustments were made. Stats that reflect the adjustments are below the map.

The viewer below shows existing (left map) and proposed (right map) boundaries that were open for public comment.

Ward Name: Count (Numerical Deviation from Ideal, % Deviation)

Population

• First Ward: 3,258 (-1,244, -27.6%)
• Second Ward: 4,175 (-327, -7.3%)
• Third Ward: 5,684 (+1,182, +26.3%)
• Fourth Ward: 4,891 (+389, +8.6%)
• Fifth Ward: 5,535 (+1,033, +22.9%)
• Sixth Ward: 3,527 (-975, -21.7%)
• Seventh Ward: 4,452 (-50, -1.1%)

Registered Voters

• First Ward: 2,501 (-10, -0.4%)
• Second Ward: 2,496 (-15, -0.6%)
• Third Ward: 2,459 (-52, -2.1%)
• Fourth Ward: 2,430 (-81, -3.2%)
• Fifth Ward: 2,551 (+40, +1.6%)
• Sixth Ward: 2,677 (+166, +6.6%)
• Seventh Ward: 2,462 (-49, -1.9%)

 Click Here to Download the Public Comments Report 

The Ward and Boundary Commission reviewed the submitted comments in their August 26th, 2020 meeting, and decided on further revisions after concerns were raised about the proposed First, Second, and Sixth Wards in the comments. Second Ward was adjusted southward, from Jackson Avenue to Grandview Avenue, Franklin Street, and Davis Street, to include territory that was initially being switched from Second to First and Sixth Wards. The stats for the revisions are are below the map.

This map was approved by the Commission during its September 10th, 2020 meeting and is the map being submitted to City Council for action.

The viewer below shows existing (left map) and proposed (right map) boundaries as approved by the Ward and Boundary Commission.

Ward Name: Count (Numerical Deviation from Ideal, % Deviation)

Population

• First Ward: 3,231 (-1,272, -28.3%)
• Second Ward: 4,299 (-204, -4.5%)
• Third Ward: 5,684 (+1,181, +26.2%)
• Fourth Ward: 4,891 (+388, +8.6%)
• Fifth Ward: 5,535 (+1,032, +22.9%)
• Sixth Ward: 3,527 (-1,073, -23.8%)
• Seventh Ward: 4,452 (-51, -1.1%)

Registered Voters

• First Ward: 2,513 (+2, +0.1%)
• Second Ward: 2,496 (+48 +1.9%)
• Third Ward: 2,459 (-52, -2.1%)
• Fourth Ward: 2,430 (-81, -3.2%)
• Fifth Ward: 2,551 (+40, +1.6%)
• Sixth Ward: 2,677 (+91, +3.6%)
• Seventh Ward: 2,462 (-49, -1.9%)

This project was tailor-made for GIS analysis tools to assist in balancing the criteria set forth in the City Charter because of the needs to examine both data and geography. The use of Territory Design within Business Analyst was critical to this analysis due to the time constraints (a final Ward and Boundary Commission report to City Council must be submitted by September 30th). Manual analysis using the same data would have taken much longer than the available time allowed and not provided the same level of objective analysis into balancing the criteria.

The project achieved the three goals issued by the Ward and Boundary Commission. The evaluations below are listed in the same order as the goals listed in the Introduction section. The results that are described in this section come from the map approved by the Commission during its September 10th, 2020 meeting (Approved Final Map).

Goal #1: Balance population and count of registered voters across all seven wards as evenly as possible. If both criteria cannot be balanced evenly, provide greater weight to balancing the count of registered voters across all seven wards.

The analysis was unable to provide similar balance of both population and counts of registered voters across each ward. However, when the analysis was weighted to provide balance for counts of registered voters, the results were able to yield deviations under 30% for population and under 10% for counts of registered voters. When compared to the existing wards' deviations in both population and counts of registered voters, the results showed an improvement in all seven wards by bringing those values closer to an ideal balance.

The distribution of registered voters and population currently does not allow for both to be balanced to the same extent. There exists a high registered-voter-to-population ratio to the south of Deckers Creek compared to the area to the north. There exists higher concentrations of population north of Deckers Creek compared to the south, notably in areas near and adjacent to the West Virginia University campuses in the Downtown and Evansdale areas. To achieve the best balance of both criteria, there needed to be a presence of three wards to the south of Deckers Creek while at least one ward must extend across Deckers Creek to the north. All variations of analyses presented illustrate this reality.

Goal #2: Preserve existing neighborhoods as much as possible.

Analysis and further adjustments by the Commission preserved known neighborhoods as much as possible. Given the lack of reliable GIS data for neighborhoods and understanding what residents consider to be their neighborhood, this can only be evaluated through anecdotal information provided by public comments and the Commission's input. This is further explained in the Limitations section.

Goal #3: Utilize physical boundaries and ensure contiguity by preserving street connections across each ward.

Physical boundaries were utilized across all wards and no known travel disconnections exist between areas and the rest of their assigned ward. This does not mean residents have main thoroughfares or preferred access routes across their assigned ward. The analysis did not consider high-traffic or arterial streets that residents may use to travel to places of work, shopping, or services, but only that residents were not completely severed from the rest of their ward by another ward's boundary.

Limitations were presented in several ways.

1. The first limitation was not having GIS data representing a temporally-accurate segmentation of the City of Morgantown. An amalgam of 2010 Census Blocks and Monongalia County Tax Parcels provided the needed segmentation for this project, however, it would be much more reflective of existing features to have the 2020 Census Blocks for the next project. Subsequent projects where the blocks become temporally obsolete may require a more granular approach to segmentation.
2. The second limitation was relying on American Community Survey data, which is inherently an estimate of population, not an exact count. This may cause an unknown population shift in the future, especially when 2020 Census data becomes available, due to the difference between an exact count and an estimate.
3. The third limitation was the Territory Design tool lacking an "adjacency" requirement to avoid instances of blocks being assigned to nonadjacent territories as shown in the tool-only examples, therefore requiring refinement of the product to reflect a realistic political boundary. The only available option was generating results with the Compactness rating set to 100, which minimized, but did not eliminate, a "checkerboard" result with assigned territories.
4. The fourth limitation was a lack of verified neighborhood boundaries to reference against the analysis results. The attempt to preserve neighborhoods within one ward was undermined by the lack of such data, so the analysis required anecdotal input from the Ward and Boundary Commission to identify such boundaries. Public input showed there were discrepancies between what was assumed to be a neighborhood's extent and what residents considered to be their neighborhood. It is imperative to reconcile this discrepancy for future analyses.
5. The fifth limitation is the software package with which Territory Design currently exists. The Business Analyst package is not intended or marketed to be of use to local government organizations. Territory Design is incredibly useful, but is not available in any government-focused software package. This necessitates either a purchase of a full license to Business Analyst or a different analysis approach in the future.

While it may not be feasible to eliminate all limitations, future analyses should aim to minimize the effects of these limitations, or find new products or workflows that negate them.

The role of GIS in this process was to provide the Ward and Boundary Commission the ability to make data-driven decisions. It is noted that this process is political, as is every electoral redistricting effort. This analysis was performed with objectivity as the key, as shown by issuing multiple versions from Tool-Only Assignment to Tool-Assisted Manual Assignment, which aided the Commission in having alternatives to select for refinement for the draft and approved versions, as shown in this report. Even during refinement, data was used to tabulate totals on the fly as suggestions for adjustments were being made during the public meetings.

While it was desired by the Commission to provide equitable balance of both population and counts of registered voters, current data showed that to be extremely difficult. However, the use of GIS tools greatly improved the balance of both criteria and provided the Commission a new perspective of data and geography in tandem. The project had limited time constraints and was further complicated by the necessity to have all-virtual meetings due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The maps shown in this report were distributed through the City's ArcGIS Online platform for Commission members to review and explore at any time, which greatly contributed to the Commission remaining informed, albeit remotely. Once maps were to a point that the Commission wished for public comment, Without the use of GIS technology for this project, this project would have become incredibly difficult, if not impossible to accomplish remotely and in the time given.

Due to events such as new U.S. Census data being released and the updating of voter rolls every election cycle, this report concludes that GIS has a critical role to determine any possible future adjustments to the ward boundaries. This report also concludes that timing be noted for future acquisition of required data and possible software licensing, if not already within the City's GIS software suite. Completion of this project within the allotted time is not indicative of time needed to perform similar analyses in the future. Additional time will be required if a different approach is necessary to address possible logistical or budgetary limitations in the future.

Finally, this report illustrated a different workflow from previous reviews of wards in the City of Morgantown, that utilized a software solution that had not been used in this manner before, according to representatives of ESRI. As a case study, Territory Design provided critical time-saving analyses that aided in the completion of this project. The results of the map approved by the Commission show this workflow and use of the Territory Design tool was successful. Therefore, this report suggests any future analysis of the ward boundaries should build from what was learned during this project to maintain, and ideally improve, numerical balance between the City's wards.