Travis County Commissioners Court
Tuesday, June 21, 2011 (Agenda)
Item 27
Item number 27, consider and take appropriate action on redistricting of Travis County Commissioners court precincts, including.
a, a presentation on proposed map for county Commissioner precincts for public review and commentb, to use the lake trast is department center for public hearing.
I move approval of b.
Lake Travis isd education development center.
pretty simple?
>> yes.
>> was that a second?
>> second.
>> discussion on b?
motion to approve, I guess we apply and they waive the fee, right?
>> yes.
>> all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
now a.
thank you, consultants and legislative liaison office.
we had hoped to get this item earlier but did not.
>> good morning judge Biscoe and members of the court.
deeseeckstein, intergovernmental relation coordinator for the county.
as member of the court know, last fall, first of all, after ever ten year redistricting the court is required to redraw the boundaries for the Commissioners court precincts themselves and the election precincts.
the court may also redraw boundaries for the constable and justice of the peace precincts.
last April the court hired rolando rias and associates and his team in order to guide the court through that process.
as part of that process, asked the team to come up with several potential maps for Commissioners court precincts and to get public input on that.
we now have those maps and the action we're asking from the court today is not to approve a map in the sense of it being final or any expression of the court's final decision, but rather to approve maps that we can put out to the public for public comment at series of hearings we're going to hold next week.
I'd like to now turn it over--
>> before you go there, deese, there is a letter that came out yesterday discussing the three maps that we're going to be discussing here probably today, 82, 87 and 88.
however, in the write-up you have indicated some dates there.
one is within the schedule of what the Commissioners court agreed on, which is July 12.
but you also indicated in the letter that July 5 date, that July 5 date is something that was not a part of the schedule per se, but you kind of laid it out as far as letting the court look and then send it out to public.
>> yes, sir.
>> that is the problem I have.
it wasn't a part of the schedule.
I planned my leave based on the schedule of this redistricting.
July 5 was not mentioned anywhere.
>> right.
>> so I have planned to be off on July 5, mr. Eckstein, of course, you threw it in there and that kind of confused me.
especially when I'm trying to take off on such a critical matter, no way in the world I want to be absent when it comes to redistricting.
so my question is, why was that date thrown in there.
of course, I think everyone is aware that I was going to take off on July 5.
so, but yet a its in the backup as being one of the days that we will need to look at.
>> I apologize for that Commissioner.
not aware you were going to take that day or that week off.
I apologize--
>> all I'm trying to say is that my schedule--
>> right.
>> my schedule is following the dictates of what has been scheduled that this court approved.
you threw a curve at me on that.
of course, I just need to bring that out.
>> right.
>> so I'm just, we need to address that.
I really don't plan to be here.
of course, with such a critical part of this process as I am in a minority representative on this court, mr. Deese, I want to be sure I look at this very thoroughly.
and whatever is before this court I want to be sure I'm a part of as far as what comes out.
I want you to be aware of that and if you can back that up to July 12 where the public hearing will be held as we dictated sphar the schedule, I think that would be appropriate.
>> where I was coming from, Commissioner, and you raise a problem, and I'll ask the court if it can figure out how to fix it--
>> it's not court's decision.
the court has already adopted a schedule.
the schedule didn't say anything about July 12.
you put that out there.
>> it's the court's practice before it announces a public hearing to sort of schedule the public hearing to say what the agenda is.
it was in that context and only in that context that I suggested that maybe the court would look at a map the week before, say this is what we want to have public comment on on the 12th.
I suppose the court could decide to go into the meeting on the 12th with a map that they have not had a chance to look at as a court and pass on.
that really is at the pleasure of the court.
I apologize, Commissioner, for the confusion about the July 5 date.
I understand how important that is.
I'm open to any discussion that you or the member of the court have about whether you want to have a chance to approve a map or the public comment session on the 12th.
the meeting on the, as judge Biscoe has indicated to me, the meeting on the 12th the first item on the agenda will be the put in hearing.
>> that is fine.
I have no problem with that.
>> right.
>> my problem is--
>> with the fifth.
>> I looked at that schedule very carefully.
when the court approved it, I said oh, I can squeeze some time in right here.
and I ask that.
but of course, when you threw this in there, that kind of put a damper on things.
in fact, you know, maybe other court members may be taking off all during this process.
but I wanted to make sure I'm here.
>> sure.
>> Commissioner, I actually had scheduled my vacation for Monday the 11th but I'm actually coming back on the 12th because there is going to be difficulty in scheduling this.
>> I'm going to be here on the 12th.
I set it up.
>> e we all have scheduling issues and we were aware there was going to be this one voting session between the final public hearing, which is in precinct one on the 30th, that is out in the precinct, and this public hearing on July 12.
>> it's an issue.
>> why don't we discuss this what is posted to discuss and we'll deal with the scheduling issue.
>> thank you judge.
>> let me turn it over to george corbel who is part of the rios consulting team for the three maps he is going to present today.
>> may it please the court, my name is gorge korbel.
I have been involved in redistricting since 1972 when david richards and Commissioner Eckhardt's and oscar mosi, all of us drew the first line for single member district between north and south Austin.
we have been drawing that line seems to me ever since.
it's actually kind of fun to think back on what it was like back then.
the reason that I like to do redistricting is because I get a chance to sit with a lot of people and listen to a lot of reasons and stories and justifications and learn a lot about the communities.
I actually did live here in Austin in the '80s, in the early '80s for several years, so I'm familiar with the city at least as the 1980s.
when I'm going to represent a group like this and not plaintiffs litigating a lawsuit, the first thing I do is look at the current plan.
I look at the current plan and ask myself, what would I do if we weren't concerned with the voting rights act.
what would I do to make it look more cleaner and make more logical sense.
and the first thing that I looked at was this line here.
see if we can straighten out that line.
then looked at this border between north Austin and south you Austin.
and looked at straightening this out so it was a little more logical.
then I looked at the numbers and the voting rights act issues dealing with the voting rights act.
we have two precincts, number two and number one, which are, which would be within themselves the population deviation.
so the easiest thing to do would be to leave those two precincts alone.
easiest thing to do.
and to make all of the changes between number 4 and number 3.
that would be the easiest thing to do.
so I looked at that.
if we had to make all the changes between Commissioners precinct 4 and precinct 3, we couldn't preclear that plan with the department of justice.
so then we went back and sat down with Commissioners and talked to, I got chance to talk to all the Commissioners at least once and some now several times.
the first thing that I thought we could do would be to, let me put this plan over and hold on a second.
we met with the Commissioners.
and looking at the number, the only place that the black community seems to be--
>> you're trying to suggest we need a new stand there?
>> if that is the worse problem I have, I have no problems. What we tried to do, we tried to we look at the numbers.
one place--
>> he needs a microphone.
>> sorry.
the only place in the county where blacks or african americans are increasing in population is up here in the Pflugerville area.
so I met with Commissioner Davis and his consultants and I also met with Commissioner Eckhardt.
and Commissioner Eckhardt was obviously not happy about the thought of perhaps losing some or all of flug.
but it seemed to me that is the only way we could keep the african american numbers much higher.
and I should say higher.
and we drew a number of different plans.
and the current plan, basic plan upon which all these other ones are drawn, is a choice that I made.
that is including Pflugerville in Commissioners precinct one and then drawing a narrow line, a narrow quarter through here to pick up the metro park so we can put that back in number 2.
so we are not cutting in e tro park off from number 2.
>> that is the northeast metro park.
>> yes, sir.
>> and the narrow line, as far as that wax overlay, that narrow line is just precinct 113?
>> no, it's two precincts.
it's precinct, part of 110, 112, and 153.
and that is 110, 112, 153.
to tie precinct 203 back into number 2.
>> that corresponds to which one of the maps?
>> corresponds to all the maps.
>> okay, 110, 112, 153.
>> yes, parts of 110, 112, 153.
and if you it actually goes along 734 and then brad bury avenue.
that is the way the split is made.
in looking at this year hear, --here, icaed with yellow lines the areas changing, in order to draw this line straighter, we're moving some precincts from number two into one and one into two.
this actually increases the black percentage by a significant amount, by drawing this line straight, by making it look more rational, it actually increases the numbers.
and that is from precinct one to three, one to on two, I should say, we move 212, 213, and from two to one, excuse me, we move that from two to one.
and from one to two we move we move 162, 116, 161.
we move that from two to one and from one to two I should say.
and from two to one we move 211 and 213 to keep the line straight.
coming down the border, Commissioner precinct one, we make a change, regular izethis line .
that moves precinct 123 into Commissioner precinct four and parts of 124.
>> 129.
>> excuse me, yes, 129.
>> all right.
>> that is essentially the decimal on the top, springdale and lugen avenue.
that is essentially what this is.
and so because we moved so much of Pflugerville out of Commissioners precinct two, two then was short of population.
and we looked at adding a series of precincts here from three into two d in some of the maps there's one more than this and some are less.
all of them are important because we have to reduce the population on precinct 3 in order to come to deviation.
by taking population out of three, between two and three, we then are going to make et somewhat easier to exchange the necessary remaining population between four and three.
I have a meeting with Commissioner Huber and Commissioner Gomez tomorrow, and I'm in hopes that we can come close to coming up with a way to divide this that makes a lot of sense as far as the court is concerned and also helps us with the voting rights act.
>> as far as the precinct three voting precincts that are in play, the ones that are in play are 346, 376, 77, 78 and 79?
>> yes, and 345.
>> and 345.
>> and also the possibility of 376.
>> okay.
>> the more we can move out of there, the easier it is to come to population deviation.
the other maps with simply slight changes to this.
this is one of the ways that someone in Commissioner Huber's office saw it.
and that would be to prove precincts 315 and 302 into Commissioners precinct four, and then remove precincts 422 and 424.
then precincts 462, 427, 422 moved from four and put that in number three.
now, there are some, there is a possibility that something like that might work, but it does significantly reduce the hispanic population in Commissioners precinct four so we would have to be very careful of that.
I probably would in this format, I probably would recommend against it.
I hope that we can meet and come up with a way to, there are a couple of precincts that I would recommend being changed.
>> excuse me.
>> yes, ma'am.
>> we have had three conversations with you on this.
and what you just talked about moving was only part of a total component that we talked about.
I just want to say that for the record.
each time it seems to get confused.
>> we're moving from, from three to four we're moving 302, 310 and 315?
>> yes.
>> I think that was brought out.
and then from four to three, we would be moving 421, 422, 437 and 462.
>> yes.
>> I think that is--
>> trying to align some of the voting areas together is what we were trying to do.
>> and I understand that.
unfortunately we got to increase the population in four and decrease the population in three.
and with redistricting there's almost always a way to do it that satisfies everybody.
in all the time I have been doing this, we have always been able to satisfy everybody.
I'm in hopes that we will be able to come up with a plan that everybody can live with.
all right.
>> that would certainly be within the act.
>> certainly within the voting rights act.
>> that is most important.
>> yes.
the next alternative.
>> I think that is 82.
>> okay.
the next alternative, everything we talked about alone, not make the changes yet between three and four, but include parts of Commissioners precinct 106 into precinct four.
>> what did that run from?
106 all the way up to 90?
from what point?
>> up to 290.
>> all right.
>> and excludes a small community.
>> runs up to 290.
>> yes, sir.
>> Commissioner Davis is concerned about that.
and I understand because his metro park is over there.
and he has a lot of projects over there.
but moving this out of Commissioners precinct one would increase his numbers slightly.
and it would improve the population numbers on r Commissioners precinct four death in terms of total and in terms of minority concentration.
but that is something there is no agreement on.
>> right.
and let me just say publicly, Commissioner Davis, the depiction of ge 88 map.
>> yes, sir.
>> I'm publicly letting you know that I'm opposed to it whole heartedly.
I think the southern boundary has been a long time and we did some modification to the southern boundary.
and it was basically made and reflected to assist precinct four and ge map 82, and I want folks to really understand what that actually does as far as precinct four is concerned, printr precinct 129, which is adjacentant to 427, for precinct four, actually what that does at Leander, precinct four on the southern boundary would be extended from that point instead of where it used to be at the oak springs dividing line.
it's given a common type relationship.
but it also gives in the precinct 123, which of course that is a long-time precinct that precinct one has had for a long time.
anyway, the southern boundary around the johnson high school area.
folks don't really understand where that is.
that is the johnson high school and all that area right there.
what happens is that 129, from the Leander street south toward 123 over to terry street will be added to Commissioner, to the rendering, which is in map 82, not only do that but also include precinct 123.
so it would just be a straight sweep south of that and then a little portion of that south of that line on airport.
and also munson.
the whole area.
that is in 82 but basically the boundaries would still remain the same on the south.
so again, in way in the world I'm going to support this 88 map ge 88.
no way in the world I will support it.
thank you.
>> Commissioner, I appreciate that.
the only reason I bring it up is because Commissioner Gomez is interested in that.
but the real reason is that the department of justice gets a submission, first thing it does is it hands it to some gis technicians.
if there's any question about the submission, and certainly in all urban counties, they hand it to the gis technicians and ask them without doing anything else how good a plan could you draw.
>> well--
>> then they ask the county, if there's something that sticks out, why didn't you do that.
so whether the precinct 106 is going to be in precinct number one or number four, we need a record of why it's one place or the other.
>> right now it's in one.
>> one, correct.
>> we'll see what we can do to try to retain and make it stay there.
>> I'm just saying the first thing the department of justice is going to do is ask about that.
so we need to have a record.
>> I hope they ask more than just what Commissioner Gomez is suggesting.
>> they are pretty good about that.
>> there are other things to be considered.
>> yes, sir.
I want to be sure we have a record so that your arguments and hers are clearly here so that we can justify whatever we end up doing.
and that will certainly also be the case--
>> I didn't know Commissioner Gomez was interested in.
>> absolutely because 101 has a concentration of hispanics.
and by moving that to four, it will increase the percentage of african americans in precinct one, which I have stated several times I'm interested in helping you because the numbers seem to be lowering for african americans in the city.
let me finish, Commissioner.
>> go ahead.
>> I think by putting 106 in precinct four it will increase the percentage of african americans in precinct one.
and I certainly want to, my intention is to help you maintain that number.
>> right.
let me say this to you, Commissioner.
I thought by extending our old traditional line, which has never been done before, 123, for example, giving up part of 129, that was a good gesture as far as assisting.
but no way in the world I was intending for you to come forward above that line.
but however, let me make sure you understand the situation as far as 101 is concerned.
101 has a significant black population.
that is Austin colin and all those other folks.
if you look there's quite a few practice folk that preside in 101.
and 101 is just south of 106.
so the black population is already there.
and if you look at the numbers, let me show you what the numbers are.
in map 82, the one that gave you 123 and things like that drawn to trajectory with 123 and make you a lot wholer south from 129 on down, let's look at what we are really talking about here.
okay.
with map 82, the first one, where 106 is still within the boundary.
>> the current.
>> you still have 56.2 percent hispanic population represented in that scenario.
>> you had you.
>> that is not more than 106.
you have your numbers there in that scenario .
we have 20.4 population.
so you have your numbers in map 82.
you have those numbers.
so again, I know that, I don't know what the public is going to say about this, especially the folks in the park springs neighborhood association, all the other folks where we did a lot of those projects over there.
I don't know what they are going to feel about that.
I don't know if they would want this taken out of precinct one and given to four.
I'm saying with the 106, I don't know what they are going to say.
but there's a public hearing that is gib to be here.
I hope this court adheres to what the people are saying publicly, what they are actually saying publicly as far as what they want.
I think it's very important for us to get public inpow what they want.
again, I have given a lot in that regard for your numbers, still at 56.2 percent hispanic.
and that is significant.
thank you.
>> am I reading this correct that in 82 and 87 have 20.4 african american, and that 88 would be 20.6.
>> yes, that is right.
>> it would be a slight increase in terms of african american population.
>> I would like to add the reason why the percentage in all these maps is what it is, all three maps include you taking all of Pflugerville.
which I mean, we all have to give a little to get a little.
>> am I correct in thinking this conversation will take quite a bit longer?
>> I think so.
>> I'm thinking it will probably be best to go to lunch and come back this afternoon.
if our schedules will allow that.
will you be able to come back?
>> I'm here all day.
>> rather than trying to rush through.
may as well give the time necessary to discuss it.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> how is that?
that way we can get back at say 1 clong --1:30.
>> sure.
>> I would feel better doing that.
over lunch now I'm looking at, I'm hearing and I see you pointing to various voting precincts, but the maps I have are not really that specific.
so do we have available maps that really have the voting precincts that we can follow you?
>> what is specific are these insets we have set up.
>> do we have the same set that you have?
>> I believe you do.
>> it would help, if you refer to option 1, if option 1 has four maps, then if we can have just 1 a, 1 b, 1 c, 1 d, see what I'm saying, and option 2, if we can have the maps clearly marked and whatever alphabet, we can be sure we follow up.
>> what I intend to do at public hearing is to have insets on these so we can see what is actually done.
>> that will be important to the residents who come out.
>> yes, sir.
>> my guess is each of them will probably be concerned about his or her voting precinct.
>> sure.
>> so they will come with a number and be able to, and hope to find it on one of the maps.
okay.
>> judge, let me, can I stay one more thing before you break for lunch.
>> all right.
>> these maps are really not 1, 2, 3, 88, 89, 90, whatever they are, but these are numbing different choices that seem to make sense to me and after talking to the exist--Commissioners, make sense to the Commissioners.
>> not all of them.
don't say that.
>> they are optional.
>> right.
>> not all of them.
>> clearly we have preferences.
>> okay.
figure out a way for us to be anible to follow you as you discuss the various options.
>> if I can speak is to that, judge.
>> let's get it done between now and when we come back.
>> we will prepare print out copies for after lunch.
>> if there are some we can trash or recycle.
>> not there yet.
>> all right.
>> make I make a request to, I know this exists, I just don't have it.
the current percentages as the precincts are currently drawn.
I think that will tell the story under voting rights act why we e have to do the horse trading that we do.
because it does make, it does make some sense, after you look at what the black population and hispanic population and why it resides currently in the precincts, and what kind of horse trading george is proposing in order to get us to a better percentage.
>> we'll get all that together for the members the court.
>> come back at 1:30 or 1:45?
>> 1:30 is fine.
>> move that we recess.
>> second.
>> all in favor .
that carries unanimously.
Before we recessed for lunch, we were discussing item nup 27--number 27, the matter involving the redistricting of Travis County Commissioners court precincts.
we had approved b, the public hearing at Lakeway.
the Lake Travis isd educational development center.
and we're discussing axe, the presentation over a proposed map for Commissioner precincts.
>> my I proceed?
let me make a remark if I can.
before the break the members of the court asked for some of the information that george korbel had with respect to some of the proposalsen what precincts is moving from where to where.
so over the break we provided to your offices about a 12-page back-up that has maps and submaps of what some of the different things being discussed in those proposals.
we also have, and I'll pass out to the members of the court, maps of the current voting precincts.
they are a little small and hard to read because we happen to be a big county, but hopefully this will be of some help to the court as mr. Korbel continues his presentation.
>> okay, thank you.
>> may I proceed?
>> yes, sir.
>> .
did your name change over lunch, or is it mr. Korbel.
or core bell.
>> either one.
>> with a name like eckstein, you would think that he would get your name right sooner or later.
>> sooner or later judge.
>> judge, before I proceed, I want to make sure.
I may have been misunderstood.
when I talked about this swath between three and four that Commissioner Huber had talked about, and I said that I wouldn't recommend it, it's not that it's not a good idea.
it's that Commissioners precinct four is so short on population that I don't think we're going to be able to figure out way to do any swap.
I think we're going to have to figure out how to get more population into precinct four.
that is what I'm saying.
I guess also I would say, obviously, there's no way to hash this out now.
and if you want me to, I can go through these charts one by one.
if you take the first page, all of the maps have this change right here in between number 1 and number 4.
that is laid out in this chart, the change between number 1 and number 4.
all the maps have that.
and part of precinct, moving all of precinct 123 and I think part of what is 126.
>> the media wants you to have that microphone before you.
>> sorry, judge.
it's moving all of precinct 123 and part of precinct 126.
and that is what this represents this chart.
>> you mean 129.
>> I'm sorry.
>> 123 and 129.
>> yes.
>> actually the southern boundary of 129.
>> what would now be the southern boundary, right.
>> right.
actually part of the southern boundary.
>> yes, we have that on the map, Commissioner.
does anybody have questions about that change?
>> the only thing I'd like to say on the change, of course with that change that we gave, and that is reflected in the ge map 82, with that particular change, it gave, I think earlier I stated, with map 82 it gave Commissioner Gomez 56.2 percentage of hispanic representation without doing anything else to it.
which meets her need, but it also allows me with the situation, 20.4, with the situation I think between precinct two and precinct one.
and precinct four activity there.
that is what that map actually reflects.
>> but it depends on you taking Pflugerville to bring your numbers from 17 percent to 20 percent.
>> yes, 24 percent.
right.
>> which would then, without a swap between precinct four and precinct one, would put your population over.
>> well--
>> yes.
george?
>> let me put it like this.
if there is another exchange, if you go through this information here, and I don't know, if you go through the information and you look at the precincts that we are referring to as far as some of the overage, what we try to do to offset, and what you do is actually look at exchange of precincts, an exchange example from precinct one, we listed 160 161, 163 being exchanged, over to precinct two.
of course there are other precincts that may also be in this exchange, which really is probably depicted in the map, such as 146, 145, 137, 136, and also 148.
with those particular precincts in it also reduces the situation where by those particular figures could be at what they are because of that exchange.
so it's just not that Pflugerville is just Pflugerville per se.
we are looking that we had to also give up some precincts in order for that to happen.
so it's all across the board.
that is why I mention precinct two is because, and also precinct four, but there has to be some activity between precinct two, precinct one, and also precinct four.
>> yes, Commissioner.
the goal of course is to--
>> also 136.
I forgot to mention.
I may have not mentioned 136.
but 136, if you look in the map, it's actually residing in precinct two but really not depicted anywhere on the language that we are looking at here today.
>> the goal, Commissioner, again is to comply with the voting rights act and to try and hit some reasonable population deviation.
>> right.
>> I think to comply with the voting rights act, we had to go into Pflugerville because that is the only other pockets of black population that are still in Austin that are already not in precinct number one.
and it's logical to do that also.
and then to reduce, to draw this straight line between number one and number two, that actually reduces, I mean increases your black percentage because most of the people that are taken out are not black.
>> so where is that straight line though?
what street?
>> it's the freeway, judge.
>> that is i-35.
>> yes.
>> okay.
>> and we do this without splitting any precincts except one.
and that precinct happens to be on both sides of the freeway.
so we split it right along the freeway.
what we are trying to make it is the line is as logical as possible.
that line is depicted on two of these charts.
one of the charts is this one.
it's right down here.
and we move the university area and hide park, however that is defined, from precinct number one into precinct number two.
has the dual advantage of simplifying the map and also increasing the black percentage of precinct number one.
going on up did--
>> is the point of disagreement on what he just said, the boxes in Pflugerville?
>> I would not ultimately, just from a purely selfish standpoint I would in the like to lose Pflugerville because--
>> okay.
>> --i have a lot invested in Pflugerville.
in deference to what we need do understand the voting rights act I don't see any way around that.
but I just want to be clear that that is a sacrifice on my part.
irrespective of the fact that we need to do it in order to increase the percentage in precinct one, it doesn't change the fact it is a sacrifice for me and a fairly hefty one.
>> okay.
but as to precincts one and two, the three changes that you just mentioned, are those the only three?
>> no.
there's a change.
we talked about that and talked about the university and hyde park.
>> there's three changes, one is Pflugerville, the second is the breaker part which cleans up the lines that really is not so much about population or voting rights as it is cleaning lines.
>> come packness.
>> yes, which is a retirement under the voting rights acts.
the third category is hyde park.
>> the i-35 straight line addresses the breaker runberg issue?
>> yes, judge.
>> and at the top of the map here, under, as you can see from the red, all of this area was in Commissioners precinct two.
this is the Pflugerville area which is going to be moved into precinct one to deal with the voting rights act.
in order to maintain the park, which is in precinct 203, we have cut three voting precincts to have a corridor to tie the park in with precinct two.
the boundary where those precincts are cut is 734 and then brad bury lane as 34 turns south--at 734 turns south.
>> okay.
>> as between all the maps, I also have a number of precincts from three going to two.
and these are to make up for all the population that was lost as a result of the Pflugerville transactions.
and that would include 345, 377, 379 and 378.
>> what was the last one?
>> maybe 378.
>> okay, 377, 378, 379.
>> uh-huh.
and also maybe 378.
>> we just said 378--
>> sorry, 376.
>> okay.
>> 376.
>> are those painful to either two or three?
are you still mulling over it?
>> those are fairly painful.
from a purely political standpoint those are some seriously republican boxes, to be perfectly frank.
>> by the precinct they are.
>> and it would also sacrifice, obviously, the compactness by doing that.
but there really is no other way to accomplish that either.
that is, after looking at it and all the numbers and listening to everybody, that is what makes the most sense to me.
>> the issue there, for me, again, just to be frank, the issue is in how many of those precinct boxes I pick up, is how much that dilutes the base in comparison to how much it increases the base in precinct three.
>> all that depends on the negotiations between two and three.
everything has an effect on everything else, of course.
on this particular, on all of the maps except this particular one, which is 87, we have the line between three and four follows the current precinct line.
on this one is the one where we, where there's a discussion as to adding precincts 302, 315 and 349 into four, and then removing 422, 423 and 427.
and that is why my recommendation is that we not think about taking any more population out or any population out of precinct number four because we will never hit the population deviation.
>> the proposal is for 422, 23 and 27 to go from four to three?
>> yes.
that is one of the proposals.
the other proposal is to go in here and pull out hispanics along the line.
>> on the west.
>> between three and four.
the western part of three.
the precincts are not drawn to represent very well the minority concentrations.
and it may be that we can, and what I hope we can do, we can come up with some sort of a compromise that moves population into Commissioners precinct four but doesn't reduce the hispanic population at precinct four.
frankly, I think that can be done.
>> it's going take some work judge, down on the western side.
in the northern part, you know, I said that willing to work with the other members of the court to make sure that we came up with something that was good for everyone.
but in the process of trying to help the other members of the court, I don't want to get hurt.
so I want to look at 421, 437.
I'm not sure about 422 or 462.
but I think it takes a little bit more work for us to look at those numbers and the impact to precinct 4.
Commissioner Davis mentioned something about 65 percent this morning in precinct four.
I'm trying to look down the road ten years.
I think by the time we get there this number will probably be there.
and it's going to keep growing.
>> uh-huh.
>> but I'm willing to look at things, I'm willing to be fair to everyone.
but I also want to make sure that I'm treated fairly and that the population of hispanics is not diluted in any way in precinct four.
>> thank you, Commissioner.
then the only other change from the basic outline is in Commissioner precinct four, precinct 106.
and that is the one we had discussions about this morning.
106 has a larger hispanic population than black population at least the portions that are cut out here.
and it's logical that it would be included in four.
now, there are reasons why logic may not hold.
but we do need to figure out why it is that it's not going to be included so we can explain that to the department of justice.
because that is the first question they are going to ask, is we could have increased the black population or the black percentage in one and also increased the hispanic percentage in four by this move, and they will ask why we didn't do it.
and maybe we can come up with reasons, but I think it would behoove the court when it adopts the plan when it decides not do this, to make some findings so the department of justice can see what we are doing.
and I really hope, and I'm confident that this meeting between three and four will be productive and we'll be able to come up with a plan.
fan we can move around 10,000 population, then we will be right at population, an acceptable population deviation.
>> you mean put an additional 10 000 into precinct four?
>> yes.
>> yes.
>> I think it can be done without using 106.
>> I am trying real hard Commissioner.
>> I understand.
but it can be done.
I'd like to get them to kind of pursue that angle.
because I have kind of given up a lot of the southern boundary already, the 129, which has been traditional, you know, black precinct for a long time.
>> you had you.
>> --
>> uh-huh.
>> for years.
in fact when this line was first drawn when they started the district thing, the line running seventh street, i-35, all the way up to web webberville road, oak strings boulevard, even cut out 123, which is I don't know son high scool, which reee lict to give up.
and also 129 which is part of 127.
we in good faith I think tried to do some things which traditionally is breaking the deal from what we had done when we created this single district situation, especially for some of the african americans who did not have a chance to be in this process.
in fact had to even go on the other side to get some of those folks over there to support that.
thanks to anne richards during that time.
bottom line is we want to be sure that we as black americans, black african americans in this community, don't get shafted either.
so that is my concern of course.
I have worked with Commissioner Gomez on this southern boundary that we discussed before, which gives up the southern portion of precinct 129, which is, and of course we went through that earlier, but 129 all the way down to baum road, because that is where johnson high school is.
given them that, you know, a whole lot of things which mean a lot to us even though it's in precinct four.
those are some long-lasting relationships that we have this with those folks as far as doing a lot for that communities.
I just want to make sure that folks understand what we're talking about here and what is being given up.
of course, it does, just that concept itself, looking at the voting map of 82, ge 82, does accomplish that as far as black, 24 percent african american, of course, 56.2 percent for hispanic.
it does accomplish that.
>> the only two things that are really affecting that border, that boundary or the population growth issues and the migration that has taken place from that northern part of that boundary up northward into Pflugerville, whereas the concentration of hispanics is remaining along the border just north of that boundary as well.
so if there are two things that would affect this, more than anything else, it's just population growth of Travis County and the migration patterns of the two communities.
>> I know in in particular area, talking about east metro park, maybe talking about the people struggling with the subdivision, talking about the park springs neighborhood folks, all these folks here.
some of these subdivisions of course ten years from today may not be on line.
that is just something you forecast and may not come to pass.
bottom line is that we have done as much as we possibly can do to accommodate precinct four.
>> the only thing that I'm referring to is that the population growth and the migration patterns as of again.
--as of 2010.
what comes in the future may not change anymore, but as of 2010 that is the pattern there.
>> never can tell.
folks bounce all over the place.
thank you.
>> is this the only precinct with say a significant disagreements, between one and four?
>> 106 I thought it was.
it was 106.
>> yeah.
>> that 106 area.
>> that is the only one where there is significant agreement between wown and four?
>> between one and four, that is correct.
>> the other each of you can live with.
>> yes, I think Commissioner Huber and i, no, sorry, Commissioner, we haven't had a relationship yet.
but as far as Commissioner Eckhardt is concerned, of course we discussed that earlier, judge.
some of the hyde parks area was thrown in.
if you look at the deal, we even tried to find provision for her to make sure that she maintains northeast metro park.
to do that we had though give up a portion of 110, a portion of 112, and also a portion of 153, which carved that issue where she could continue to have me poll tan park, which I think is critical for all the court members for that to happen.
it's a big deal.
>> basically a vacant strip that keeps me connected to northeast me throw park while I give up all of Pflugerville.
>> I'm giving up a lot too, Commissioner.
we all are.
>> I have a question about map 88.
am I reading the chart correctly on the back that even with, is that 106, the disputed precinct?
even with 106, precinct four is still almost 12 percent understand populated?
>> we will have to work it out.
>> I was experimenting with that trying to figure out if we took out those precincts that number 3 had proposed and see if I could, if there was any other precincted that I would get from three going to four, actually, when the line is drawn between three and four the way it is currently, it's about a 13 percent rather than a 20 percent deviation.
>> most likely from a global perspective we'll have to look at, in order to make precinct four whole, as it were, within the ten percent deviation, we'll probably have to look at 106 and those precinct four boxes that are on the southern edge?
>> yes.
southern and western edge.
we'll have to look at all those.
that is what I hope we can do tomorrow.
>> you --uh-huh.
>> certainly both Commissioners are on the ground and know a lot about the precincts.
I have never had, I represented a lot of people and lot of redistricting and drawn a lot of plans, and I have never had one that everybody didn't eventually agree with.
>> 106 you will never get me to agree.
if 106 is in precinct one.
I willet you know that right now.
anything above the southern boundary I'm not going to agree.
>> I have called these precincts 611 and 62, one, two, three and four of course.
the reason that I use the sixes is because that is our first cut at this.
and we may go into fives and fours, but six is the first cut.
>> I wanted to be sure I was reading these charts correctly.
on the map 87 chart, there are big issues with precinct four to figure out.
looking at that, it's 7.6 percent underpopulated?
is that reading that correctly?
>> sorry, I don't have that chart in front of me.
if that is what it says.
>> I think it's 7.6 underpopulated, which puts it within the standard deviation.
but the problem is it reduces hispanic population by seven percent from what it is currents zi yes, that is the problem.
it would be easy, if these were both anglo precincts, it would be easy to make the switch.
it's going to be hard to make the switch with precinct number four the way it is.
but I'm convinced that everybody will roll up their sleeves tomorrow and we'll make big progress.
>> in terms of justification to the justice department, they look for explanation for certain actions that stand out to them.
>> usually, judge.
>> okay.
>> if there's any highlighting of a plan or submission, then the department of justice, if anybody complains or says something, they look particularly at it.
with urban, with the large urban counties, and Travis County is certainly a large urban county, they look especiallily at it.
we have never had a situation where hispanics have overrun the blacks and we lose a black elected official because of the growth of hispanics.
I think we can avoid that here in Travis County.
I think the steps that Commissioner Davis had been talking about and that Commissioner Eckhardt is working with him on, or working with us on, will do that, will preserve the black precinct.
>> when the justice department sees reduction in the minority population of a precinct, they want you to explain why you did that.
>> yes, sir.
>> and what options you had.
>> yes, sir.
and that is why this one stands out on 106.
I'm not saying you shouldn't do it.
I'm just saying this is something we have to talk about and make an informed decision o.
>> if we can't do it with 106, then our challenge is to find other areas where we may achieve the same effect.
>> that is correct.
>> and the sqe whether that can be done.
>> yes, sir.
>> and we don't know that today.
but we'll spend the next few days looking at ways to make that happen.
>> that is correct, judge.
>> deese, we need to increase your security budget?
>> I don't know, judge.
>> why do we need a security budget?
>> a little humor there, Commissioner.
>> I didn't know I had a security budget.
>> judge, think we had a phenomenal discussion here, both in terms of the complex tys and dynamics, notwithstanding any of the concerns, there's a certain legal standard we have to meet.
that is going to require some, as much negotiation among the Commissioner as possible to try to reach that.
I think to the extent the court has indicated its commitment to that, that is a good place to start from.
we also identified I think where some of the areas are that some changes have to be made.
and we may not have consensus about those yet.
what I do think we have between the three maps, judge, is a good overview of what in a sense the different issues are or where the flash points are.
and it is in that vein that the consult little and --consultants and I would recommend the court approve this so we can go forward and get public comment at the hearings schedule for next week.
>> the court members want know whether if we lay these out for residents we will be able to lay out the various court members have some issues with some of them.
right?
so you don't want to leave residents with the impresent eggs that the Commissioners court has approved these.
>> that is one of the reasons we have insisted on having more than one.
so there's not a impression the court has adopted a plan or, you know, has expressed its preference.
just from the discussion today it's clear that the court is not at a consensus about any individual plan.
>> we have used the word preliminary in the past, but I'm not sure that makes it clear to anybody that it's not the final map approved or direction because there's a lot of work to be done.
I don't know what other wording to use.
I certainly don't want to say I approve of these maps to move forward.
because that sounds like a very final--
>> maybe you could release the maps for discussion rather than approving the maps.
>> I think we need to just release them for discussion, for public discussion.
>> release the maps I think is more proper.
--appropriate.
if you are going to ask me to approve, I'm definitely not going to support 88.
releasing the maps I think would be more appropriate.
of course the public needs to look at this.
>> absolutely.
>> and see what they say.
I want to make sure that, you know, we have a lot of persons in public hearing that come before this court.
and we listen to them diligently.
we hear things in public hearings that sometimes the court may not hear before.
I want to make sure that the merit of these particular public hearings that go before the public for input, I would hope this court consider some of the things they are saying.
I hope things what it is.
I think we have a good reputation of hearing what the public is actually saying.
of course, with the presenters, I guess you guys, y'all are going to be presenting this to the public?
>> yes, sir, if you want me to do that.
>> what do you mean want you to.
that is what y'all are supposed to do, isn't it?
>> yes.
>> all right.
when you present this to the public, whoever is there really needs, in my opinion, to get the information thoroughly and make sure the information comes back accurately to the court.
I'm depending on what folks are going to be saying.
maybe they don't like the map ge 82 that I have, you know, that we have laid out here with the relationship that we have with Commissioner Gomez and as far as--
>> Eckhardt.
>> Eckhardt and as far as myself.
maybe they don't like that relationship.
maybe they say hey, Commissioner you dead wrong on this one map, blah blah blah.
but at least they would have had a chance to say something about that, and I'd like to hear those comments.
hopefully we will take those comments into heart.
maybe leaving these things alone.
at any rate let's be sure we record accurately and bring back to the court the comments that we hear from the public.
that is also going to be a leak--beacon light.
maybe the folks in Pflugerville don't want Commissioner Eckhardt to vacate Pflugerville.
I don't really know.
but of course--
>> I'm hoping they will be upset.
if they are not, then I haven't done my job for them.
>> I don't know .
maybe they don't want this thing.
you don't know until you hear what the persons will saying.
I think release the maps is the appropriate language, john.
county attorney.
as far as getting it out to the public and make sure that we take that input seriously.
the next question is how do we get the ininput?
we have people recording the event, people to take the written testimony?
how will we get a feedback from the communique from the public when thee maps are released?
>> will there be a video?
>> I'm not sure if there will be individuals yo.
--video.
there will be audio and outreach consultants as part of the contract will be taking extensive notes, name, addresses comments, and we will amalgamate into a document that all the members of the court receive.
so there will be feedback.
>> there will be a document that will be available to the persons when they come to the public hearing.
and they can have comments in writing that they have made on the particular maps before them.
is that correct?
>> that is correct.
>> am I hearing that right?
>> right.
in addition, the public testimony--
>> you're not saying the same thing.
what he is saying is there will be somebody there keeping a summary of comments given by the comment.
>> all the oral comments.
>> the public won't receive a document--
>> actually, judge, they will also, there will also be comment cards and they will have the opportunities at each of the hearings to come in and look at the maps and scribble on the comment if they want to and turn that in.
it may be some people can't stay for the whole hearing.
the consultants will provide an opportunity for people to give written comments then and there but also to give oral comments.
the oral comments will be recorded and will written down or, I don't know what the right word is.
notetaking will happen and we will turn that into a document to feed back to the court.
all those written comments and summary of the oral testimony will be given to the court.
>> okay.
have they produced such a document.
for me to look at or anybody else on the court that wants to look at it?
I want to be sure public has an opportunity to give name, address, all that.
just like you sign up for citizen communication.
whatever.
you know, da da da.
you can make your comments and all that.
but I just want to be sure it's done.
and if that is a format we are going to use.
I hear what you are saying, but maybe we are not saying the same thing.
I just want to make sure as far as my public hearings are concerned, I want to be sure there is some evidence of what people are saying is actually the fact.
instead of depending on someone else to jot down documentation written on what somebody maybe said.
you can always lose sometimes the flavor of the communique in situations sometimes like that.
but if it comes from the person themselves that is there, you don't lose that.
>> right, there will be both.
>> Commissioner Huber.
>> I wanted to ask when we were talking about slicing and dicing.
I have never been through a redistricting process before so I'm fairly naieve and I understand we want to comply with the voters rights act, number one.
I have a question looking at how to slice and device on these, is there consideration given to the geographic size and access?
I personally feel, and I would be remiss in not saying this, that the constituents in precinct three, right now 48 percent of the geographic area of the county, don't have as easy access to their Commissioner obvious of the sheer size and problems of getting out and about and on top of of that the fact that there is a river that dissects right down the bid midel and there is only one bridge across that river outside of downtown.
I have long felt like this is sort of somewhat of an unfair situation to the constituents out there.
granted, we divide by hop lages --population and have to look at vortvoter rights act.
I just wonder if that is considered as well in this process.
>> it certainly is one of considerations.
if we can get past the voting rights act issues, that certainly is something that you should consider.
unfortunately, we're stalk with --stuck with the law.
>> I should say fortunately.
>> yes, fortunately.
so we have to deal with that first.
>> I just had to say that on behalf of the constituents out there.
it's a huge access problem.
>> Commissioner Gomez?
Commissioner Eckhardt.
>> I would move that we release maps 82, 87 and 88 for public review and comment in advance of our further discussions on at least July 12 and possibly July 5 as well.
certainly July 12.
>> the most recent packet.
>> the maps in the most recent packet, the ones we have been discussing today.
>> I'll second that, judge.
but I just want to make absolutely sure the public understands this by no means means we have voted and approved these maps.
they are simply for public comment.
so just want to make sure everyone understands that.
>> also maybe i, actually there's a slight caveat.
there's couple of typos in the precincts included in the maps.
so I move that they are released subject to a little bit of edit clean-up.
>> nonsubstantive editing.
>> right.
>> any objection to that?
>> no.
>> so these are the maps that y'all recommend for releasing to the public, right?
>> yes, sir, for public comment.
>> okay.
anymore discussion on the motion?
you picked that up ms. Porter.
by the way, will we have a chance to see the public comment sign-in sheet?
>> yes.
>> we may as well see it.
>> of course.
there will be a sign-in sheet.
as I mentioned, the consultants have mentioned that we start the hearings, and next week Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, schedule is on the Travis County website.
the format of each will be a period from five to 5:30 where people come in, walk around, look at the maps, all that.
there will be comment cards available for people, sign-in sheets, that sort of thing.
but there will be comment cards available.
at 5:30 each of the Commissioners I believe will do a brief welcome of people there.
then we will have, mr. Korbel or mr. Rios will make a present 25 about the map, describe the map and take questions and comments.
that is really format for each of the four hearings.
>> okay.
this organization that is doing the outreach, what is the name?
solution?
>> group solution.
>> group solution.
they need to be made aware, I think, since they will be there also, I'm assuming.
>> Commissioner, they are going to be there.
they are running these meetings.
that is their job.
>> I'm assuming.
they are there, they need to understand there's certain documentation that we are requesting, especially the document that is lists name, address, telephone number, and this stuff.
>> right.
>> and the comments tide to that to those, that documentation because that will be the feedback that I will need.
I hope the other court members use it also.
to see exactly what the public is saying about these maps that are going to be released to the public.
I want to make sure that we are all going down the same road asking for the same thing to get the same results.
so I hope that is what we are doing here today.
>> any more discussion on the motion?
.
all in favor.
that passes by unanimous vote.
>> one more clarifying thing, judge, July 5 deal on this situation, that was not a part of the time line that we agreed on.
>> my take is that we have approved certain dates for public hearing.
let's just stick to those.
>> okay.
>> thank you.
because I scheduled myself around what was scheduled, what we approved.
>> the county does not close down because one person is absent.
so we will be conducting business every Tuesday.
but regular stuff.
so I don't know what is coming up.
but in the month of July, every Tuesday we have got only four people.
so one person will be out.
>> my question though is according to what deese is saying in his memo, is that --
>> we approved five specific dates.
here is the document.
that is what we go by.
>> and I'll be here on the 12th.
>> but I don't know what else is coming up regarding redistricting is my point.
but it won't be a public hearing on July 5.
>> we may have to consider something on July 5 in advance of July 12.
in order to release it to the public.
correct?
>> that is what deese is saying.
>> that is the question.
>> deesewon't approve this.
>> the Commissioners court will.
>> the court has to put an agenda item on.
we have to expect the unexpected.
but there won't be any public hearings other than the wunds we already approved.
I don't think we ought to tie our hands when we don't know what the future may bring.
I'm not looking for another public hearing opportunities, to be honest.
I think that if we work through these and we have those four public hearings, somebody has to be busy trying the summarize and trying the figure out what they mean.
so I don't know we will be able to make a despositive action on July 5 anyway.
so my plan would be to take that on July 12 which we already voted to do.
>> that is what i, okay.
>> yeah.
>> thanks.
>> why is it I'm the only one happy today and in total the agreement?
>> I'm go to push back a smidge on this.
I understand what you are saying Commissioner , but under open meetings act requirement, if we don't at least entertain the possibility we may have to discuss something on July 5, we go two weeks without--
>> I'll be coming over vacation.
>> I'm coming off vacation.
>> if you want to put something on the agenda.
the reason I scheduled was exactly because of the fact--
>> and you have said that.
so please let me finish what I was going to say.
>> I want to reiterate it again.
>> one at a time please so deese can understand.
>> if you go for two weeks, if the court does not have a voting item for two weeks or at least a discussion item, you increase the probability of running afoul of the open meetings act.
clearly we have to discuss among ourselves rather than two by tw.
>> I'll ask the county attorney on that when you say voting rights act.
>> mr. O'donnell.
>> that is close enough.
>> thank you for your patience.
>> the question Commissioner Eckhardt brought up, I need a response, if it does anything dealing with the voting rights act.
>> it was the open meetings act.
>> excuse me.
open meetings act.
>> may I take these?
I'll beed to leave them.
may be helpful tomorrow in our meeting tomorrow.
>> I insist that you take them.
>> thank you, judge.
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.
