Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutExhibit 8 (2)EXHIBIT 8 Redistricting Commission Recommendations RENE SIRACUSA Chair DRU MAMO KANUHA Vice Chair TO: FROM: DATE: RE: VALERIE POINDEXTER JEFFREY MELROSE JOHN "MIKE" MIDDLESWORTH PATRICK KAHA WAIOLA `A LINDA UGALDE CRAIG "BO" KAHUI JOSEPH CARVALHO 2911 HAWAII COUNTY REDISTRICTING COMMISSION Jamae K. Kawauchi, County Clerk Michael Udovic, Corporation Counsel Rene Siracusa, Commission Chair December 2, 2011 CHAIR'S NOTES FOR INCLUSION IN FINAL NARRATIVE REPORT In order to ensure that these notes can also serve as a learning experience that will benefit the people of the Big Island, County administration and County Council, I submit the following and request that this communication be included in the commission's final report. A. Obstacles faced by commission: 1. Census - The commission was legally required to use the federal data based on the 2010 Census. However, a. the island was undercounted, and it is unknown by how much /where - this means that the basic population figures were already inaccurate before the software was even created; b. the census didn't elicit answers needed for definitive extractions: the simplified census form with only five questions did not clarify the distinctions between temporary and permanent residents - thus the extractions for non - resident military/military dependents /students Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island was largely guesswork, with 271 students (zip codes only) not even assigned to specific census blocks; c. many census blocks weirdly configured (don't follow subdivision boundaries, put half of one subdivision in same block as another community, strange shapes, blocks in the middle of other blocks, etc.) Under Ordinance 11 -29 they meet the definition o€'bizaare council district shape'. Some examples in Puna alone: 15001021 - 0131214: strange shape with multiple 'appendages. 15001021 - 1061000/1001: one block embedded inside another. 15001021 - 1061003: includes a community inside an overly large unpopulated block. 15001021 - 1064055: block embedded inside another block. 1:5001021 - 1063006: part of Haw. Beaches subdivision attached to a huge unpopulated block. 15001021 - 1063048: same as above. 15001021 - 0.133045: this block surrounds 12 smaller blocks, embedding them. Recommendations: County administration should draft a letter to the U.S. Census Bureau pointing out these issues, indicating the problems they created in attempting to do a legal redistricting plan, and request that they review and revise these problems, especially the census blocks, prior to the next census. 2. late start a. The commissioners were not approved until March 31. b. The software was not available until end July. Recommendations: Because of the above two factors, the commission was cramped for time in which to do their work, and had to double up on meetings. They also had to schedule 4 public hearings in each of the council districts around the island within the month of October, and two meetings plus two hearings in November. This put a lot of strain on the volunteers and staff and may have affected the quality of the result. The county clerk should alert the county council and the administration well ahead of time to seek nominees to serve on the commission, and keeco remindine them as needed. The County Council should awrove an appropriation for the software, so that we do not have to depend on the State's negotiations or timeline. 3. ESRI software a. convoluted means of accessing for commissioners /public. b. paper roads on maps are misleading, erroneous. c. included roads, subdivisions that no longer exist (i.e-, Royal Gardens buried under lava). d. did not show all roads /streets (i.e., Shower Dr. cross- streets on north side of drive), or identify all subdivision /community boundaries. e. difficult process to print a map - or a zoomed -in portion of a map. f. County had no say in contract details between Esri and State. Recommendations: The County should be the purchaser, so that it can insist on software that corrects the above problems during the negotiation process. Since the commission came in way under budget, the future amount to be appropriated for the software could take the real costs of the commission into consideration. 4. Ordinance 11 -29 a. Alternate plan requirement (2) that plan with smallest deviation get priority, irregardless of other factors. The commission received maps with extremely small deviations that were horrible in all other respects. b. Maximum Council District Deviation (b) states that "if practicable", allowance for future growth based on past trends (which may not continue Into the future and is therefore rather nebulous compared with definitive criteria like road connectivity) be given the lowest deviation. Yet the preponderance of testimony received from the Puna residents demanded that this be ignored and the Puna population for both new Puna districts be as high as possible, or even exceeded, so that Puna residents not be disenfranchised by being 'represented' by a Hilo councilperson. There is a historical basis for this overriding sentiment. c. Maximum Council District Deviation (a): limitation to 4.9996 deviation per district as an overriding mandated priority no matter what, and despite public input that keeping communities together should be the very highest priority ( "people vs. numbers "). if commissioners are considered capable of judging how to weigh various criteria, deviations should be included, as long as the 109 overall deviation is maintained. If this commission had been allowed some flexibility with the deviations, we would not have had to compromise and sacrifice so much, and the ultimate final plan would be better configured and have wider acceptance. Recommendations: a. The ordinance should be amended to delete this alternate plan requirement. b. The ordinance should be amended to change the wording of this section, allowing the commission to use its own judgment while keeping, in general, the growth trends in mind and giving priority to public input. c. The ordinance and any other legislation on this matter should be amended to allow, with justification, deviations that exceed the 4.9991; by up to 2%, provided that the overall 10% deviation is upheld. B. Recommendations to the Hawaii County Council: Based on public input at our 12 meetings and 11 public hearings, it seems fitting that we share with the council some concerns raised by the residents so that they can each improve their representation of their constituencies. There was strong sentiment island -wide that some council members ignored parts of their districts and favored others - not accepting invitations to meetings and other events, failure to respond to letters, emails and phone calls, etc. Also that where matters involved the interface of two council districts, some councilpersons were not able to work with their counterparts to address a common identified problem. The fact that this sentiment was so prevalent island -wide should be a red flag and a wake up call for those holding political office. This commission recommends that it be taken seriously and appropriate measures taken. Final comments: As commission Chair t wish to put on record my appreciation and gratitude for the tremendous job done by staff in keeping the entire process smooth - running, legal, pleasant and efficient. I also wish to thank Mayor Billy Kenoi for not attempting to influence or micro - manage, but for having confidence and faith that the commissioners chosen were responsible, honest advocates for their communities and the entire island and would do their job faithfully to the best of their abilities, in as seamless and transparent a way as possible. And 1 believe that this goal was accomplished. Thank you for the opportunity to serve. Sincerely, Rene Siracusa Chair, 2011 Redistricting Commission FROM COMMISSIONER DRU KANUHA • The Number One priority of the testifying public was to keep their communities together, and to not split them. Given the 4.99% maximum deviation passed by the Hawaii County council, this made it impossible. A more lenient 10% would have been more appropriate to keep communities of interest together. As these communities grow in the next decade, keeping communities of interest together will not be possible. • 1 will ditto everything commission chair Siracusa has stated on Communication 55.1 Boundry of District 7 and 6 • Census Block 150010214021012 is an elongated census block along the ocean that needs to be split up to not take up the entire shoreline of the area. • Starting at the ocean, District 7 boundary starts at Pa'aoao Bay heading east along the Hokuli'a subdivisions northern border (excluding Hokuli'a). Census Block 150010214021012(as written about earlier) made it impossible to keep Hokuli'a in District 7. If this census block was included in district 7 it would have split Kealakekua Bay state park, and this is not what members of the public or commissioners wanted to do. • The district 7 line then follows the Mamalahoa Bypass rd. south. Then the line went east, incorporating the community surrounding haleki'l street. We did not use Haleki'l st. as a southern boundary because it would have split a community surrounding this street. We followed the next census block south of this community and included it in to district 7. • The D7 -D6 line then goes north on Mamalahoa Highway. I did not want to use konawaena school road as the boundary between district 7 and 6 because it split the school in half. I wanted to keep the school whole. I took the line north towards the southern part of kainaliu and then followed an old road east. This line then followed census blocks to the summit of Mauna Loa. Boundry of District 7 and 8 • This boundary included all of the Kailua Village Business Improvement District(KVBID), except for those businesses east of Queen Ka'ahumanu Hwy. I did not want to split KVBID, neither did the testifying public. This is why it had to be in district 7. • It was crucial to put KVBID in District 7. If KVBID was in district 8 it would have split Kailua town right in half and that wasn't an option. I did not want to split this community. • District 7 includes all of the old Kona Airport because of its proximity to the town of Kailua. By including the old kona airport, the census block boundary was made on the old mamalahoa trail, from the ocean to queen ka'ahumanu Hwy. • Boundary follows Queen ka'ahumanu hwy, headed south • Aloha Kona subdivision and the Pines subdivision could not be included in District 7 based off of the 4.99% maximum deviation. If these subdivisions were included in District 7, District 8 would have been a -8.35% deviation. Based off of this, we had to incorporate these subdivisions in district 8 instead of 7. D7 line excludes these subdivisions by following a census block north of the regency Hualalai Retirement Community and following Hualalai Rd to the south of these subdivisions. • D7 -D8 line then follows Hualalai Rd. East to Hienaloli Rd. where it goes north. • Line then follows Census blocks on the Waiaha Stream Boundary East to the Summit of • This boundary follows the Waiaha watershed boundary of kona. From the mountain to the ocean. From: jeff melrose fmailto. jeff @isleplan. com] Sent: Friday, December 02, 20113.-37 PM To: Udovic, Michael Subject: Redistricting report recommendations Mike My suggestions for the final report include: 1. Recommend to this County Council that it amend Ordinance 1129 (Bill 18) by striking Section 5 (2) which directs the Commission to adopt a public plan that has less deviation that the Commission's plan. This sends the wrong message about variances as being the most important measure and it undercuts the Commissions ability to make a sound, final decision that weighs all other factors. 2. The Commission should ask the Council to direct the County Clerk and the Office of Elections to begin in 2012 to work w/ the US Census to determine the issues associated with revising census tracts to reflect existing settlement patterns. If changes are feasible, the Office of Elections should undertake a comprehensive review of census boundaries to be adopted prior to the 2020 census. 3. 1 imagine the software will evolve in the next 10 years but it is important to get the commission schooled in the use of the technology as soon as they come on board. We spun our wheels for several months this time, due largely to State procurement and decisions related to "residency ". To the extent possible the Office of Elections and the Clerk should work w/ the state earlier to get these issues resolved before the Commissioners start their work. Elections Staff need training in the software before the process starts so they can be a goo to resource for the Commission and the public. If 1 think of something further, 1'll send it on. Thanks for your help in this process. Jeff From: Joe Carvalho <kohala1 @yahoo.com> To: "mudovic @co.hawaii.hi.us" <mudovic @co.hawaii.hi.us> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2011 7:20 PM Subject: comments Hi Mike, Just have a few comments about the 2011 redistricting commission -- 1. Census Blocks -- -some are strangely designed and too large. More thought needs to be given in shaping them, particularly at Mauna Lani - Waikoloa hotels examples are: Block 150010217041072 - -Takes both Mauna Lani golf course and Waikoloa hotels Block 150010217041035 -Takes makai side of Puako Beach Road all along the coast 2. Training -- -more time can be spent on training - - -the maps as is were wonderful and easy to use, luckily MikeM figured out how to get the numbers in the census blocks which should have been displayed automatically from the start. Ability to split screen at least two maps -- -that way you can see the current and new you are working on. 3. Definitely the 4.99% either way was helpful but keeping communities of interest together is more important, so maybe going up 7 -8 percent on either side would be better as long as it stays below 10 %. 4. Growth -- keeping it in mind is ok but more emphasis should be place on the now since so much can happen (like Puna and Kona) or not happen (Kau and Hamakua) Aloha, Joe From: Mike Middlesworth [mailto:mike @middlesworth.com] Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:07 AM To: Udovic, Michael Subject: my thoughts Mike -- I know that we talked about identifying problem census blocks, but there are simply too many of them to list. The most troublesome issue in my view is that there seems to be no logic in how they are drawn. Many are not bounded by roads, streams or any recognizable boundary. The variance in size and shape is mind- boggling, and that makes the redistricting process incredibly frustrating. That said, my guess is that there is little hope of change, since many statistical comparisons are probably based on the existing blocks and bureaucrats are loathe to change their metrics. Many of my other concerns will become moot in the next decade, I'm sure, as technology changes. The software we used this time will be replaced or updated and whatever is used 10 years from now will undoubtedly be much different. Using the ESRI package made our task much easier than was the case 10 years ago, I'm sure, and clumsy as it sometimes is, having it was a great benefit. The delay in negotiating its use, however, was a major stumbling block, and whichever state agency is responsible should be encouraged to have all of the tools necessary for the process in place at the end of 2019 for the next reapportionment/redistricting process. The ordinance governing redistricting should be amended to remove the section requiring use of an alternate plan that is more conforming numerically. If it were followed, it would negate many of the other provisions that are intended to insure fairness in the process. I was particularly bothered by the riles governing our meetings. It was very frustrating to not be able to engage in discussions with people who came to testify. I understand the reasoning for the riles, but there ought to be a way for the commission to respond to testimony as it is being heard.