HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.16.2021 Butte Presentation - Redistricting Partners
From:Ring, Brian
To:BOS
Cc:Pickett, Andy; Ring, Brian
Subject:Butte Presentation - Redistricting Partners
Date:Tuesday, November 16, 2021 3:39:07 PM
Attachments:Butte County Draft Plans 11.18 DRAFT.pptx
Good afternoon Board –
I wanted to get you the presentation from the consultant, ASAP. I have provided the following
feedback to him – as I noticed a few items that appear to be mistakes in the presentation.
The deviation for map A6 is 7.9 on one slide, 8.0 on another;
I think the consultant (per your direction) should be very specific with regard to the Fair
Maps Act (FMA) on the issues/concerns he sees. A number of concerns are listed – however
I suggested he be able to speak to how they tie to the FMA;
Slide 15 appears to be the incorrect map; and
Second to last slide – we have scheduled another tentative special meeting on 12/6 (not
12/7) – to be used if needed, contingent on actions the Board takes this Thursday.
I have attached his current presentation. Based on my feedback above – he may or may not make
some minor edits to it.
Brian Ring
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Administration
25 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965
T: 530.552.3311 | | F: 530.538.7120
Butte County
2021 Redistricting
Combining A3 & A4
Getting to a final plan
ID 69836
–
–
Plan A6 DistrictR
••
Fair Maps Act CriteriaCurrent LinesTwo Draft PlansNext Steps
••••
Agenda Things we will cover:
appearance/function
–
people, not citizens
-
districts should not hop/jump
–
communities of interest”
Relatively equal size Contiguous Maintain “Follow city and census designated place boundariesKeep districts compact
•••••
The Fair Maps Act passed by the Legislature mandates a set of criteria we must follow when drawing district plans.
Traditional Redistricting Principles Complying with the Fair Maps Act
ll plans will follow the required criteria, VRA,
ACompactness, Contiguity, equal population, etc.Need feedback from the Board of Supervisors and community on potential versions.
••
Redistricting Partners needs feedback from the board on potential draft plan versions.
From COI to Draft Maps Getting from input to new proposed maps
Overview PageData TablesIndividual district pages with data
•••
All Redistricting Partners Draft Plans will include:
From COI to Draft Maps Getting from input to new proposed maps
54.4%
11.5%18.5%13.8%10.6%
Dev %
-
Dev.
4,8877,8575,8544,515
23,115
-
2020
47,39750,36748,36447,02519,395
, the Statewide Database released the
th
12345
District
Final California Redistricting Data Statewide Database Released Final DatasetOn September 20prisoner reallocated dataset. This dataset is the final data we need to conduct this redistricting,
with 916 people added to the total population of the county.
Cohasset should be included in the foothill district, not with ChicoChico should be split as few times as possible and two compact Chico districts should be createdThe Bidwell Ave area
should be moved District C, the northern Chico DistrictThe Barber Neighborhood should be unified in District B, the southern Chico District (in most plans) The Avenues should be united
with Chico, not drawn into the Paradise seatThe City of Oroville should not be split, except for the airport areaBerry Creek should be with the City of Oroville
•••••••
Summary of Public Comment Since the draft plans were released, the has been public comment on these plans. The general themes from those public comments are:
%
7.9
Follows the almost unanimous community of interest testimony received since last week Creates two compact urban Chico districtsUnites Cohasset with Forest Ranch in the foothills districtUnites
MechoopdaKeeps Berry Creek with Oroville Minimally splits the City of Oroville, placing the airport into District DPopulation Deviation =
Draft Plan A6
Total Deviation of 8.0%
ID 69836
A “community of interest” is a population that
To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of
The board shall adopt supervisorial district boundaries
The Fair Maps Act Criteria EC 21500 (c)(c)using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:(2)any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall
be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single supervisorial district for purposes of its effective
and fair representation. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.(3)a city or census designated place shall
be respected in a manner that minimizes its division.
DistrictR
ID 69836
Ignores nearly all the community of interest testimony received to dateSplits Chico into four districts, splitting neighborhoods that sought to be kept together within one districtsSplits
Cohasset from the foothills districtSplits Bidwell Park and places a portion into the foothill districtSplits MechoopdaCreates two agricultural districts on the westside of the countyTotal
Deviation: 5.2%
DistrictR
Total Deviation of 5.2%
DistrictR
We can live line draw in MaptitudeWe can also bring up Maps to discuss
Today is your opportunity to talk through these revised maps and offer final changes ••
From COI to Final Maps Getting from input to final maps
Final Passage
th
At our next meeting, we’ll be presenting a proposed final plan for you to approve. NOTE: Under the Fair Maps Act, a final plan MUST be public for at least 7 days prior to final passage
by the Board of Supervisors.
Next Steps December 7