The City's minutes for this meeting are not on file in this archive. This briefing states only what the City's agenda lists. Nothing here is taken from the machine transcription.
No agenda from the City is on file for this meeting.
The recording's machine transcription is below. It is unverified: words and names may be misheard, and it cannot establish who acted or how anyone voted.
Transcript Partial transcript
Machine transcription of the meeting recording. The words are the recognizer's, except where a passage is marked as corrected or machine re-recognized; most have
not been checked against the audio, so words, numbers and names can be misheard.
It describes what was said. It cannot establish who voted how, an amount or an outcome — the City's
minutes do that (above).
A time links to its passage, and “Copy link” copies that link. No recording can be started from here.
310 suspect passage(s) marked in place; inspection incomplete: language review; 1 stretch(es) where a voice was detected and no words were recognized.
How this transcript was made. New machine transcription of the whole recording, with 10 voices separated from the audio.
24 short machine repair(s) (31 word(s)) are labelled in place, with the original words beside them: an ordinary word was replaced only where two further machine readings agreed on a different one.
Checks run on this transcript: the recognizer's own warning signs and whether a voice was detected where the words are. Not completed: language review.
A second, independent machine reading was compared with it word by word: the same words for 93.6% of 14,344 content words.
Dotted words (343 places) are ordinary wording differences: hover or tap to see the other reading.
310 passages (20% of the words) are marked suspect: their words are not shown ("unclear audio") and support no statement: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ; the language review questioned them; or no voice was detected there.
Agreement between two machine readings is not verification.
Inspection is incomplete: language review.
Voice detected, no words recognized (1 stretch). Something may have been said here that the transcript does not have:
00:50:47 (6 s) — neither reading has words
Speakers were separated by voice. A plain name rests on evidence tied to that voice; “provisional” is a name from an earlier text-only pass and is not verified; “Speaker N” is an unidentified voice.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:58–00:02:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; part of a long flagged stretch · 00:02:13–00:03:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; the machine readings disagree here · 00:03:35–00:03:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: flagged by the automatic checks; the machine readings disagree here · 00:03:42–00:03:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:03:47–00:03:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:54–00:04:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
looking for one other piece of information. Did we, um, I believe that we had made the motion that District 3 should be at the low end of the 5%, but was that also true for District 1 because of anticipated growth? Or was it just District 3?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:04:21–00:04:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:04:24–00:04:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Um, there is ‸ a motion on the floor from Dawn, uh, to approve the minutes for November 30th, as well as December 7th as, uh, as they are. Do I hear a second?
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:06–00:06:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
as close to the negative 5 of ideal as possible. There are non-Hispanic and Hispanic breakouts, no splitting of neighborhoods, and again, the goal is the least disruption of census tracts as possible.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:07:24–00:07:25 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
the drill downs there. So there's the first drill down for A3. The second drill down for A3 is right there. Again, you can see the demographic breakdowns by census blocks. And so not a whole lot of difference between A3 and B3. But, Rob, if you can bring up B3. Again,
you, and he'll bring it back up, but again, it's the same, the base map, and then the drill down into the census tracts, which will give you the demographics of the census tracts that are being moved or rearranged between districts there.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:09:03–00:09:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay. So this is percentage of African-American. You can see the percentages based on the various versions, based on the current map, based on A3 and B3 by district. And I'll give you a second to digest that and let me know when you want to move to the next spreadsheet, Mr. Chair.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:40–00:09:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:12–00:11:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:11:23–00:11:24 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:11:54–00:11:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:54–00:12:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Yeah, the current column is updated with census based on the current council districts. And then the A3 represents a map version that the commission has discussed. And then B3 represents a map version that the commission has discussed.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:13:29–00:13:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Ms. Hamilton Brown, I do have your card to speak. I'm waiting until after the presentation by the city manager and staff is complete because some of your questions may be
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:13:42–00:13:54 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:13:54–00:13:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
‸ What Rachel passed out was what you had asked for at the first meeting, which I just intended on her to give those copies to me. And I don't think you'll let me take it back at this point. ‸ So what she gave you is
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:10–00:16:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:15–00:16:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:31–00:16:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:16:38–00:16:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Are there additional questions that you have aside from the question that you have? Please come forward. State your full name and address, and then you may proceed.
‸ Kathy Hamilton Brown. My address is [address]. Good morning. ‸ I think I need some more understanding in reference to the districting. I want to know what would be the benefits and, well, the pros and the cons. Because I'm trying
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:17:36–00:17:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:17:56–00:17:56 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
you're going to extend District 2. So we can have growth where we don't have a high population ‸ for, say, as poverty. Because I say in District 2, there are not a lot of white people. It's majority Hispanic and black. And we have a lot of the trailer parks in our area. So I see, like, District 3, they're expanding. They're getting ready to build, you know, condos and houses and subdivisions. District 2 doesn't have that option, like District 1 and District 4.
Well, not just District 2, but all our districts to go. Because looking at the ‸ tables that you presented, I'm seeing a lot of gentrification on here where there are a lot of imbalance with ethnicity. So I want to know how you're going to help District 2 as well as all the other districts.
And when you're talking about other, you got Asian up there. But what is other? What ethnicity is other? Because it's other Hispanic, Mexican, mixed, Japanese. So I want to know all the different subgroups, not just black, white, Asian, and other. Because that's what
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:19:57–00:19:58 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:20:16–00:20:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:20:46–00:20:47 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
are the proposed changes. And it reflects proposed changes for District 2. As you can see, the areas in red are the areas that would potentially change.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:21:01–00:21:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:21:16–00:21:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And so District 1 can only go north and District 1 is the district with the least amount of residents in it. And so as District 1 goes north, District 2 has to go north as well as does District 4. Are there, from what you can see, so that's really just a very basic level explanation. Of course, the city manager can give a more detailed explanation if need be.
the only anticipated change that we can see based on what is possible right now. Did you have any specific concerns based on what you see in red and ‸ where you see the shift potentially happening?
to be divided. One side is going to be District 2, and one side is going to be District 1. That's how it looks to me on the map. So I could be wrong, but I'm trying to figure out why neighborhoods are going to be divided between ‸ districts. When I'm across the street
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:23:26–00:23:27 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
I actually have some questions that relate to her comments. And so I brought those along. I've sent them on to staff ahead of time. But it might be a good time to ‸ bring those in as we're in this part of the agenda that is discussion and direction. So when ‸ you are ready, I'd like to share them.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:27–00:24:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:39–00:24:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:25:22–00:25:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and the voting tracks are set up, it would be impracticable to do that. And that's something that is not necessarily under our control. The way that the voting blocks look, you can't really square it off because of the way that the voting blocks look. And somebody with more power than we have would have to change the voting blocks.
Right, the census voting blocks. We don't have the power to change those blocks. And so that's not something that we can do. Someone else, much higher up than us, would have to vote to change those blocks so that we could square off things and make it more... So that we could make it look cleaner, as Madam Vice Chair
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:26:52–00:26:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So somebody else can change it. ‸ So we need to find out who before you all make this decision. Because once you make this decision, we got to stick with this for 10 years.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:29–00:27:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:27:54–00:27:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So these blocks, if I understand correctly, are determined by the Department of Commerce. And so what is very clear when you look at this map is that there is no understanding of the nature of the neighborhoods when these blocks are put down.
just don't make sense. I look at the numbers of these large districts and I think, oh my goodness, we're developing these district recommendations based on these blocks. So when it's a convenient moment, I'd like to point out three of those. And when it also is convenient, to start with my first question,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:28:46–00:28:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
only response is it is just a very common practice to use census block to draw district lines because census blocks are the smallest census ‸ geographical area that you can use as part of your exercise of equaling the total population of the four districts.
be extremely challenging if it was even lawful to do so because how are you going to get accurate ‸ total population numbers when you're arbitrarily deciding which portion of a census block would be included within a voting district? So, you know, my understanding is that's why census blocks are used as your tool, your Lego, so to speak, your individual Lego, so to speak, to build your geographical boundaries for each district.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:19–00:30:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:33–00:30:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:30:52–00:30:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:31:09–00:31:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:32:09–00:32:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
It's ‸ possible, certainly moving north, but we know that all of our growth is western, for the most part. And so, if we're not considering establishing these districts so that we orient toward western growth, while still being ‸ compliant with our current regulations to abide by the given numbers, I feel like we're not doing our full job. We have a challenging task ahead of us. And instead of our mission being to move as little as possible, I think we should be trying to get it right.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:34:01–00:34:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
by census block. And so, I don't know that that's not getting it right. I think that is getting it right. But, ultimately, it's the commission that decides what their recommendation is going to be. And so, you see the numbers. You see the numbers by census blocks. We've told you that on the various map versions, it was to make the least amount of ‸ disruption. You can see, based on the demographics, that there's not a whole lot that's changed in terms of the percentages. And so, I don't want anyone to walk away from this meeting having heard the discussion and anyone inferring that staff has done anything other than give you maps based on census blocks, based on the numbers within the census blocks. I think that staff believes that Mrs. Hamilton Brown's neighborhood is intact in District 2 on the various map versions there.
‸ And I certainly agree that ‸ there's nothing that I'm saying in terms of staff giving us anything irregular. I do think that our mission to disrupt as little as possible is perhaps misguided when we see that there are some problems. And ‸ this that is up on the screen right now is one of them. I don't understand where 642 come from and why that census block makes sense, especially when within it you have those tiny groups that have been subdivided. ‸ Something's not right. And ‸ certainly, I'm not saying it's staff and I'm not saying it's intentional. I'm just saying this doesn't seem right and this doesn't seem how we want to manage ourselves for the next 10 years.
Mr. Chair. Mr. Green. Looking back ‸ to our earlier meetings, we had discussed the fact that, by necessity, this is a backward-looking process that we're in. We can keep an eye on the future, but what we really have to look at is the numbers as they stand now. And those are the numbers that were counted last year.
Ms. Hamilton Brown brought up, well, we don't think that everybody got counted correctly. That may very well be true, but the fact is that the numbers we have are the official numbers that were given to us by the census folks. So those are the numbers that we have to deal with, and we have the constraints of having to make our districts as even as possible,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:37:16–00:37:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So what we determined that we would do is stay within those leeways, not planning for the future, but with an eye to the future, understanding what could happen. We don't know what will happen, but we know what could happen. So with that in mind, we've looked to use our 5% leeway to the most effective way that we believe will best serve the community in the future. I look at the block that you've highlighted, the 642, with all the smaller ones within it, and I scratch my head as well. I don't know how we got there, but we are there. And I can't see any way short of redoing the census to going into that 642 block and finding a way to divide it and attribute those numbers to one set of streets or another. We just can't do that. So we're working with an imperfect system, and we're trying to do the best we can with what we've got. So I ‸ share those same questions, and we have a decade before we have to go through this again. It might be time to start asking our representatives in Congress or whatever to take a look at these things and ask them to reform what they've done and how they've done it so that the next time it comes around, we're ready for it. But I don't see any way we can remedy that for this exercise.
‸ I feel particularly when we're playing with only a 5% I appreciate everything you said. I agree with most of it. When we're playing only with a 5% margin and we have one block that is 642,
Absolutely, and it's not the granularity we would like to have, ‸ but it's what we have. And so it's certainly nothing we can fix this time around, but we can start asking the questions. We can ask our representatives to look at it ‸ for the next time. I
think then we do need to consider, though, for example, taking those smaller sections and giving District 2 a way to grow west. It's starting to establish that growth is with our eye toward the future that we are looking west.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:39:47–00:39:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
In terms of what we can and cannot do, we can't move blocks that are not touching already. So we can't give for example, for those blocks within District
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:40:14–00:40:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:40:19–00:40:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
We can't do that. The hope that what we could do, if you look on our screen, if we want to add something to District 2, for example, we could move up to 23 or 102, those smaller blocks that are right connected to it or ‸ contiguous with it. But we couldn't take blocks that are in the middle of District 4 that are not touching District 2 and give it to District 2. That is something that lawfully we cannot do. ‸ The districts, as we move northward or westward, have to be contiguous, which means that they have to touch.
I don't know how we could even accomplish that legally. I don't think we can. I understand where you're coming from. I just the only way to make that work is to take that 642 block and everything in it and give it to District 2 and then maybe take something from the riverfront that holds some blocks up there and include those in District 4. That's the only way to make that work.
It does. Chairman, I think we've been presented with some options here based on our goals and objectives here. I would like to see us, you know, have discussion about our options in regards to what we've been presented so that we can make a decision based on, you know, populations, division. We've tried to, and we discussed this the last time, we tried to not disrupt neighborhoods as much as possible. We've been presented with different options there, and I'd like for us to look at that so that we can move forward because we can't recreate the wheel on this one. So we really need to, you know, take a look at what those options are, have discussions based on those.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:34–00:42:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:41–00:42:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:44–00:42:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:48–00:42:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
probably, you know, throw a wrench and everything. But I still would like to, you know, have an answer to a question in regards to the 477, what is it, the number we're trying to get to?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:43:06–00:43:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The big differences between them, and we've discussed this before, there's not much difference from the 2010 census to the 2020 in regards to a lot of this.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:43:22–00:43:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
a half there. You know, there's just not a big major difference. We've been presented with some, the current, and we have a look at slight differences here from A to B. We were presented with another version, which is just a version B. I was looking at that, the early on version, too. I don't know if it's relative to what we're looking at in A3 and B3, but it was a map that we were given very early on, a statistical analysis that we were given very early on. I kind of wanted to go back to that one, if possible, but it may be all inclusive already in
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:44:08–00:44:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:44:21–00:44:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Just a moment before we move forward. So, I agree with you, and ‸ I want to discuss our options, and I don't have a problem with that, 100%. But I also made clear in the beginning that I want to make sure that everyone is heard. And if we disagree, then I'm fine, and we can vote and move on. But what I don't want is for anyone in this commission to leave here not being heard and to feel like they didn't have the opportunity to advocate on behalf of the district that they were nominated to advocate on behalf of.
And Chair, I'm not trying to do any of that. I gave my opinion as well as our vice chair has given her opinion. I just wanted to move the needle a little bit because I think we've had discussion in regards to the different areas that she was looking at. We looked at it legally. I don't know if there are other questions, and I yield to that, if there are other questions that she
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:45:34–00:45:34 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
to. But that one question I think we've already sort of covered. So I don't know if there are others that she have for us today. But I was trying to advance my opinion as well.
And just to go back to what Madam Vice Chair was talking about, I agree with you that the districts are awkwardly drawn and that it doesn't make a lot of sense the way that some of these are drawn. But, you know, I agree with Mr. Green as well. I don't think that that's a problem we can fix now.
And the problem is, the reason why we can't fix it now is because if we decide to draw these districts in a way that does not comport with the census, the city would have to, in practicality, in order to make that happen, the city would have to get staff or hire staff to go and conduct our own census and to figure out who lives where so that we can redraw the lines and make the numbers make sense. And we just don't have time between now and January 10th to make something like that happen. It is impossible with our time constraints to do something like that. I do agree with Mr. Green that if that is something we want to see changed, that's something that we need to be advocating higher up for the next decade to make sure that the people that come to handle this in 2030 have the proper resources to be able to better draw district lines based upon district lines that ‸ are more sensible ‸ in their approach. But I'm not sure how we could make that happen now.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:47:27–00:47:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:47:33–00:47:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
But, you know, you have to ‸ look at this in the context of what we're doing. We're doing municipal redistricting. So you look to the city charter. The city charter states that ‸ district boundaries have to use the most recent census. And the census gives you the data to build the districts. And the census, the smallest building block available to draw the boundaries, the district boundaries, is the census block. And I understand we've pointed out some local concerns regarding how are these census blocks determined. ‸ But as one board member said, I mean, that is really what it is. ‸ These are the tools that you have to work with. But I understand, you know, prior to the 2020 census, states had an opportunity to make suggested changes to census blocks. There may be an opportunity in the future for the city to provide some input regarding its local census blocks. But that's not what you have available today. ‸ So your charter requires you to use the census. The census smallest building block is the census block that ‸ you're stuck with. And as the chairman said, even if you had the illegal ability, which I don't think you do, to use some other means for determining the equal total population in each district, ‸ time would not permit the city to conduct its own census in which to try to equalize total population and redraw the district boundaries. So the rules are as they are today, is the use of the 2020 census plus census blocks, in my view. And I think the board would do well to, you know, focus on the tools that have been given to you to draw the district boundaries, rather than coming up with a new way that ‸ the charter doesn't contemplate right now.
Does it then make sense for us to make a recommendation, at least on these three districts, for a future change as an outcome of our ‸ committee, in addition to the district recommendations?
our role to make recommendations to the state. It might be our role to ask the council and staff to consider coordinating with state and federal officials for ‸ the future.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:50:42–00:50:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:51:17–00:51:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:51:29–00:51:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:51:40–00:51:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:51:57–00:51:58 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:52:15–00:52:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:40–00:52:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
With regard to the, the idea that we're trying to do this with the least amount of disruption and that should not be a goal. I'd like to talk a little bit about unintended consequences. Yes, sir.
like the board to give consideration to. Since we received these election results or the ‸ demographics from Commissioner Scott, I'm taking a look at our 2020 elections and our Cocoa District 1 through 4 turnout. And I
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:53:25–00:53:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And from my familiarity with this, that's typical of practically every election. District 2, for whatever reason, tends to have a lower turnout. Now, what happens when we change these districts ‸ is inevitably some of the precincts within the county will change. And some of the polling places within those precincts will change so that people will be moved from their familiar polling place to a new polling place. And if anything, the more of those that we do, the more that exacerbates a lack of turnout. People go to where it's familiar. I know I'm going to poll worker that people will show up at what they believe is their polling place. You tell them, no, you don't vote here anymore. You vote at such and such a place. A percentage of those people who have waited in line or made time to come out will look at it and say, well, I just can't run around town all day. So they just don't vote. So there is an impact that comes from that. And that in itself is a reason to promote stability and to not disrupt things too much if within the greater context that doesn't change other outcomes.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:55:04–00:55:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
talk about what gets moved and to evaluate the concept that not disrupting things is a goal. I think not disrupting things is a valid goal to the extent that we can limit disruption. That's a good thing. Yes. Understood.
Ms. Moore, you posed a question to staff and we've concluded the concerns of Madam Vice Chair. Ms. Moore, could you please repeat your question to staff? Because you had a question and it's a valid question and I
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:55:46–00:55:46 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Well, my question was, as we get back to looking at the different scenarios that's been presented to us, I was asking our consultants when they gave us the version B very early on, has that been incorporated into one of these A3 or B3 versions that we're looking at now?
and you can ‸ note for yourself the changes there, but ‸ you'll see, again, the red outlines of the changes there. And so ‸ B is in essence, B3 is in essence pretty much the same.
I can also speak to you. This is Marshall Flynn. Yes, B3 was numbered B3 just to make it to match the actual meeting number like A3. So, yes, B is the same as B3.
My understanding was that the only difference was that after one of our meetings, I forget which one, we asked for both A and B to be modified to reflect the plus five for district one and the minus five for district three, but otherwise it is the same. Is that correct? That's pretty much.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:58:35–00:58:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
and this is, this is percentage of African Americans. Again, the, the, the percentages haven't changed. And so, you know, aside from neighborhoods there,
The districts, through the various versions, still look like the current district. So, that, that's the point of, of giving you these various spreadsheets on the, on the race and ethnicity.
Thank you, sir. And, and, and, and I hope you heard that, Ms. Hamilton Brown, your, your neighborhood or your street would remain in District 2, regardless of whether we chose version A3 or B3, your neighborhood would still remain in District 2, okay?
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:59:45–00:59:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
that is behind them and why that is so important. So I want to, I first want to say that, but I'm very concerned that these statistics are dead on arrival. The second the ink is dry, in our recommendation, they're out of date because we know that in D1, there are 355 new housing units approved. If you estimated that that's three people in a house, that's, you know, more than a thousand people, that's a huge percentage of what's happening in D1. Similarly, if you look at D3, we know that 1700 housing units are approved. That could be 5,000 people in D3, right? So these numbers don't hold even in D1, the second that we're done with this. And so if you're concerned about dilution, we're not addressing it by focusing on these numbers now.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:00:58–01:01:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Could you pull up the district one proposed block that's changing from, it's changing from two to one and it's number 415 inside. Could you zoom in on that particular block?
‸ I think I can see what I need to see. The concerns that were voiced to me about this district were about the potential splitting up of ‸ certain communities.
And so I'm amenable to approving some version of A3 and B3 that cuts off at Highland and that does not extend District 1 further north than Highland. If it means that we are accounting for the growth that's coming to District 1 with the units that have been approved, that way we don't cut as much into District 2
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:03:30–01:03:59 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:03:59–01:04:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
growth. I'm just not sure if we do that, how it would affect our deviations. Mr. Green, ‸ you have any input into that? Because I know that you're representing District 1 and I'm representing District 2 and we're talking about those borders.
further north of Highland, that would mean that the blocks that have 48 people, 91, 34 and 59 would remain in D2. I'm sorry. Yeah, it would remain in D2 as opposed to being annexed to D1. But you could not split the long, narrow one to the left, which is the 90 person. And you could probably leave the 60 person one intact because that would remain contiguous. Okay. So you could change the population change figure by 90 theoretically and preserve most of what you're after within D2 without
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:05:18–01:05:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I can't do the math in my head this quick, but if you took all those, that group that's 415 and left it in D2, you'd have to find some numbers someplace else to add to D1. And I'm not sure where you would find the numbers necessary.
get very small as far as what population is available to shift. You can see right there on the west side of ‸ US 1, most of that's commercial, so there's no population to make up the difference.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:06:44–01:06:45 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
there's no way to make that contiguous because it's just not. But in terms of moving over to 3 that is not at all connected to District 2 or even close to District 2, I think that we will run into some issues there. Whereas that block is, you see like ‸ the, there's a block in the middle of District 4 that is county, it's not included. Um, we couldn't give that block to District 2 if we somehow annexed it. And I'm not sure how this random island got included in District 2 either. I get what you're saying. Yes. Um, I'm not sure how that happened.
to belong to one of the districts. So I think that the powers that be in 2010 or whenever decided that it would be a part of District 2 as opposed to 4. Yeah. Um, I
think... I agree with ‸ that 415 block concern though, because when you drive those streets, that is one neighborhood and you can go in and out of your district without ever knowing it. And that just, that is not good for ‸ citizen engagement.
Right. Um, so I'm, I'm amenable, I'm amenable to, um, changing that 415 block, um, so that it doesn't extend north of... Highland. Highland. Um, uh, we would just have to be, uh, creative with those numbers, but, um, and maybe take in some of those other blocks that we were discussing, like the 63 block.
Yeah, I'm just concerned about... Yeah. I'm concerned about whether practically you can give up those 415 citizens and find enough citizens elsewhere that's contiguous
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:08:44–01:08:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:08:49–01:08:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Um, and so if we included the 63, if we included that 36 block and left alone, Ms. Hamilton Brown's 48 and 104 block. If we went over to the other side, uh, on the east side, there are several that can be incorporated 37, 35, 23 on the opposite side, 14 on the opposite side as well.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:09:32–01:09:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:09:44–01:09:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:09:56–01:09:56 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:10:30–01:10:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:11:18–01:11:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:11:32–01:11:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
uh, chair says that he would like to preserve those north of Highland, uh, for district two and not bring them to district one. So in order to do that, we would bring the 63 back into D1. Uh, and then by necessity, because you need to be, well, you wouldn't need to be contiguous, but that 90 block could go either way.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:12:19–01:12:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
27 blocks, it would, it would leave the district one being slightly below the 47 51, but it was still add to the population. But without breaking up those district two neighborhoods that are of concern.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:13:28–01:13:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:13:33–01:13:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:13:41–01:13:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:13:55–01:13:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:14:02–01:14:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
What I really want to see is back to the beginning is, is that we use that Dixon is a natural line. Everybody knows it. Everybody feels it. When you're, when you're on the ground is that north of Dixon is district four south of
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:14:27–01:14:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And I, I strenuously object that we've gotten stuck in two solutions when we really need to, to keep our neighborhoods together and think about the future and how growth is impacting it. Additionally, one thing that I hadn't gotten to raise yet that relates,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:14:47–01:14:47 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
county areas in Cocoa since our last meeting. And I'd love to know where those are because that will be impacting future annexation and discussions and whatnot.
to, I have to make the motion that our committee has a map that shows us on one page, all the approved developments in the cocoa area. So that we really do see that before we go final on anything
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:16:48–01:16:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:17:14–01:17:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we're the representatives of district one and two, but if anyone else has concerns or something, it feel free to add to the conversation. But, um, uh, we're basically looking at, um, a way that we can, um, move forward while also considering the, the impact of our decision on the borderlands, uh, between, uh, voting district one and voting district two. Um, Mr. Green, I see you have a calculator. Have you done some numbers?
the, uh, census blocks around the periphery of district one and two, as long as we can meet our mandated numbers. Okay. I can do some very quick math. What is
Absolutely. Um, let's, let's run some raw numbers first and, um, and we can have the race and whatnot. Uh, Mr. Beach and, and the staff can pull that up as well. Yeah.
census block numbers. You have census block population. And so, um, I don't know if staff is just ‸ confused as I am, but just show us the blocks that you're talking about. And then we gotta, we gotta go grab the census block numbers and then,
um, uh, is it possible to change, um, the view to include, because I can only look at what's in front of me on this screen and I don't actually have the census blocks in front of me. So can you do,
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:19:42–01:19:42 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Yeah. I'm trying to help you. Um, because what Mr. City manager is telling me that it would be more helpful for you all. If you had a census block to be able to consider what we're talking about.
district one. On the West side. So this block with 36 people, this block with 63 people and this block with 90 people keeping that as a part of district one. And that's on the West side. On the East side. You have this block of 23, 35, 37 and 14 people. And this 27 block.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:21:50–01:21:51 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
being a part of a district one. And we're talking about these one, two, three blocks being a part of district one. Um, and we want to know how that would affect the numbers so that we don't have to go north of Highland and split up that neighborhood. That is of concern. Did you get it?
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:22:21–01:22:21 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:22:27–01:22:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:22:39–01:22:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:22:54–01:23:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay. I wasn't asking him to speak. I just know that, um, he has particular, he may have particular interest because of it being his district that we're talking about. Uh,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:23:56–01:24:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 01:24:05–01:24:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 01:24:26–01:24:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 01:24:34–01:24:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 01:25:00–01:25:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
of further east as well. And the reason why, the reason why we're considering these is because we need to increase district one because it's the lowest district and it is, it is, it doesn't have enough people, but, um, how much we increase it, um, matters as well due to the fact that district one has construction coming and development coming, but district two doesn't. And so we're looking to increase district one while still keeping those district two communities together, uh, by incorporating, uh, this, uh,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:26:28–01:26:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
This is the railroad track, Florida east coast railroad track. So we're talking about keeping all of these, all five of these within district one, to increase the population, as well as the three that I mentioned on the, on the western side of the, of the northern border. Am I more clear?
We're decreasing the, the proposed number that we're adding to district one. So we have to add to district one, but we're just not going to add as much in this 415 block.
Correct. And we still need to look at the different demographics to see how it would affect to add to district one, but, but to not add certain communities as we had planned in the proposed version of a three and B three.
Well, I don't see any problem with that. My concern was whether those numbers work because, you know, we are taking some number of people out of district two. So right off the top of my head, I can't see where that puts us within our 5% swing.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:28:50–01:28:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:28:59–01:29:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:06–01:29:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So I would think that we would need to lean towards the 340 annexation because I think we would have a deficit of ‸ people and that would then force the other difference between a three and B three would be the 49 block to the West
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:24–01:29:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:30–01:29:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:29:38–01:29:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:29:44–01:29:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:30:01–01:30:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:30:47–01:30:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
do need to vote on it, but I thought that the, I thought that the staff was pulling up something so that we can have a reference point to kind of see what we're talking about in action. I think Marshall's going to have to do that.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:31:08–01:31:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So with the numbers that you guys are trying to, uh, manipulate in regards to the population. What, what are we, what are we gaining in the number? And what are we losing and the numbers so that we can at least have that as a,
I mean, we don't, we're not going to be able to do the demographics. That's true. What is that? We can, we can at least look at, I mean, what you just said was, uh,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:32:03–01:32:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:32:07–01:32:07 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:32:15–01:32:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:32:19–01:32:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:32:42–01:32:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
currently we're at 4168 for district one. Now, could you pull back up the, the map that I was looking at and pointing out those different sections in please? There we go.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:32:59–01:33:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
And on the other side, we would be adding 36, adding 63, adding 90. That would be putting district one at a total of, ooh, so we would need to, we would need to add more. Um, that would be putting district one at a total of 4,493.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:33:44–01:33:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we may be forced to add more, we would be forced to add numbers somewhere. Um, because, um, just those numbers would put us well below where we need to be.
Hypothetically. Hypothetically. Hypothetically. Hypothetically. Hypothetically, that would be the position we're putting in if we want to, ‸ if we want to keep Highland and that community north intact, uh, and keeping, uh, uh, Madam Hamilton Brown's community intact over there, um, which is the 48 and 104, we would be at
So, ideally, um, city manager, ideally we're looking at these numbers, uh, to try and equalize as, as much as possible. Um, just, you know, that's a mandate, uh, to bring it up to 47 or, you know, you said minus or plus, but yeah, 5%. So, um, yeah, so, so looking at our current. So that's what we
speak for myself only here. Uh, I've gotten a little, uh, you know, so district one and district, uh, we're trying to equalize a little bit for District
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:36:08–01:36:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:36:11–01:36:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:36:18–01:36:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:36:46–01:36:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:37:04–01:37:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:37:16–01:37:16 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
if, if we may maybe just add one more block in there, maybe we take it a little bit above Highland, but not affect those communities as much as we would have before.
Okay. Um, there's the block at the bottom there that's 27. And then there's a long thin one east of, uh, Indian river drive. And if we go north, we will eventually get to the number that's in that, that block. Right? Or maybe not.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:38:37–01:38:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:38:42–01:38:49 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:39:15–01:39:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: the machine readings disagree here; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 01:39:31–01:39:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay. Yeah. I mean, district one really is in some ways two different districts, ‸ east and west of US 1, as far as communities and common interests and so forth.
I live and we don't have a lot of people. But we think that there's a lot of commonality between people in the village and people along the North River. ‸ And that's a good match. But
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:40:21–01:40:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
So trying to find something where we have a good commonality of interests and a good commonality of concerns ‸ becomes very difficult. And I think we have a good balance now.
think the populations on either side of the highway are attuned to each other's concerns. And that's a very good thing. But trying to find a way to expand north to
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:40:50–01:40:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
neighborhoods becomes very, very problematic. And I think that no matter what we do, we're going to have an adverse impact on some neighborhood or some contiguous neighborhood. I
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:41:14–01:41:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:41:42–01:41:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
mean, are we, ‸ are we, well, instead, ‸ comparing A3 to B3, which one are we really trying to, you know, show that we're having a due process of looking at communities and,
know, because that's, that's where we really kind of need to focus in on which one of these we are. And then we can say, okay, how, if we move this, we move that. Um, how is that going to, because if you're looking at too many maps at the same time, you're not doing the process. What
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:42:29–01:42:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:42:40–01:42:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
The other side will probably, probably be closer to ‸ A3. Yeah. Yeah. The main thing that I'm trying, the main area that I'm looking at is that area that's 415, that's the same on both maps. Right. But in order to take away from that area,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:43:13–01:43:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
area. So that would probably be, that would, that would probably lead to A3 being the map that is closer suited because we would be able to incorporate the stuff on the east side,
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:43:36–01:43:39 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:43:53–01:43:53 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:44:04–01:44:04 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:44:05–01:44:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:44:23–01:44:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:44:25–01:44:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
another concern off the table. I'd like to circle back to something we talked about earlier, which is that island that's in the middle of County land there,
And, uh, we talked about that not being a good candidate for district three, just because of the distance. Well, that is an island and it is non-contiguous with everything.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:45:08–01:45:09 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
And if anything, uh, there may be, and we're not planning on this, but there may be some future annexation. And at that point, uh, you consider that for the next round of, uh, consensus in 2030.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:45:45–01:45:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:46:25–01:46:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Okay. We're looking at somewhat of a consensus, but at this time, I move for version A3 to be the base map that we consider as our starting point moving forward.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:46:55–01:46:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:47:49–01:47:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:47:56–01:48:01 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
we still have, at least there was some discussion between, that was primarily between Mr. Green and I, but of course it's for everyone to consider. But we were having some discussion in the borders between District 1 and District 2 and how we can make that more fair. But aside from that, I mean, we do have version A3.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:48:55–01:48:56 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
So that you actually plot the data so that you can see it visually. So some of the demographic information that you're looking at in tables, you can see in a kind of big picture sense. And that was in our first meeting.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:49:38–01:49:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
I would say for myself that the maps as we have them with the tables at the bottom that ‸ have the demographic breakout by district visualizes it enough for me. I can't say that that helps anybody else, but I ‸ can visualize using those tables in conjunction with the map.
just trying to think back to when we made a motion about heat maps specifically, because I was curious about a discussion and how that would help us to better move forward with our mission than what we have in front of us now.
we need to do, then I'm all for including it and it should be included if we already passed a motion on it. But if there's not a motion on it, then we probably need to move forward or make a motion on it.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 01:51:50–01:52:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:52:34–01:52:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
now looking at District 1 and District 2. We're leaving along District 3 and 4 unless we have to dig into some of those numbers to satisfy the population that we're trying to get to. We also want to get a look at the demographics, which is something that ‸ our consultants can give us a little bit more detail on it so we can see where
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 01:53:16–01:53:17 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
Yes, ma'am. Right now, it seems that the only lasting or lingering concern is the border between District 1 and District 2 and how we can make it constitutional to reflect no less than a 5% deviation from the ideal of 4751. And how we can best respect the integrity of the communities that will be affected by the changes that we decide upon.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:54:41–01:54:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:54:50–01:54:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
be our final concerns. At this time, I believe we have... Have we given Mr. City Manager the proper instruction such that staff can come back to us with something that...
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:55:22–01:55:24 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:55:25–01:55:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:55:36–01:55:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 01:56:04–01:56:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
By consensus, we have agreed to a final meeting on Tuesday the 4th at 10.30 a.m. where we will discuss necessary changes to version A3 of the proposed maps.
Yes, and the consultants are going to be providing us with the CMAP that mentions the numbers that you guys, ‸ that you were talking about. Because I don't want us to go back to trying to figure out which ones we were talking about. So these are, is there an understanding from the consultants, the numbers, the movement,
my understanding is ‸ what the consultant is going to do is adjust A3 as highlighted by the chair and make no other changes to any other districts and let ‸ you see that, the result of that scenario.
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:57:41–01:57:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:57:47–01:57:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:57:51–01:57:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:58:01–01:58:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 01:58:03–01:58:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording