Travis County Commissioners Court
April 5, 2005
Item 34
Number 34, consider and take appropriate action on the following: a, receive report on proposed election precinct realignments; and b, set a public hearing on April 19, 2005. There's things we need to discuss today, I at a time.
>> yes, sir.
>> good morning, delores lopez, voter registration. Melinda avery and gloria of my office. Resource folks here. What we have today is essentially the state law that requires us to look at those precincts that have over 3,000 registered voters. We have 15 of those precincts. The breakdown is one precinct -- commission precinct 1, three in Commissioner precinct 2, and the rest, 11, in Commissioner precinct 3. None in Commissioner precinct 4. Each of the backup that we provided to you, just to clarify, option a, option b, and option c deal with the 3,000 registered count. We have an addition to that, a document called special requests, and that is from the precinct judges in those particular precincts that are requesting a polling place location change that in some cases requires the precinct line to be redrawn. That's why it's being brought up today.
>> would you repeat that?
>> sure. The special requests backup item that you have, there are five of them, and those recommendations come from the precinct judges. They are requesting a polling place change, and the reason we're discussing it is because the polling place change would require a boundary line to change of those particular precincts. And the last item in your backup is called boundary line realignment, I think. And that particular item is dealing with the fact that our maps in two cases differ from the Texas-led council map. Little bitty lines in each area need to be changed. It affects no voters at all. Again, this is the only time we can do this by Texas election law. We have -- the 15 precincts we have invited comments from the election judges, precinct chairs, political parties, some neighborhood associations. We sent out about 75 or so letters requesting feedback, how would you like us to look at your precinct. We also invited them to a meeting on March 23rd and had a few precinct judges show and the democratic party, local party had a representative. And from feedback from also meeting with each member of the court, we came up with option a. Now, option a in your backup is essentially our recommendation because it affects essentially only four new precincts and about 17,000 voters.
>> we had an option a in our backup.
>> yes, sir.
>> as of a few days ago.
>> yes, sir.
>> are we given another option a today?
>> we just handed you a brand-new one because precinct 225 and precinct 2 had a recommendation from Commissioner Sonleitner, and that is the only change in what we just provided to you right now. The only change in there.
>> and we ought to use the option a handed out today.
>> yes, sir, option a handed out today. Option b is just that, it gives another look at that recommendation. Option c came from precinct judges at our March 23rd meeting. We're still holding true to option a and what we want to do today is really give you just sort of an update where we're at and then to request a public hearing, I need to mention a public hearing is not required. Travis County has always just provided an avenue for the public to come and give you testimony if you would like.
>> we have residents here on some of these recommendations, right?
>> we have two precinct judges here on the special request items. These are two judges, 316 and precinct 320, and they are recommending changes. Those are related to the special requests.
>> can we discuss those first?
>> absolutely.
>> 316 and 320?
>> kim is going to give you a little background. She's the one that got most of the input from the judges.
>> 320, let me start with precinct 320. Precinct judge tom broils submitted a request. They do not have a consistent polling place that they feel comfortable using. They felt or they suggested moving the precinct line to cut the local activity center in half so they can use it for both 319 and 320. Most of the 320 residents have been voting in the regular activity center for elections where we could combine it. We were not able to do so in the presidential because it was not within the boundary line so this is something the community is familiar with. If you would like to hear from mr. Broyles, he is available.
>> the staff recommendation is for 319 and 320, both at the Lakeway activity center.
>> yes, sir. The line would cut through the middle of the building. It's an activity center with a large exhibit hall and so they would essentially have for elected presidential election, they would have one end hall for 319 and the other end of the hall for 320.
>> have we done this before?
>> yes. Kiker elementary, steiner ranch, jester hall, wells branch.
>> as far as we know it works.
>> yes, sir.
>> if not well, it's worked fine.
>> let me just -- yes. Let me mention that the special requests we're just bringing to you directly from the request requesters. We don't have an option a, it's just a request from the community to make a change. And what we've provided for you in that backup is just more information. If we were to make the change, what would the resulting difference be. So we don't have recommendation really either way other than in this particular case it costs really nothing because we're just going to cut the building in half. In some of these buildings it does require a brand-new precinct.
>> 319 has been held at the Lakeway activity center.
>> yes, sir.
>> and the recommendation is to add 320 at the opposite end of the same building.
>> correct.
>> and there are questions or concerns about that?
>> no. We're in agreement.
>> oh, you are in agreement.
>> he proposed it.
>> he proposed it, judge.
>> so y'all are in agreement.
>> yes.
>> that makes it easy. And there's another one that's not so ease eye it's a little more complicated. Three are three precincts -- do we have a map? Here we go. 308 and 316 -- should I submit the whole plan?
>> let me back up. Option a lists precinct 308 as a problem precinct. It has over 3,000 registered voters. It sits up near burnet county. We cannot move voters essentially without affecting the ajaning precinct, which is 316. So we're recommending to split the precinct so that we can reduce the number of registered voters. One of the things that mr. Warmouth is bringing to our attention may fix 308 and also help 316. That's what the special request does. What it does essentially is it takes a pocket of people in 308, moves them to 316. But to do that, the count would be over 3,000. And you've got a map there to show you. A little pocket comes down, stays within 316. The number in 316 goes up and we have to cut the precinct. So the result is you are going to have a new precinct whether you go with option a or the special request. And the special request is to -- is to make the -- let me break down again. 316.
>> the majority of the population for 316 is in that little pocket that is Lakeway. And so we basically use the general dividing line of highway 71 to lop off that top portion, and there is a polling place right within the Lakeway area so now they are not having to drive across 71 to go vote. It's right within their area. And it's the trophy creek m.u.d.
>> yeah.
>> on trophy lane. Okay. So the result is in the special request, should you approve it, it fixes the problem in 308. By creating a brand-new precinct, moving voters down to 316, and you also are able to accommodate the special request from the Lakeway area.
>> why do we call it a special request now?
>> because 316 doesn't have over 3,000 registered voters. If we left 316 alone, it would be just fine. The problem is 308. They just happen to be right next to each other. We can't move people out of 308 without affecting the number in 316. So this sort of just kind of came together with the special request. And I have to mention to you the election precinct judge in 308 looked at this and said yes, it makes sense. I would like to you leave me alone, don't do anything, but if you have to do something, then I?m okay with the 316 recommendation.
>> 308 has to get fixed because it's over 3,000.
>> exactly. Well, it would be either creating four precincts total or just shifting a few people and now just having three.
>> and this involves -- been in contact with the precinct chairman 308 and he would rather -- that would be the best for him, but he understands that it's really fixing the issue so he is not, you know, totally opposed to it.
>> right.
>> well, we are moving 683 people from 308 into 316?
>> 357 voters from the southwest part of 308 to 316. To be able to handle the -- to be able to correct, rather, the 308 over 3,000 registered voter count. The map that's attached to the special request sort of gives you an idea of what it would be doing. On the last page. The other two special request items, if I may, it's simply just to -- the first one for precinct 239 is to keep voters from having to travel across from burnet road to create a brand-new polling location for them. I?m sorry, to move that little pocket of people over to another precinct so they wouldn't have to cross a busy intersection to get to their polling location. That's 239. It doesn't create new precincts, all it does is move a pocket of people over.
>> I can speak to this one since this is really close to where my house is. We've been involved in this particular one. Somehow we got a little disconnected piece of allen dale that somehow got attached to brentwood and we think it had problems to do with problems at a voting place because of renovation these folks had to get moved under that particular reason. But there's no reason that these folks ought to be detached from their home subdivision, which is allen dale. So this reattaches them. It's only 154 people, but those that we talked to were shocked they weren't part of the allendale precinct boxes to begin with. So this fixes a problem.
>> and again, we do -- from the redistricting scenario we are trying very hard to keep communities of interest together, keep subdivisions whole. And again, as Commissioner Sonleitner is mentioning, this does address that. The other two, precinct 375, Commissioner Daugherty, we talked to you in great deal about this one -- detail about this one. We have two distinct areas. In precinct 375 you've got the Cedar Park area, and then you have the deer creek area that's very distinct, two separate communities, if you will, within one precinct. Volente. And they are having to travel a great distance to their polling location. The special request, as we don't have anyone here from this particular precinct today, but the request is to split the precinct so that they would have a polling location close to their communities. Cedar Park and volente, as you know, are a great distance apart. And that's precinct 375. Again, we have no recommendation for you. It's just a request directly from the precinct judge in that area.
>> and that would create, you know, the need for spending, you know, an additional 20 grand?
>> yes.
>> we have enough equipment until we get into a federal election. Once we get into the gubernatorial in November, we'll need to purchase more equipment for these polling places. And then we'll have ongoing costs. It costs about $2,000 per precinct to man the supplies and support for a precinct. So we'll have some ongoing costs.
>> they are one-time costs, just $21,000.
>> but given that we are combining -- I mean we are picking up some expenses in what we're doing with some of the other places, I mean it's --
>> four new precincts created. So we would have to be able to equip those for a federal election.
>> I think what was really telling is when roger williams was here, our new secretary of state, this is one of the things we're bringing to their attention of why we need 5,000 as the new high end in terms of a mandatory split. All but two of these splits would go away if we could just get the 4,000 and every single one of them goes away when we get to five. We have quite a few precincts that are less than 1,000 people that could easily be recombined and there's capacity to spare simply because there is such good, established records here in Travis County and other large urban counties related to early voting. There is capacity to spare on election day. So these things make sense.
>> we totally agree with you. Precinct 378 is a special request, and we would -- to keep the subdivision whole. Their request is to have two essentially -- a new polling location to be able to handle -- to keep the river place subdivision whole. The new polling place would be just river place. This is not a new precinct. All it would be doing is create a brand-new polling location for 378, but it does require some boundary line adjustments in that area to be able to accommodate that. And that's the request from 378. And we don't have a represent I have here. You may in a couple of weeks, but not today. So those are the special requests. The boundary line adjustments already -- we've got two precincts that we need to adjust the lines slightly to be able to conform to the Texas l hr-pblg map. Option a, it's our recommendation, again, it's creating four new precincts. It affects about 17,000 voters, of which all would be getting notices. If you did approve this option, they would be getting a special notice with their certificates in December of this year also telling them about their polling location and where that would be. All of these changes, they are all in effect January 1, 2006 for the new voting year. We would continue at our current precinct polling locations for this year.
>> 375 and 378, there is no recommendation from you. We have before us requests from citizens.
>> directly from the community, yes, sir.
>> let me just make sure I?m understanding what's going on on this special request on 378. We actually had a little piece of river place subdivision that was attached to a precinct that voted over off of courtyard?
>> right.
>> the church is newly built. You can only access the church from the very front road of the subdivision, and yet it's technically -- because that road is the dividing line, it's technically in another precinct. So now they are making the boundary line on the other side of the church so the church is included so we now have a polling place right there as they enter the community.
>> super.
>> appreciate your complete agreement.
>> that one makes total sense. I was just making sure I understood what was being done. Okay.
>> would any of you like to give testimony today?
>> but you don't need to, tom.
>> no, I don't care to. If it's clear to you all.
>> we're all in agreement with them.
>> absolutely. [inaudible] coming up with a solution.
>> so that's my report for you today is essentially 15 precincts have to be looked at. Our option a is to handle those special requests or site items directly from the community. We're bringing them forward to you and just giving you background information. And the boundary line adjustments affects two small precincts.
>> we have no requirement for a public hearing, but we're having one anyway.
>> I would recommend it simply because we've done it -- in the 14 years i've been here you've wanted to do that just to get public input.
>> have we advertised the public hearing?
>> yes, sir. You advertise understand the local paper -- advertised in the local paper.
>> so you would advertise it when?
>> I believe -- in Sunday's paper. Not this Sunday but the following Sunday, we'll advertise it this that paper usually, but we can certainly do whatever you recommend. We do place public notices as well at our building and here, in the courthouse. So that's essentially how we've handled public hearings in the past.
>> so that would be the 10th and the 17th and we would have the public hearing on th 19th.
>> 19th.
>> just to sum up what the proposal would be in terms of what we would be put out there for the public hearing is it's option a with the exception of the special request related to precinct 308, 316 --
>> 320.
>> yeah, those three things there. And -- but all of the special requests would be the controlling document.
>> yes.
>> and the boundary line adjustments that you have put on here that are necessary from redistricting.
>> right.
>> and option a.
>> that's it.
>> with the exception of the special work list.
>> is that something that -- we know what it means.
>> the election code talks about finding suitable polling location for each precinct. And it also mentions if you've got to do any boundary line changes to encompass that suitable polling place, this is the only time you can do it, it's every other year.
>> let me ask this, then. What if a citizen request, did she -- citizens request, no recommendation by staff. I mean shouldn't people know that?
>> sure. Traditionally we have just brought those directly to you and had you make --
>> we'll have to make the decision after the public hearings.
>> but we'll be glad to recommend.
>> if I were a resident of precinct 375 and interested in the [indiscernible], then I would like to know that at least you have given notice that we recommended this change on 375, the staff is not recommending it.
>> okay. We will definitely post it as special requests and those that are recommended we'll go ahead and indicate those.
>> and when we say special requests, average resident would understand that. Or would they be able to [indiscernible]. If we say citizens request or request from citizens, everybody in the world would understand it, I think.
>> very good.
>> part of our advertising is to put the public on notice on exactly what we're doing.
>> kind of like changes that are triggered by the mandate to keep precincts below 3,000 and others that are --
>> [indiscernible].
>> I like. That.
>> I don't -- if we're trying to put the average person on notice of exactly what the public hearing is about, citizen recommendations makes more sense to me.
>> i'll tell you, personally speaking, if it -- cost is not a factor, I would recommend them all. They make perfect sense. But two communities, Cedar Park and volente are very far apart for precinct 375. I would recommend that if it didn't cost $21,000 to set up a precinct. But it makes good sense. You want to be able to vote in your community.
>> now, 239, there is no cost.
>> 239, 378, and 320, all of them are cost neutral.
>> what's the answer to the residents' question why does it cost so much? We're 2,000 for the equipment.
>> no, 2,000 is the ongoing cost for staffing, supplies, support. But equipment, we base it on an average of about seven units of equipment per polling location. And if you look at the 17,000 voters affected, we're pretty much right on target at about $3,000 per unit and 100 people can vote on a unit in a day, we're right on target with the $21,000.
>> six or seven pieces of voting equipment that cost about 3,000 apiece. You get to 20,000 quite quick.
>> yes, you do.
>> judge, one of the things that I think that everybody needs to understand is that we did have the information that you all saw with regards to what early voting was. And early voting continues to grow. And some of these areas, I think in the 375s and the 378s, I mean it's always been high in the Lakeway area, but you are talking about 60 to -- as high as, you know, in the high 60s that voted early. Which is reason I would like to talk to the people in the volente and Cedar Park area. From truly just a numbers standpoint, I mean a cost standpoint, you really do ask, I mean is that what you want your government to do? I mean I?m asked more often can government run more cost effectively. And efficiently. And what I may try to steer them into, I realize if you live over here, you don't want to have to drive to sroe lane taeu because, quite frankly, that's where the people have to drive right now. But I think reasonable people will say given that we are voting in such high numbers of early voting, does it make sense for us to spend $20,000 to create, you know, another voting place. So I mean I will have time , you know, to talk to some of these folks before the public hearing, and I would think that obviously you are always going to have some people that say, well, i'd rather vote down the street. I mean if given the option. But, you know, I?m confident that people will be reasonable, I mean if you lay it out and say this is a cost development we may be able to do away with all of this if we can get the 5,000.
>> or if they get create tpheuf terms of some of the pilots discussed by the state legislature about whether the combined early voting locations are still in play on election day, which would mean that you don't have to go racing back to get to your home precinct, that you might be able to find something that's closer and still have all the security in place related to somebody being able to cast only one vote, thank you very much, with realtime records of who is walking into the system.
>> move that the report be received as presented. And that we schedule a public hearing for April 19th, 2005. That will be at 9:00 a.m.
>> okay.
>> and that will be advertised appropriately. Seconded by Commissioner Daugherty. Discussion? All in favor? That passes by unanimous vote.
>> thank you for your ideas. That's where the really great idea on this one came from. Thank you.
>> thank you.
>> and thanks for the job you all have done. You all really do a nice, very professional job in coming in and laying all this stuff out. Nice job.
>> you are very welcome.
>> to all of you.
>> thanks.
The Closed Caption log for this Commissioners Court agenda item is provided by Travis County Internet Services. Since this file is derived from the Closed Captions created during live cablecasts, there are occasional spelling and grammatical errors. This Closed Caption log is not an official record the Commissioners Court Meeting and cannot be relied on for official purposes. For official records please contact the County Clerk at (512) 854-4722.
Last Modified:
Wednesday, April 6, 2005 10:20 AM