Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout030722M - to include Hearng Comment re: Reprecincting (/ \ y 'I'5'/dl*�C;C©,, MINUTES Regular Meeting — March 7, 2022, 9:00 a.m. Jefferson County Courthouse— Commissioners' Chambers 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA CALL TO ORDER: Chair Heidi Eisenhour, Commissioner Kate Dean and Commissioner Greg Brotherton participated in the meeting remotely. Chair Eisenhour called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m. and noted the technical difficulties that resulted in a later start time. She stated that March 8, 2022 is National Women's Day and recognized the brave women of Ukraine. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Dean moved to approve the items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Brotherton seconded the motion. He asked if the proposed resolution regarding cash drawer,petty cash and revolving amounts should be updated as he noted that one person on the list is already retired. Commissioner Dean withdrew her motion,then moved to approve and adopt the Consent Agenda, minus Item No. 1 (Resolution Re-Establishing Jefferson County Petty Cash Drawer, Petty Cash Account and Revolving Fund Amounts in Various County Departments) and approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Brotherton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. RESOLUTION NO._re: Re-establishing Jefferson County Cash Drawer, Petty Cash Account and Revolving Fund Amounts in Various County Departments (Removed and approved later in the meeting) 2. AGREEMENT NO. CLH31013,Amendment No. 1 re: 2022-2024 Consolidated Contracts; In the Amount of$1,751,037; Jefferson County Public Health; Washington State Department of Health 3. AGREEMENT re: Surveying Services for Lords Lake Loop Road M.P. 1.6 Slide Repair and Shine Road M.P. 0.84 Slide Repair; In the Amount not to Exceed $10,000; Jefferson County Public Works; Van Aller Surveying 4. AGREEMENT re: Elections Tabulation Hardware Upgrade and Software License and Hardware Maintenance; In the Amount of$249,525; Jefferson County Auditor, Elections; Election Systems & Software, LLC (ES&S) 5. AGREEMENT, Revised re: 2022 Funding Water Quality Conservation Improvement and Resource Protection; In the Amount of$56,248; Jefferson County Administrator; Jefferson County Conservation District 6. AGREEMENT, Interlocal re: Exchange of Law Enforcement Services;No Dollar Amount; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office; City of Port Townsend Police Department 7. AGREEMENT re: Policy Manual Management; In the Amount of$3,900 Yearly; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office; Anoka Services LLC 8. MINUTES re: Regular Meeting of February 28, 2022 1 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2022 9. Payment of Jefferson County Payroll Warrants Dated March 4, 2022 Totaling $998,144.72 (Records of all claims submitted for payment along with A/P Warrants approved by the Payroll Services Manager are retained in the Jefferson County Auditor's Office) PROCLAMATION re: Declaring Tuesday,March 8,2022 as Women's Day: Chair Eisenhour discussed the importance of the proclamation. All three Commissioners took turns reading aloud the proclamation. Commissioner Dean moved to approve a Proclamation declaring Tuesday, March 8, 2022 as Women's Day. Commissioner Brotherton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. DISCUSSION re: Re-establishing Jefferson County Cash Drawer,Petty Cash Account and Revolving Fund Amounts in Various County Departments (Consent Agenda Item No. 1): Interim County Administrator Mark McCauley noted that he received a corrected draft resolution regarding Consent Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Brotherton moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 11-22 re: Re-establishing Jefferson County Cash Drawer, Petty Cash Account and Revolving Fund Amounts in Various County Departments (Consent Agenda Item No. 1), as amended this morning. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following is a summary of comments made virtually by individuals in attendance at the meeting and reflect their personal opinions: • Comment regarding disabled individuals among the homeless population needing assistance. • Comment requesting an indication on the Agenda when topics will hold additional public comment periods, and thanking County staff for their assistance on a recent request. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION: The Commissioners discussed recent meetings they attended. Commissioner Dean noted she will briefly leave the meeting around 10:00 a.m. to attend another meeting, but will return. WEEKLY UPDATE re: COVID-19: Public Health Officer Dr. Allison Berry provided information on the COVID-19 virus in Jefferson County and Emergency Management Director Willie Bence provided a situation report. The meeting was recessed at 10:25 a.m. and reconvened at 10:30 a.m. with all three Commissioners present. BID OPENING re: Publication of County Legal Notices: Clerk of the Board Carolyn Gallaway opened and read aloud the following two bids: BIDDER: BID: Port Townsend&Jefferson County Leader Print Circulation: 6,034 Electronic subscriptions: 351 Font: Helvetica Font Size: 7pt Cost per column inch: $8.00 2 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2022 Peninsula Daily News/Sound Publishing Print circulation: 1,737 Electronic subscriptions: 2,503 Font: Helvetica Font Size: 7.2 Cost per column inch: $3.00 Staff will review and evaluate the bids and present to the Board at a future meeting. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION—Continued: The Commissioners continued reviewing recent meetings they attended. HEARING re: Updating of Precinct Boundaries for Jefferson County as part of the Current Redistricting Process: Elections Coordinator Quinn Grewell and GIS Coordinator Kevin Hitchcock were present to brief the Board on the precinct boundaries and redistricting process. GIS Coordinator Hitchcock reviewed the updated draft precinct maps. After discussion, Chair Eisenhour opened the hearing to allow for public testimony. The following individuals provided testimony: Deborah Pedersen, Libby Wennstrom, Bruce Cowan, Jean Ball and Tom Thiersch. Hearing no further testimony, Chair Eisenhour closed the public hearing. Deliberations on this issue will occur at the next Board of County Commissioners meeting. BID OPENING re: Thorndyke Road M.P. 4.71 Culvert Replacement, County Project No. 18020580, County Road No. 418708,RCO Project No.20-1657R: Public Works Engineer Mark Thurston was present for the bid opening and stated the Engineer's estimate was $1,656,400. He opened and read the following three bids aloud: BIDDER: BID AMOUNT: Active Construction Inc, Puyallup $2,431,431.00 InterWest Construction Inc, Port Angeles $1,920,937.00 Nordland Construction NW,Nordland $1,748,964.00 Staff will review and evaluate the bids for accuracy and submit a recommendation for bid award to the Board at a future date. COMMISSIONERS BRIEFING SESSION—Continued: The Commissioners and Interim County Administrator continued discussing recent meetings they attended, miscellaneous items and reviewed upcoming meetings. The meeting was recessed at 12:00 p.m. and reconvened at 1:30 p.m. with all three Commissioners present. 3 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2022 BRIEFING re: Job Creation and Restoration Work on the Washington Coast Restoration and Resiliency Initiative (WCRRI) Pulling Together in Restoration Project in 2021- 2022, and Phase 5 Project Proposal for 2023-2024: 10,000 Years Institute Executive Director Jill Silver briefed the Board on various projects including the WCRRI, Coastal Conservation Corps and Biomass Optimization Center Program, Hoh Watershed 2021 Field results and the Middle Hoh River project. CONTINUED DELIBERATIONS re: Repealing and Replacing Chapter 8.75 (Fireworks and Sky Lanterns) of the Jefferson County Code; NOTE: The time for Written Public Comments was extended to Friday,March 4,2022 at 12:00 p.m.: The Commissioners continued deliberations on the Fireworks draft ordinance with East Jefferson Fire and Rescue Assistant Chief Brian Tracer who provided insight into historical weather data and fire operating plans. Staff was directed to incorporate edits discussed and bring forward at the next Board of County Commissioners meeting for continued deliberations. ADDITIONAL BUSINESS re: FIRE MARSHAL DESIGNATION: During the Fireworks draft ordinance deliberations, a discussion regarding designation of the County's Fire Marshal ensued. After further discussion, Commissioner Brotherton moved to designate the Department of Community Development(DCD)Director to be the Fire Marshal of Jefferson County. Commissioner Dean seconded the motion and asked if this is something that needs to go into the County Code? Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Philip Hunsucker stated that it does not need to, but it is advisable. He suggested the Commissioners formalize the designation now and staff will prepare for Code. Chair Eisenhour called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. DISCUSSION re: Adopting a Tenth (loth) Temporary County Policy Based on Emergency Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Human Resources Director Sarah Melancon and Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Philip Hunsucker briefed the Board on the proposed 10th Temporary County Policy. After discussion and edits, Commissioner Brotherton moved to repeal and replace the 9th Temporary Policy with the 10th Temporary Policy on Covid-19. He then withdrew his motion. Commissioner Brotherton moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 12-22 that will repeal the 9th Temporary County policy based on the emergency response to the Covid-19 pandemic and replace it with the 10th Temporary Policy based on the emergency response to the Covid 19 pandemic, as amended today. Chair Eisenhour seconded the motion. Commissioner Dean asked if including "repeal and replace" in the motion was necessary? Interim County Administrator Mark McCauley stated the resolution will repeal and replace without the need to include it in the motion. Chair Eisenhour called for a vote on the motion. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BRIEFING SESSION: Interim County Administrator/Central Services Director Mark McCauley reviewed the following with the Board: • Weekly Covid-19 discussion; the Commissioners will hold a hybrid meeting on March 28, 2022 • Legislative updates • Future Agenda Items; Workshop with the Olympic Region Clean Air Agency (ORCAA) 4 Commissioners Meeting Minutes of March 7, 2022 NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT: Chair Eisenhour adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m. until the next regular meeting or special meeting as properly noticed. JEFFERSON COUNTY • : BARD OF COMMISSIONERS SEALS~ Hei s i ise our, Chair ATTEST: . ; ' .' Greg ro - -on, Member 604 6V-62 \(.• Carolyn Gallaway, CMC Kate Dean, Member Clerk of the Board 5 Please publish 2 times: Wednesday, February 16th and February 23rd, 2022 Bill to Jefferson County Commissioners Non-departmental Fund PO Box 1220 Port Townsend, WA 98368 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing is scheduled by the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners for MONDAY, March 7, 2022 at 10:45 a.m. in the Commissioners’ Chambers, County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368 (NOTE: No In-Person Attendance Allowed (Per Jefferson County RESOLUTION No. 45-21)), and said notice of said hearing be published in the official newspaper of Jefferson County, and that at said hearing any interested person may appear virtually and be heard for or against the resolutions. To participate/provide testimony, you will need to join the meeti ng by 10:45 a.m. To participate via Zoom, click on https://zoom.us/j/93777841705. To participate/provide testimony via telephone dial 1-253-215-8782 and enter access code: 937-7784-1705# by 10:45 a.m. To view this meeting live with no participation, go to www.co.jefferson.wa.us Follow the links under “Quick Links: Videos of Meetings: Today.” Access for the hearing impaired and others can be accommodated using Washington Relay Service at 1-800-833-6384. The public hearing is being held for the purpose of receiving public testimony on proposals to set updated precinct boundaries for Jefferson County as part of the current redistricting process. Jefferson County is currently preparing DRAFT updated Precinct Maps per the 2020 Census in accordance with RCW Chapters 29A.76 and 53.16. The public may view the DRAFT precinct maps starting on March 1st by visiting www.co.jefferson.wa.us; click on Latest News and follow the posting regarding this Hearing. On March 21, 2022 as part of their Regular Meeting the Board of County Commissioners will review and potentially adopt the updated precinct boundaries for Jefferson County. In addition, written testimony is also invited beginning on February 16th and ending on March 7, 2022 at the end of the Public Hearing, unless extended by the Board of County Commissioners. Written public testimony may be submitted by Email to: jeffbocc@co.jefferson.wa.us; or by Mail to: Jefferson County Commissioners’ Office; PO Box 1220, Port Townsend, WA 98368. Testimony must be received by the Board of County Commissioners by the end of the hearing public comment period. Approved and signed this 14th day of February 2022. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Heidi Eisenhour, Chair jeffbocc From: Bruce Cowan <mrbrucecowan@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2022 2:59 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Hearing input, Precinct Boundaries ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Regarding Precinct Boundaries I thank our elected officials and county staff for the expertise and consideration they are bringing to this process. I am glad to see that the proposed maps greatly reduce variability of precinct size. That goes a long way toward giving communities more equal representation. There is still one precinct that is just one-ninth the size of the largest. It doesn't seem practical to reduce the size of the largest (Precinct 2401, Marrowstone Island, with 924 voters). However, the two smallest could be combined to reduce this disparity and provide other benefits. I don't see a reason to perpetuate the division of the West End into 3601 (98 voters) and 3600 (154 voters). If they were combined, they would have 252 voters, almost a fourth the size of the largest, a big improvement. The people of the West End have much in common. I can think of no political benefit they derive from being in two precincts rather than one. On the contrary, dividing them into two precincts makes it more difficult to recruit Precinct Committee Officers, and so they are often unrepresented. I hope that the commissioners will decide that it is in the best interest of the county and our equal representation to combine these two precincts. Bruce Cowan 131 Rose Street Port Townsend, WA 98368 1 jeffbocc From:Deborah Pedersen <deborahgpedersen@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, March 6, 2022 4:16 PM To:jeffbocc Subject:Testimony for PUBLIC HEARING: update precinct boundaries for Jefferson County current redistricting ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. To the Commissioners: Thank you for providing the opportunity to give testimony on the draft precinct maps you will be considering on Monday, March 7, 2022. May I first say how grateful I and my fellow Democrats are that the group working on the changes to precincts, including Auditor’s staff, Heidi Eisenhour, and Kevin Hitchcock (County GIS) incorporated so well our (and the Republican party’s) input. As stated in the press release in the February 23 Leader, the goals were “to have an equal number of precincts in each district, to create an equal number of voters across each precinct, and to keep communities such as fire districts and school districts intact.” These goals, along with efficiency in conducting elections by reducing the number of “split districts” (districts which require more than one ballot style) are all very important. The needs of Auditor’s staff for efficiency and the need of political parties for voters to have equal representation in the election of their officers can sometimes conflict, and that’s where the matter of judgment comes in. We are also very grateful that staff heard our request for and provided an interactive map that allows us to zoom in to see exactly where the proposed boundaries are and to choose to view the boundaries of junior taxing districts. The draft map does a much better job of equalizing the number of voters in each precinct in a thoughtful way that keeps neighborhoods intact. It is plain to see that it has not been possible to keep school districts completely intact while also honoring the equal-numbers goal. The most serious flaw with the draft map is that District 3 has 15 precincts, while Districts 1 and 2 have 12. We believe that there are solutions to this inequity that will not be difficult to implement. We will be providing detailed testimony on this under separate cover. The second flaw is that there is still a wide range in the number of voters in each precinct. Our detailed solutions will remedy some of these situations; however, in some cases we agree that, for instance, precinct 401, though the largest, at 924 voters, should not be shrunk, as it is comprised of two islands. Indian Island probably has no voters, and Marrowstone Island is definitely a neighborhood/community of interest that should stay intact. 1 The other cases of too-small draft precincts are in District 3. We strongly recommend combining 3101 and 3102. This would result in a voter total of 894. Libby Wennstrom will provide a visual suggestion for moving some of those extra voters to an adjacent precinct. We understand that the proposed division of 3101 from 3102 follows the Sequim School District boundary. This brings me to the question of split precincts. We do understand that it is more complicated to create multiple ballot styles for a single precinct; however, if my review of the current voter file is correct, we now have only six precincts which are not split. (I reviewed the file for precincts which do or do not have a letter A,B,C,D, or even E appended to the precinct number.) It is clear that the draft map already includes a number of precincts that encompass more than one school district. One more instance of this seems worth it to achieve more equal precinct sizes. (If 3101 and 3102 can be combined, Fire District 8 will no longer be split.) We realize that our current precincts 3600 and 3601, on the West End, are challenging due to the number of junior taxing districts there. However, I have heard that the presence of the Queets and Hoh Tribes, being communities of interest, means that we should have two precincts with only 252 voters between them. I believe this is a misreading of the intent of our statutes’ protection of communities of interest. In all the discussion I’ve heard during the state’s redistricting process, it has been clear that the goal has been to keep communities of interest intact, in other words, not to “crack” them to dilute their voting power. The only local candidates that all West End voters will vote on will be Precinct Committee Officers; we don’t believe that 254 voters should have the right to elect two PCOs to represent them. The combined number, 254, causes all the other precincts in District 3 to have significantly more voters than the precincts in the other districts, but we see that the West End cannot be brought closer to the average precinct than 254. (The average county-wide, is 707 if there are 39 precincts, 788 if our recommendation of 35 is followed.) Combining the current 3600 and 3601 into a single precinct will not “crack” either Tribe. Each will still be intact. In addition, in-person precinct caucuses are no longer contemplated by the Washington State Democrats. Both parties now favor the presidential primary, rather than caucuses, as their method for selecting delegates to the national convention. Everybody votes by mail. We see no disadvantage to the Tribes if they are both located in a single precinct. We would like to persuade you that combining 3101 and 3102 and revising the borders of 3503 and 3504, both with modest suggested adjustments being provided separately, will bring us much closer to the goal of equalizing the size of the precincts and, I hope and believe, will not result in a number of split precincts anywhere close to the number we currently have. And now, the question of precinct numbers. We have heard that any person whose precinct changes will need to be issued a new voter card and all the changed voter data will have to be input into the SOS system. This entails work, and sending the cards costs money. We can see two things from the draft map: (1) many voters will be changing precinct and (2) Kevin Hitchcock clearly found it useful to provide a leading 1, 2, or 3 to the labels on the map. It is just plain difficult to memorize which precincts, as currently numbered, belong, in which district. The current numbers, which place precincts in 100 series in both District 2 and District 3, places those in the 200 series in District 3 while the 300s are in District 2, is nonsensical. We urge that, aside from reviewing and approving precinct boundaries, you further request investigation of a new number scheme that will indicate the district in which a precinct lies. As for the cost of mailing new cards, might it be possible to allow voters to download and print their own cards? We don’t need cards to go to the polls anymore. An option for voters to request a physical card could also be provided. If this cannot be accomplished this year, I hope that you will provide for the possibility of county-wide renumbering in some future year before 2032. 2 Thanks again for your work on this issue so far. Deborah Pedersen Port Townsend 360-385-5147 3 jeffbocc From: Libby Urner Wennstrom <lbby@albatrosswriters.com> Sent: Sunday, March 6, 2022 7:55 PM To: jeffbocc Subject: Testimony for PUBLIC HEARING: Changes to proposed precinct boundaries Attachments: Libby Wennstrom Draft Precinct Maps Comment 22-03-06.pdf ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. I've attached my detailed comments on the proposed precinct maps. I'm generally very pleased with the overall alignment of the proposed precincts and feel they are much better than the current precincts in terms of size, arrangement and neighborhood cohesion. See the attached for detailed notes and maps, but in summary my proposed changes are: . Combine precinct 360o and 3601 into a single West end precinct. . Combine 3101 and 3102, add lower "tail" piece of 3102 to 3103. . Make minor adjustments to the boundaries of 3503, 3504, 3505, 3200 & 3102 for better balancing. . Add the South Side of Tremont/M St to 1709. . Move 1710/1703 boundary north to Foster St. Thank you for the opportunity to have input on these changes, and thank you to everyone for all the hard work so far. Libby Urner Wennstrom +1.360.301.9728 libby(cr7,albatrosswriters.corn linkechn.com/in/libbyurner 1 March 6, 2022 Comment on proposed Jefferson County Commissioner Precinct Maps from Libby Wennstrom. I want to emphasize here that I am commenting on these maps as a private citizen and as the Vice Chair of the Jefferson County Democrats, not as a City Councilor. I am heartened to see these draft maps theyve done a lot to correct substantial problems with existing precincts being of wildly unequal sizes. I really appreciate the significant effort that Quinn and Kevin and the rest of the team have put into doing these, and particularly the interactive tool for viewing the maps online with all the layers. Thank you. In general, the proposed maps are quite good. My recommendations are mostly small tweaks in just a few areas that I think address some problems. Here are my specific suggestions, which I believe benefit everyone: Number of Precincts per District Jefferson County currently has 39 precincts 12 in District 1, 12 in District 2, and 15 in District 3. The current proposed maps continue this imbalance. Having District 3 have three more precincts (and three more PCOs) than District 1 and District 2 is a substantial inequity, and creates problems both for the political parties and for anyone canvasing voters or running for office. Two of my proposals below would combine two pairs of small District 3 precincts, so if we did both changes, the final result would be 12 in District 1, 12 in District 2, and 13 in District 3 much better. Under the proposed maps, District 3 also has the most unbalanced precinct sizes, as shown here: Size District 1 District 2 District 3 Too Small 0 2 7 (100+ under target) Just right 11 10 3 (100 +/- target) Too Big 1 1 5 (100+ under target) While District 3 has more varied geography and more communities of interest (and more junior taxing districts!) we can do better than this with some minor changes to the proposed maps. Proposal: Combine two pairs of the smallest precincts in District 3: 3600+3601, and 3101+3102. Combine Too-Small Precincts West End The two West End Precincts 3600 (154 voters) and 3601 (98 voters) are just too small to warrant having two separate precincts. Yes, there are two different tribes represented. But districting rules emphasize ƉĻĻƦźƓŭ ĭƚƒƒǒƓźƷźĻƭ ƚŅ źƓƷĻƩĻƭƷ ƷƚŭĻƷŷĻƩ, not creating a separate precinct for each community. Many of our other rural precincts include multiple communities of interest. Yes, there are two school districts but multiple other precincts on the proposed maps cross school district boundaries. (3200, 2300, 2305 all include multiple school districts) Proposal: Combine Precinct 3600 and 3601 into a single West end precinct. Libby Wennstrom Proposed Precinct Map Comment 3/6/2022 Page 1of 5 DiscoveryBay (3101 and 3102) The current proposal is two precincts: 3101 (378 voters) and 3102 (516 voters). The only reason for this being two precincts is a school district boundary (proposed 3101 is in the Sequim school district). But as noted above, other precincts include multiple school districts. The simplest thing is to just combine these into a single precinct, but the combined size is large (894). My proposal is to balance that out with some minor adjustments, cutting off the tail at the bottom of 3102 as shown in Figure 1, and adding that to 3103. Yes, it splits 3103 across two school districts, but it both keeps Commissioner District Boundaries intact, and ends up with more equal size and regularly-shaped precincts, and keeps communities of interest together CźŭǒƩĻ Њ͵ /ƚƒĬźƓĻ ЌЊЉЊ ğƓķ ЌЊЉЋͲ ğķķ ƦźĻĭĻ Ʒƚ ЌЊЉЌ Proposal: Combine 3101 and 3102, add lower tail piece of 3102 to 3103 Libby Wennstrom Proposed Precinct Map Comment 3/6/2022 Page 2of 5 City of Port Townsend Precincts The proposed city precincts are generally well thought out with only very minor tweaks needed. One precinct, 1710, is substantially bigger, with 820 voters. But looking at the maps, 1710 (Morgan Hill neighborhood) is the area least likely to experience significant housing growth over the next decade, compared to other City precincts which have more open land and more planned building projects. Given that, over time the city precincts are likely to eventually even up in size. Two very small tweaks to suggest: Both Sides of Tremont St. to 1709 It makes more sense to include both sides of Tremont St in precinct 1709 theyre part of a contiguous neighborhood to their north, vs. a big empty field to the south. It only moves about 20 houses, but makes the precinct easier to canvas and keeps the neighborhood whole. CźŭǒƩĻ Ѝ͵ 5ĻƷğźƌ ƚŅ ЊАЉЍΉЊАЉВ ĬƚǒƓķğƩǤ ğƷ ƩĻƒƚƓƷ {Ʒ͵ Proposal: Add the South Side of Tremont/M St to 1709. Libby Wennstrom Proposed Precinct Map Comment 3/6/2022 Page 4of 5 AdjustmentsnearSather Park The Boundary between 1710 and 1703 near the corner of Sather Park has a weird wiggle that runs THROUGH several houses. If continued straight a short distance to Cosgrove Street itself, it would ensure that those homes are fully in 1703 - reducing possible confusion. CźŭǒƩĻ Ў͵ 5ĻƷğźƌ ƚŅ /ƚƭŭƩƚǝĻ {Ʒ͵ ƓĻğƩ {ğƷŷĻƩ tğƩƉ͵ Alternatively, moving the boundary to the other side of Sather Park along Foster Street would also help to equalize the sizes of 1710 (820 voters) and 1703 (777 voters). CźŭǒƩĻ Џ͵ aƚǝźƓŭ ЊАЊЉΉЊАЉЌ ĬƚǒƓķğƩǤ ƓƚƩƷŷ Ʒƚ CƚƭƷĻƩ {Ʒ͵ Proposal: Move 1710/1703 boundary north to Foster St. Libby Wennstrom Proposed Precinct Map Comment 3/6/2022 Page 5of 5 jeffbocc From: Tony Petrillo <bluewater@seanet.com> Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 9:54 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Testimony for PUBLIC HEARING: update precinct boundaries forJefferson County current redistricting ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. To the Commissioners: Thank you and county staff for taking on the task of addressing the imbalances in the boundaries, numbers of precincts and voters per precinct in our county. I understand that there many elements to consider in drafting new precinct boundaries. Given that, there are some deficiencies that I think need addressing. 1. PRECINCTS PER DISTRICT- FAIRNESS Most recently, there have been 39 precincts, 12 each for districts 1 and 2 and 15 for district 3. I don't know the history of why this is the case. It has, however, always been irksome. I understand that in elections each voter has only one vote. However, with regard to party politics, district 3 can have undue influence on the control and direction of the party. 25% more influence than each other precinct. That seems inherently unfair. Either reduce the number of precincts in district 3 to 12 or increase the number of precincts in districts 1 and 2 to 15. Or come up with another way to balance the precincts per district. State law requires that no precinct exceed 1500 voters. Right now we are nominally at somewhere in the high 700s. At roughly 27,000 voters or so 45 precincts would result in about 600 voters per precinct. My preference is to go with a lower number or 36 precincts vs 45. But I do strongly support a balance in the number of precincts per district. 2. PRECINCT NUMBERING SYSTEM—SIMPLICITY AND CLARITY King County has about 2.25 million people. I don't know exactly how many precincts they have but, at 1500 voters per precinct as a maximum per state law, that would be about 1500 precincts. However, I am sure it is way north of that. That said,their precinct numbering system has 4 digits—because it needs to. In Jefferson County we have 39 precincts. 39! Not thousands. Not hundreds. But tens. There is no reason for having 4 digits in our precinct numbering system. I was grateful that county staff listened to the call of putting the district number in the 4th position (thousands) of the present proposed numbering system.The numbering system is, however, too busy for our small county. We are not a metropolis and not likely to become one in our lifetimes. We don't need it. It is cumbersome and confusing. The numbering system I support would be to stay with a 3-digit system with the following changes. • The first digit, in the hundreds position, would be the district. 1 for district 1, etc. • The following 2 digits would be precinct numbers ranging from 1 to 12 (or 15 or whatever is decided upon) 1 I know that this would require a little pain initially for the county to administer this. But it would be far more intuitive for the voter. Some people are numbers people and can remember precinct 3504 or 1710. Most people are not numbers people. However, they can likely remember their district number and a number between 1 and 12 or 15.Just because it "was" doesn't mean "it has to be". 3. VARIABILITY OF NUMBER OF VOTERS PER PRECINCT—PCO AND CANDIDATE WORKLOAD From the draft precinct maps it looks like the size of the precincts in districts 1 and 2 look fairly well balanced. Kudos to the county staff for this work. I understand that Marrowstone Island is its own animal and it doesn't make sense to make it smaller. District 3 is problematic. Others have addressed the imbalances between precincts in district 3. One of the responsibilities of PCOs is to stay in touch with constituents in their precinct, provide election literature to voters and, sometimes, "walk" the precinct to do distribute literature. When I was a PCO in Seattle I walked my precinct every election and dropped off campaign literature to each and every house in the precinct. I know that "walking" the precinct in our rural county is impractical. But, still, with such a large imbalance between precincts in numbers of voters it seems a bit unfair to some PCOs from larger precincts to be more burdened than others. Thanks for listening. Tony Petrillo 460 Pond Road District 2 Home 360-385-5649 Mobile 206-852-5567 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 2 jeffbocc From: J Ball <gnarleydogfarm@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 11:26 AM To: jeffbocc Subject: Redistricting ALERT: BE CAUTIOUS This email originated outside the organization. Do not open attachments or click on links if you are not expecting them. Hello, I take issue with the idea to disregard any redistricting which incurs cost to the county or auditor's department. Should we be focused on equity and equal representation or the expenditure of a bit of time to get it right?Should we deny voters' rights because it has a cost associated with the processing of ballots or placement of ballot boxes?What is the cost of maintaining a healthy democracy where all voters are equal and their votes are counted? I say we should get it right no matter what it costs because the cost of failure is far greater. Jean Ball i