Charter Review Board - Regular Meeting

Calling to order 05/19/2026 redistricting board meeting. Will the board clerk please call the roll? Sheriff Skoriazov? Present. Vice chair Valvo? Present. Board member Dravik? Present. Board member Menzies? Present. Board member Smith? Here. City attorney Piper?

Here.

Thank you. Thank you. This meeting is being conducted live with a form physically present. Material for today's meeting is available online at www.covenantcreek.gov. Anyone wishing to appeal any decision made will need a record of the proceedings.

For such purpose, we need to ensure that a verbatim recording of the proceedings is made, including the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. The audio of this meeting may be requested from the city clerk or may be heard online at www.cochlearcreek.gov. K. We are now getting to approval of the minutes from last meeting, 05/05/2026. Are there any corrections or revisions to the minutes from the 05/05/2026 board meeting?

Aye. None? If none, is there a motion and second to approve the minutes as presented?

Move to acceptance.

I second.

We have a move and second. Clerk, can you call the roll? Chair Escoriazza? Yes. Vice Chair Lavo? Yes. Board Member Drebich?

Yes.

Board Member Minsis? Yes. Board Member Smith? Yes. We will now hear Agenda Item four, a review of alternate scenarios. I'm on? Okay. Consultants.

This report basically was developed because the Board asked for 3A and 3B to be developed. However, we reviewed the remaining alternatives from the second meeting, alternative one, one a, and alternative three. So those are all discussed together in this report. And the idea was to give you, I guess it would be six alternatives to examine at today's meeting. At the end of the discussion of each of the scenarios, we present a summary table, which I think is going to be an important component of this, okay, meeting. And with that, I'm going to turn

it over to James. Good afternoon, everybody. Good to see you all again. Here's our outline for today. We'll review the direction that you all gave us at the last meeting. We're going to have an aside talking about how we plan for future growth of the city, and we're going to have a special discussion on what we're calling a 2032 population outlook. And I've emphasized the word outlook for a good reason. We'll talk about that. Then we'll talk about the six alternatives that are going to be in front of you today for your consideration. Then, of course, we'll finish up with thinking ahead next steps.

So at the last meeting, you all formally rejected Alternative two, so that's no longer under consideration. And of course, you also requested two variations on Alternative three. So Alternative 3A was intended to unify the single family homes of Banyan Trails into District 2. And under 3A, the Banyan Point Apartments communities would remain in District 3. In 3B, on the other hand, all of Banyan Trails, including the Banyan Point Apartments, should be located in District 2.

Now in both cases, District 4 should mirror that of Alternative 1, where both the Hammocks and Hammock Estates communities were found in the same district. Let's talk about how we got to this point. As we've discussed all along, all of our analysis has been done based upon a 2029 population projection. And the reason we stopped in 2029 is because, of course, those that's the year that the districts go into effect, and projecting further than 2029 would introduce too much uncertainty. However, when the commission hired us to do this project, and as we discussed previously, we were also directed to take into consideration the development of Main Street.

And so the alternatives that we prepared for you initially in our last meeting, the alternatives January, had to pass two tests. Would those alternative maps work under a scenario where only the population as projected to 2029 came to pass? Or would it also work in a scenario where every unit that's been approved in Main Street up to the year 2032 was constructed and occupied by that year. So those are the two criteria that we judged the initial pre MEMS by. Any potential alternative that we were, you know, working on while we're going through that configuration process that didn't pass both tests was not advanced to you as a formal alternative.

This means that when we evaluate the alternatives that you asked us to work on at our last meeting, we also have to examine both of those tests, not just the 2029 test, but also the 2032 test. And so because we have to look at 2032, we created a population outlook, not a population projection, but a population outlook so that we could judge that second case. Now this language is included in your reports. It's a little disclaimer that we've added to, you know, to distinguish from a population projection to a population outlook. Forgive me while I read this.

I I I think it's very important that we're all on the same page about the nature of our 2032 outlook. Because future economic conditions, construction schedules, market absorption, and other development related factors cannot be predicted with certainty six years in advance, the entitlements associated with the Main Street developments are treated as part of a population outlook rather than a formal population projection. These figures are provided for general planning context only. They are not definitive population counts and should not be relied upon as a precise forecast of future population. Thank you for bearing with me as we go through that.

So with that context, here are all of the developments that staff city staff gave to us that are supposed to be completed between census day of twenty '20 out to the year 2032. And you can see that if we take these units and multiply them by this value, 2.39, that's the American Community Survey persons per household value for the city of Coconut Creek. So we've taken those units and multiplied them by this value to give our to create our population projection out to the year 2029. And here in the second column, italicized a population outlook with that little disclaimer asterisk. The kit adds on another 1,615 people in Main Street going out to 2032.

So you can see here we've got these additional pods being added on to this data to create the 2032 outlook. Okay. So, with all that context, let's go to the alternatives that are in front of you today. We still have alternative one. In alternative one, the district boundaries align with the major roadways.

This makes the district boundaries very recognizable. These boundaries also avoid splitting a neighborhood unless, of course, that neighborhood is so large that it happens to cross a major road roadway. And because they are following these major roadways, that also helps with the overall compactness of this particular map alternative. So we need to look at how these alternatives work under both the 2029 forecast and also the 2032 projection outlook. Excuse me.

So let's look at the 2029 date. You can see here under alternative one, the total deviation is 6.9%. The district in which Main Street is located, in this case District 2, has a deviation of negative point 4%. So that gives us some room for growth as we promised. The mean deviation, this is an important number that should rise in boldness, is 1.7%.

And the spread between the largest district and the smallest district is 4.7%. That's also important. And that's because it's these two numbers that we're evaluating against that 10% goal. We said that we had a goal of not having a deviation that was greater than 10%. So you can see here in 2029, alternative one easily comes underneath that threshold. The question is, what does it look like in 2032? So let's take a look. Here's our outlook. You can see that the mean deviation goes up a little bit. It's now 3.8%, again, well below that 10% goal.

But the spread between the largest and the smallest districts is 13.1%. So we're slightly higher than our goal of 10% here. But that's offset by the idea that the boundaries are nice and clean. They're following the major roads. And so you can argue that that would justify exceeding that goal slightly.

That said, if the fact that you're above 10% gives you any pause whatsoever, we created alternative one a. Alternative one a was intended as a tweak of alternative one that would improve population equity. And, of course, the way that we achieved that was by moving the boundary between Districts 2 And 4 from Coconut Creek Parkway down here to the boundary that's found between the Hammocks and Hammocks Estates neighborhoods. This was an issue that some of you were concerned about last time. I just wanted

to point out

that's still found in alternative one a. Let's look at how the numbers work for this particular alternative. The mean deviation is 1.7%. If I back up just a little bit, you can see that the Main Street deviation is negative 2.6%, again, giving a plenty room to grow out into 2032. K?

And the spread between the smallest and largest districts is 4.3%. So both of these numbers, 4.31%, up 1.7%, are well below that 10% goal. If we go out to 2032, you can see now that the mean deviation is 2.7%. And by moving that boundary of District 4 between between the hammocks and hammocks states, our spread is now 9%. So we're under that 2% goal, and I want to highlight for you this number right here.

You can see that District 4, which is coming north of the hammocks states, has a deviation of less than 5%. It's specifically, it's negative 3.5%. So it's this it's this value. I want you to pay attention to, put a pin on that one as we go through these future alternatives. When you see this value lower like this, that helps with this spread number.

When it gets higher, that's going to push that spread number up. As we mentioned, you rejected alternative two, so that leaves alternative three from the original district. So as you will recall, this was an alternative that created four East West oriented districts stacked from the north to the south, one through four. And if you look at the 2029 data, you can see that Main Street has plenty room to grow at negative 3.6%. The mean deviation is just 2.2%, and the spread between the smallest and largest districts is 6.4%, well below that 10% number.

We go out to 2032, the mean deviation is 2.3%, and the spread is 7.9%. So well below that 10 I shouldn't say well below. Below that 10% goal that we discussed. However, very importantly, as you got some of you identified a concern last last time, this does leave the single family homes in the Banyan Trails community being split between Districts 2 and Districts 3. So that's why you asked us to create two tweaks. So let's go over those adjustments

right now.

Here's alternative three a. Again, we've got that East West configuration. But the direction you gave us, as I mentioned, was to unify the single family homes of Banyan Trails in District 2. And you can see in this map right here that we've done that. Right? So all the single family homes are now under District 2. The Banyan Point apartment community was to remain in District 3. You can see that here. And that District 4 should mirror that of alternative one where the hammocks and hammocks states were all under one district. You can see that that's the case here under District 3.

So let's see how that works in terms of the numbers. In 2029, everything's good. We've got a deviation for Main Street that's negative 1.4 for its district that is. That's District 2. The mean deviation is 2.2%, and the spread is 5.7%, so well below that 10% goal.

If we go out to 2032, however, you can see that the mean deviation has gone up to 3.3%, still fine, but the spread is now exceeding that 10% goal, with 12.2%. Now that's comparable to the spread that we saw in alternative one, which had 13.1%. However, in the case of alternative one, all the boundaries of the districts exclusively follow the major roads, which might justify exceeding that 10% goal, but that's not the case here with alternative three a. Again, you can see here in District 4, we've got that deviation that's exceeding 5% and pushing the spread number up. The other alternative that you asked us to investigate was a version of alternative three where we exclusively follow major roads.

So specifically, all of Banyan Trails, including the Banyan Pointe apartment community, should be located in District 2, and you can see that we've achieved that here. Everything is blue over here. And again, we want a District 4, this mirroring alternative one. So hammocks and hammocks states are unified under this particular alternative. Looking at the 2029 data, you can see that the Main Street District, District 2, has a deviation of positive 3.8%.

Really what we're saying here is that this district is not going to have enough room to grow under this particular alternative. The mean deviation is 2.8%, and the spread between the largest and smallest districts is 6.8%. So in 2029, these boundaries are working, but if you go out to 2032, you can see that they're going to start to fail. Here we've got a mean deviation of 5.8%. That's okay.

But the spread between the largest and smallest districts becomes 17.3%. So that far exceeds the goal of no more than 10% deviation. So alternative three b is really not working whatsoever if you're taking into consideration this 2032 population outlook, which is what we were asked to do. So given that we heard your concerns about alternative three, even though you didn't ask us to create the three c, we felt it was appropriate to try to give you some of what you were looking for, specifically unifying the single family homes and banding trails while also creating a population equity that works in both the 2029 scenario and the 2032 scenario. And so specifically what we're doing here is we're unifying the single family homes and Banyan Trails under District 2, but you can see that District 4 here has reverted back to what we saw in alternative one, where the Hammocks and Hammocks Estates communities are now separated again.

So in 2029, Main Street, the Main Street district, District 2, has a deviation of negative 1.4%, so it gives it room to grow. The mean deviation is 1.1%, which is obviously very good. And the spread between the largest and smallest districts is 3.1%. As we can see now, the rub always comes in 2032. Let's take a look at that data.

Here, the mean deviation goes up a little bit to 3.3%, and the spread between the largest and smallest districts is now 10.1%. We're closer to that 10% goal than alternative three a, which is 12.2%. 10.1%, we're basically right at that 10% goal, just a little bit over. But the key was bringing that deviation of district four down under 5% to make that possible. Good.

So let's summarize. All of the alternatives that we presented here today are initially viable under the 2029 population projection. Alternative one preserves the clearest major road boundary structure. Alternative one a preserves improves the population balance while preserving most of Alternative one's major major boundary structure. Alternative three creates an East West District configuration. Alternative three a has a spread that's comparable to that of alternative one in the 2022 outlook, but it does not exclusively follow

the major roads, which was

what we were using to justify that slightly higher number for alternative one. Alternative 3b does follow the major roads exclusively, but it falls out of bounds in the 2032 outlook. And finally, alternative 3C further modifies alternative 3A to improve population equity, but it does not follow the major roads exclusively. So the next steps. We have to think about the six alternatives that are on the table in front of you today.

You might want to consider eliminating any of the alternatives that you deem inferior. And then at the end, hopefully, you will be able to recommend an alternative to the commission, but that's, of course, entirely up to you. With that, I'd be very happy to answer any questions that you might have.

I had one. I was playing around with some of this. I think we have been really studious or serious about keeping neighborhoods together and keeping communities together. For me, I began to look into some of the governance of some of the communities, because I think that's important. I didn't realize, for example, the township is governed very similar to to Windmoor.

Hammocks has a homeowners association that governs the whole thing. I know we're sticking as much as possible to the roads, to the bus, to the using the roads as boundary lines. But I was looking at the possibility there's a large section about, according to the numbers of Carroll Gateway, with a over a thousand people in the townships that's just South of Copans Road, North of Glynmore. It's just West Of Centura Park. And I got also population three.

The carolans have been really incredibly helpful here. Numbers for the Hammocks And Hammocks Estate and the little area that's called Lyons West, and I forget what the actual community is called. I pass it a thousand times a day. Those numbers match. If you if you took those communities, put them in four, move that section of the township into three, the township stays together as a cohesive unit, which I think is what we're trying to do. Hammock stays together as a cohesive unit, and those population numbers seem to fit. Again, I don't have that little community that's labeled Lyons West. It was pretty small.

Cypress Shores?

Yes. Cypress Shores. Thank you. It's very small, and you seem to have about the same number of people in those. That doesn't affect Banyan further north. It's something I think we should discuss, because even though it doesn't follow the roads exactly, I think it tends to be more fair to the residents of those communities. Noticed yeah. Believe you're doing the same thing on the map.

Go. If you wouldn't mind, going back to three a. I thought you had said, and I may have misunderstood me. Please correct me if I'm wrong, that that included the hammocks in four, but the map didn't show that. It

didn't show that. But

you said that, I think

3 B.

Three A.

Oh, okay. Because I wrote that 3 B Hammock Estates 4.

So the Hammocks and the Hammocks Estates under 3 A are unified under District 3.

But I thought you said they were going to four on that, but it didn't the map

didn't show So if we go if we go back to alternative three So the original alternative that we provided to you was this alternative. And you can see that in this case, we've got the Hammock Estates in District 4 and the Hammocks in District 3. And the reason that we were doing that was to try to improve the the the spread numbers, improve improve the deviation for alternative four. K? So that that was helping us. That's why many of the configurations have it this way. Okay? But you asked us to show you a version three a where that wasn't the case, where hammocks and hammocks estates were unified. And so that is the case for alternatives three a and three b.

And then I agree about the township, as I said in the last meeting, wanting to try the best to keep it all in three, that one section that's South Of Copans and the section that's West Of Lyons. And I think it's great based on what we heard last week of keeping Banyan Trails into two. Right? Yeah. So I think we're real close, but I'd like to see those numbers for Banyan Trails moved into two, and then all the township into three, and Hammocks into four.

So community whatever.

Miss Smith, just to clarify, which option are you working off of to make those moves? None.

Option five.

Alternative five, none of these because it's a little bit of one and a little bit of another. I like the fact that you move Banyan Trails into two, right, to keep it whole. Is that what we whether what's your opinion on whether you split up the residential from the rental?

I mean, the The rental has a has nothing to do with Banyan Trails. They just named it Banyan Point, which I mean, I can't even get a Carteret. Right. So I like that. Yeah. That has nothing to do with that. I mean, I would have liked to have seen the ham the hammocks all into four and then Yes. All of Banyan into three. So Just

just to clarify, which map are you looking at when we say

I'm looking at 3 a

right now.

At three a?

Yeah. Okay.

No. That's what I'm talking about. So, like, when you're when you're moving these around

Oh, right.

So we kinda need a base point where we're starting.

You have a little map? Oh.

Sorry about that.

Yeah. So So I just wanna point out. Obviously, in alternative one and in alternate one, all the Banyan Trails

is what

I thought.

Unified. Right? Into two?

No. In alternative one, you have District 3 that's forming on the Eastern side of the lines here. Right? So in alternative one, all of Banyan Trails is unified under a single district. You asked us to create a three b where Banyan Trails is also unified, but we saw that the numbers fail when you get to twenty thirty two in in three b. So 3 B is really not an option.

But I think what we were talking about was looking at three a.

Keep Bannon in two, not three. Right?

Right. Banyan going into two and then the hammocks going into four.

Correct. And the township going into three.

Craig Craig kinda drew it out

on his. Okay. So you said you want Banyan in two and Hammocks in four, which is 3 C. That's 3 c.

Banyans into two. Correct. Hammocks into four and township into three.

Just that does this drive?

Yes. This is basically what

I'm looking at. You you want to modify Mhmm. You wanna modify 3 C to move the township into District 3.

That what you're Move Hammocks into 4. You're on that's 3 C. Wait. I thought they're on 3 B.

No. 3 B doesn't work. Pick a 3 B.

So the other 3 C. Yeah.

I'm just c.

Okay. So where where we have the hammocks in 4. Right? Yeah. That's been done. But the Banyan Trails is still hanging out there by in 3 instead of two.

The the apocalypse in 3 c is Mhmm. Found in District 3. Yeah. Right up here.

Yeah. So it's not clear, but that works better. Because they don't right. They're not part of the same HOA. They're not part of the same community.

So put in Benning Trails into two.

That part could, I guess, go either way.

Right. Township. Hang on, folks. 3. Hang on, folks. If you go to 3. So this this is a multifamily community. If we put that into District 2, we're going back to the problem of 3 B, which is that District 2 is gonna get too big.

Right. And I'm okay with having being split out. I mean, I know it doesn't go for your lines of looking at it, I don't have an issue with Bang And Point not being in the same as Bang And Trails. Yeah.

That's why we try to give you alternatives. One alternative is thanks to But I

think what Lainie's

by some

stating is she wanted to see the township not split up. But I don't I think the township's too big. I mean, first, it was in one and one a, you have township into three categories, whereas in three, you only have it

into two. So with these numbers, David, you wanna speak to those?

The numbers the numbers I got from Terrell, and I have to find this in my neighborhood or someplace. That section of the township that we're talking about, below South Copans, West Of Central Park, and East Of Lyons, according to the last figures of a thousand community residents. The Hammock Estates was 305. The Hammocks was 574, and I don't know what that little neighborhood is whose name again goes out of my head. Don't know why.

I feel sorry for those people that keep But forgetting it's not large. So I looked at those numbers, not looking at the Danyon Trails and Danyon Point, and seeing that those just about matched, give or take, perhaps a 100 people. And I thought that would be an equitable swap because you wouldn't be breaking up the townships. You wouldn't be breaking up the township. You wouldn't be breaking up the hammocks.

So the major communities at least would stay together. And now I don't know what impact that would have on everything else because it doesn't touch two. It doesn't that suggestion doesn't touch Banyan Trails, Banyan Point. Vic was okay with me. I'm not familiar with the area, and I'll go along with what what Brandi's saying there. But I think that would be a fairer way of splitting that up. Even though it's not a solid line, it does squiggle a bit. But I think it's fair because of the way the communities are.

I'll just make a point here. In all of the redistricting that I've been involved with, which is everyone, this is the thirteenth for the city of Copernic Creek. Okay? Lyons Road has served as a boundary line. Obviously, it splits the township. There's a western side of the township, West of Lyons Road, and there's an eastern side. There's never been an issue that's been brought to my attention from the community regarding that. The township is made up of many, many different neighborhoods. If you walk out the door here and look at the map, you can see some of them. There's probably

than that.

Probably 30 or 40

of them.

Okay? Okay. Trying to keep them all together given the geography of the township, the way it's spread out, is going to be very, very difficult. If you're if you're seeking if you're seeking reasonable reasonably clear boundary lines, if you're willing to draw boundary lines like this through the city, obviously you can try to keep communities that have the same name overall together. But one of the goals initially, and the reason Alternative one was presented as Alternative one, is that it's the cleanest, okay, division of the city using very recognizable boundary lines, the major roads.

So if geography matters, alternative one should be considered. If you're concerned about whether the subdivisions that have similar names are all in one district, you're going to end up with boundaries that are gonna be more convoluted. And that why? If I

think those rules can be true. Right? Boundary roads can boundaries can matter, and it's not so much communities with similar names. There's communities with associations, community clubhouses. It's not, you know, just because the name kinda rhymes. Right? They're they're communities where somebody pays an association fee or a master association fee. So there's some commonality to it. It's not just a similar name. And, yeah, I think I think I don't know if it would help at all though if somebody, like, shared, like, a illustration of it, like, just to try

to Well, I've drawn it out. Yeah. But We're

both drawn out. Yeah.

So the balance of the hammocks moving south and the township moving north.

So when you say this real quick, you're starting on what option? So we'll bring that up. What option are you drawing in?

Don't know.

Don't Just math. You can take any of them. Well

So Because I don't think it really the way I looked at it, it didn't that swap did not necessarily impact the the Banyan Trails move.

Well, they so every move you make Mhmm. On any map impacts the next the next move. So you plus one, you down one. Right? So it's it's you always have to find an equal or opposite reaction when you're doing it.

I understand.

So when you start off with so, again, I've done this in a bunch of different places. I'm gonna give you a good example. You're in my city, Cumberbinds, where I work. One of our options back in the day, Split Century Village. Okay? Century Village is probably one of the more recognizable communities. 136 Split Century Village. It was a very clear boundary. Exactly what you're saying. 136 has some commonality, this, that, and the other. But when you make that move, that move has to transcribe to to another district move. So when you start this, okay, hey, we're not gonna touch District 1. Alright? So we will skip District 1. Not a problem.

Now we're only dealing with 23, and four. So if there's this general acceptance that in each of the options, District 1 looks clean, then we move on to the next piece. Right? But depending on what map you start from, each of these options moves that threshold whether it's up two points, one point down. There is a it is a very small there's very little wiggle room depending on where you start.

Well, can I ask you a question? Yeah. What I was looking at here was basically a population swap. If I look here and there's a thousand people living here and there's a thousand people living here, and the only change would mean instead of having a line here and here, now the line would go this way and this way, and you're swapping a thousand people. Neither community is gonna grow in population probably until 2050 because their their borders are set.

Then the only thing we're really changing is instead of it being a straight line along Copeland's Road, the straight line along Lyons, we're going this way and that way. And, I mean, after leaving the law, put government for a long time. Mhmm. And I used to teach gerrymandering to my students. And I would look at districts that put it like this that cut streets in half. Mhmm. And I'm looking at what's being done to the state. And, frankly, that's the same thing happening. I don't think we should be so rigid that we it's gotta be a straight line along Lyon's Road, it's gotta to be a straight line along Copen's, if we make a move here that will help people who are in a cohesive community. That's what I'm looking at, especially if the numbers are about right and they don't affect the other numbers.

Don't think we're in disagreement on that. Think it's just how you decide to cut that up. A lot of times, and what we started off with in the first meeting, the basic unit of measure is a census block. Despite what we love to think from the US Census Bureau, they don't necessarily follow the same neighborhoods. Right? So then we start manipulating blocks to try to get to the story that you're trying to convey by trying

to keep some of these things together.

So that's usually one of the challenges that we have as we're starting to move through this. So while the roads that we've been talking about is the clean boundaries, the one thing that census blocks usually do is typically follow roads and canals more than, let's just call them neighborhoods subdivisions. So that's where the next challenge comes in. So we have an estimated population for these places. So let's say the township on the West Side Of Lyons has, just for the sake of argument, 500 homes times 2.39.

There's, you know, whatever. That gives us a rough idea. But sometimes those blocks don't always keep it as clean. So if you saw in the first report that we provided to you, we provided you a population total by like a bigger geographic region. So we looked at South Of Copens, West Of Lyons, North Of Coconut Creek Parkway.

It's about 2,400 people. That was on that first map that we provided you. Right? So then, if you look at the other map that we provided in that first report, we also showed you that the township, for example, sits in really five different geographic corridors in the city, right, which is probably one of the bigger challenges that I think you all are trying to overcome. But when wherever we make that move, that corresponding move is gonna have another move with another one of those neighborhoods. So I guess the the goal, if if if we're making a recommendation to the board would be, okay. Hey. What can we eliminate? What option don't we wanna touch? What option do we wanna work off of, whether it's three a, three b, three, to try to accomplish what you suggested by just moving that population?

Because each one of them has a different nuance to it. Right? So when you apply those those thoughts, hey, we can eliminate what we don't think is working. Is there a consensus among the group that, hey, we're we're just not into we know three b doesn't work. Let's just get rid of it. We know three a doesn't work. Let's just get rid of it. But three c may work, but can we apply this to three c? Or is there a rendition in there? Because one of the goal one the problems you have right now is you have six options right now before you. You've only eliminated one out of seven so far. And if you're gonna make a recommendation to commission, you know, again, you're gonna try to get that as hyper focused as possible. And when we're working off of that, what is the direction? If all else is equal and all our goal is to fix the township, how do we apply that? Which number do we start with?

So here's a question. In three c, if that's the one we wanna work off of Mhmm. Where I I'd say, Brandy, again, you know the North Bend much better than I do. We're happy with Banyan Trails Yep. At that point. Okay. I mean What I'm not clear about is where the line is for the hammocks. So I I'm not sure if this is including all of the hammocks in that little subdivision that we can't think of the name of.

It's Cypress Trails Apartments. Cypress Trails. Thank you.

And all of hammocks and move them into four and move township into three. To me, it sounds like it's

Good numbers.

If the numbers work, it's a good resolution.

So Just to clarify, we're not rigid at all. We're we're more than willing to do anything that the board has. If you want to give us a direction to create another alternative that moves some make some population swaps, as you're suggesting, we are very happy to look at that.

So do we have to make a nomination for that?

That's Just

one thing. We still have six options. I think maybe if we get to let's eliminate some options as well. It establishes a stake in the ground. Right? Mhmm. We haven't spoken about one at all. Is there any feelings on the world?

One

has the cleanest geography. It does split the townships, but the townships is such a big geographic area. Right. It's gonna be hard to try to get them all together.

That was the north and south versus the east and west. I said we eliminate that. Right?

We have one call for eliminating one. Can I make a motion to eliminate alternative number one?

I'll make the motion to eliminate one. I'll second it.

That's how that works, right? So one is eliminated. What's our next number in order? One a. One a. So one a. Any opinions of one a?

I think it's more on the one a.

The only splits the hammocks, takes Hammock Estates, still splits the township. Okay. I would eliminate one a, but, again, I make a motion to eliminate one a.

Can I can I just

say one thing before you get there? I I know this seems like an arbitrary goal when you're redistricting. And obviously, we're gonna move in whatever direction the board wants to move in. But if you're a commissioner and you're walking your district or you're describing your district and and by the way, I'm I'm speaking from an experience. I talk to my commissioners all the time about this. Actually, in my city, have a very funky boundary in my city. It's actually a wetland. If you're north of this wetland, you're in this district. If you're south of this wetland, you're in this district, then nobody knows the wetland. I just ask you to keep in the back of your mind as you're looking at these, and I don't know if this is where you were going with keeping one a in the queue, is one a still maintains the the road boundaries.

So if you're a commissioner and you're describing your district, hey, you're East Of Lions, you're in my district. If you're West Of Lions, you're in so and so's district. I don't want to say that there's value to that, but when I talk to my commissioners on a regular basis, there strong is value to being able to describe your district. And I I when you were talking about gerrymandering before, you kind of got me thinking about this. Well, hey. If you follow this road to the right and you go to the left, you're here. And if you're on the right side, if you're in the multifamily, you're here. It gets a little convoluted. And, again, I'm not trying to sway you.

I just want you to have these thoughts in

your mind as you're looking at it because it gets it gets very challenging.

I'm trying to get politics out of my mind for this purpose No. And for the sake of not

Not a not a that's not a political statement. Right. It is a it is a Geography statement. It's a geography statement.

So when you're speaking to a it's

like you all have the benefit of reviewing all these maps. Right?

But when you're speaking to

a lay person, when you're walking a district, or if you're at an event and you're an elected official, hey, you the township's another way to say it. Hang up. If you're in the township, you're in my district. So you can say it the other way too.

Right? Yeah.

But when you're looking at these things, those are the things that again, I want you to just for a moment think like somebody who's trying to describe district. Go through your head as you're thinking about it.

But I was thinking the same thing. If you live in Windmoor, you're in my district.

If live

in the hammocks, you live in my district. If you live in the township, you live in my district. As opposed to if you live in the township but, actually, if you live in the township that's South Of Copland, you're not really in my district. Absolutely. I would rather see a commissioner be able to say, if you live in the township, you're in my district. Win more hammocks, etcetera.

So although they're not voters, what if they're a business? And what if that boundary altered so because the businesses don't necessarily follow the neighborhoods. Right? So the businesses tend to hey. If you're North Of Sample or you're South Of Sample and I'm I'm I'm trying to give you the devil's advocate. I'm this this is what I deal with every day.

Well, those particular districts don't have any businesses, though. That's the

other like you're trying

to sway us a different way. To me, that's No.

No. Balancing it out. Yeah.

I'm I'm just want you to think about all the different perspectives because when we we presented the criteria to you, compactness was one of those original criteria. Identifiable boundaries, roadways. So that's the initial criteria. And as in in the attempts to get the neighborhoods together, you start to sway away from those items. So and, again, I just want you to be able to weigh each of those things equally as you're making your decision or as you're eliminating options because I think that's where

Well, the only reason that I one a is because it's not three. At least we have another option because I don't know what anybody else is thinking. Yeah. And that's the

only reason I figured, alright.

Because then we're just down to three. Yep. You know, the letter three, not three. Sure. Yes. But you know?

So that's another way of looking.

Why I said to just hold on to

that for now

because, you know I mean, there's ones and three that

I feel we can eliminate at this point as well.

So And I think that's kinda where I was going is is that each of these options has weighs different scenarios.

The same exact thing.

I mean, this is a little

different because I don't know what he's thinking.

I don't what he's thinking.

That's good. The sunshine issue.

To certain extent to a certain extent, 1A has one, same one, which is eliminated, follows the traditional division lines for commission districts. Lyons Road has been a, okay, an established, okay, for a long time, boundary between districts, the southern part of Lions Road. And the community in general is aware of that. Okay? Those people who who are concerned. Okay? Not everybody is concerned about their districts. Okay?

Yeah. And I'm not saying I like this. Yeah.

I thought that at the last meeting, we agreed we did not want maybe Correct. Oh, I agree with you.

I'm not saying that that I like this.

I need just one that they

can list. To keep on the table in case somebody else wanted something different. Right. I'm not saying that's me. Right. Right. So I was just trying to be fair. I want people to use it.

Put it to a motion and a vote. Right. That's kind our of prerogative as well.

Yeah.

Well, does that I mean, does anyone have any motion on number one a or moving on to I mean, I one says anything, then we

can to three b. I'll eliminate three b.

I Okay. Go ahead. I have I feel comfortable if you guys I think I've illustrated kind of what David was saying. What David's proposing in my mind is the the Zone 1, which I'm happy to say is where

I live, and it's just

a clean-cut line that we're not talking about at all because my mind's compact there. But the other three are kind of about a thousand a thousand person swap amongst the three, keeping population. Right? So if we think of that, if if if the popular population isn't an issue, then it's just a matter of do we value the clean lines versus the community name stuff. Right?

Kinda so I'd feel comfortable if you could kinda look at least what my interpretation is of what you were saying and just you guys have been, right, faced down in these numbers more than we have, and you can look at this neighbor and go, no. That's high density. That's not but if you looked at these and said, okay. It seems like it's about an even swap of numbers, then to me, it's just a matter of which one do we value more. A couple of deviations off of the road boundaries to get the communities the same or in the same districts?

Or, like, which one of those is more valuable? Clean lines at the same at the expense of the community cohesiveness or the community cohesiveness at the expense of a couple of the straight lines? Lyons Road, I agree, is valuable, but there's four districts. Two of them span left east and west Lyons Road, two out of four. The in pretty much all of these scenarios, two of the four districts span both sides of Lyons Road.

But so to me, I would take some comfort level if you if if if there was an an understood agreement of what you were proposing in terms of this, and then you guys took a look at it and just at this point, if you saw something that was a major red flag in it and said that's not worth exploring anymore, then I'd be comfortable saying, okay. Then let's not consider it.

I think we value the community than I do in the straight line.

This is definitely you're saying. We are happy to look at anything you guys want. Anything. That said That's what you do. I I'm I'm not comfortable sitting you up here and promising you that, oh, this is gonna work until we go back and actually

promise it'll work again. But but you might look at it and go, no. Absolutely you know, what you think is a thousand people is 4,000 people.

Right. I I won't know that up top. I don't have that type of photographic memory.

So because then I would

need to go back and look at the data.

Because I think if we can reduce it down to that, it just comes down to that binary choice of, you know, roads or neighborhoods.

Well, if we're happy with the the Bagnon agreement, where that is, then, really, it's exactly that. Right. Then it's just a swap. We get Those two neighborhoods between two and four. And if the population matches, it's not a straight line, but the population's max, we can use.

Can get that. You can present to us any map that you want as a board, not as an individual member. If the board votes to, hey, consultants, go and investigate this map, We will do that.

I don't know if you guys like that.

And David David seemed to do the that's off of number three.

Okay.

Alternative three, but there's no real way to describe the ability what the lines are doing there.

So, mister Bates, you used your your map idea was drawn onto three? Yes. Using three as your baseline?

Yeah. I'm using three as the base. Now, the only thing is I did not know the population or any of the numbers for Cyprus Trails. See, I got it right this time. But these are the numbers for Hammock estates, the hammocks, and the township that that Terrell gave me.

And just to be clear, they're just rough estimated numbers taken from census blocks, but I will admit for township estates, I think you have to go in and actually hand count them because that census block encompasses part of Centura Park. But

is that correct?

I was just responding to

a question. The census blocks do not religiously follow. Right.

They may not understand

that. We do have

both sides.

So when if we have to start using the scalpel to carve these blocks up such that they match neighborhood boundaries, then that's gonna require us to engage in what we call a disaggregation process. It is what Terrell is describing. You have to go ahead and start counting rooftops or units and figuring out how many is in each of the neighborhoods and then do a disaggregation proportionally.

So Don't you you

probably know somewhere about that, but in central what Craig drew out?

That's the that's the I should touch on 3 C, but

That's the township. Yeah. My That's Hammock Estates. This is the Hammocks. Yeah. It was there's a little section of township here that would stay, and this is that Cypress Trails community. I did not know the numbers. Based on the numbers that the estimates that that Terrell gave me, the swap was.

Okay. So we've we've got even though this says 3, it's really 3

C. Right.

Right? Because we've got Yeah. This piece up here, the Banyan Puna, Thomas, and District 3. So you want to swap this piece of the township with the hammocks here. It's a question mark.

What do you mean?

The question mark is the Cypress Trail. It's a little community.

You you want that in District 4. That be in

District 4. That would be in District In District 4. Because that is is

looks good as far as banging goes because banging point goes out on Wild Road.

And that puts it in 3. Right?

It it puts banging point in three and banging trails because the problem was in banging trails, you just carved out a street. I just took out one street.

So you're happy with three c as far as Banning Trails is concerned? Correct. Would the only change is the flip that you're speaking of. Right.

So I would say the motion is make a modification of three c. We're gonna call it three d, where we swap some residential communities between District 4 and District 3 to try to unify the township under a single district.

And the Hammocks call.

And the Hamlet's vote. Anyone

care to make that motion?

I'll make that motion. I'll rephrase it. As stated? As stated. I'll second.

Second for the motion. Do you need it repeated for clerk Gusher? So I have motion to change alternative three c to the new alternative three d to swap community residential districts for three to unify the township in the Hamlets under a single district. Some version of that or Yep. So you're trying to do that to restain it?

That was That was remarkably fair.

Yeah. Do we make a motion to get rid of any of these others? I'm gonna

make a motion to get rid of three b.

Just to recap, we'll make the first and second on that. Mr. Mitzi is

No. Lane, you made

the second.

So the second.

So that's the first. That's the second. All in favor?

Aye.

Yes. You. Mr. Kappa's next motion

to move.

Eliminate 3B.

Any other eliminations in the one motion? I

think you might want to eliminate three a at this point. Yeah.

Three a, three b.

I

make a motion to eliminate three a.

Oh, and three. I'm sorry. And three theoretically. So three a, three b, and

a, b. And a second? There's three. Second. Thank you, mister Mincey. You have You All have my in favor? Yes. Aye.

Thank you. Wait. I'm sorry. I don't know if that I'd like them voting on them as a group at one time. If we could just take them individually to make sure that everybody's in agreement with them, that's okay. Okay. I'm sorry. Then So let's start with three. There was a motion to eliminate Three a. Three okay. Three a.

I'm sorry. Three b was my first

Three b was made by miss Drabic. And we have a second by I'll

second.

Okay. Thank you. And all those in favor with eliminating three b?

Yes.

Aye. Opposed? Okay. That one's off the table. Now which one do you wanna take? Three. It's three. Oh, three can we can eliminate three. And who would like to make that motion? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. I'm just trying to break apart from those to eliminate three. Together before.

Yeah. No. I'll make a motion to eliminate three.

I'll second.

And that leaves us with one a and three c.

And then a modification. And all those in favor with eliminating alternative three? Aye. Yes. Any opposed? Okay. And there was discussion about eliminating three a. Again, I'm not suggesting it. I'm just trying to clean up what was put together. Is there still a desire to eliminate three a?

I have a motion.

I thought it. I already put it away. It's I already eliminated my mind. Yeah. Three a. I I make a motion to eliminate three a.

Anybody second that one?

I'll second. All

those in favor of eliminating three a? Yes. I. Yes. Any opposed?

So with that, we have already talked to the consultants about three c, and we have one a.

Sorry. We have

two alternatives. What? Three.

Yes. Two or three d.

We're gonna have three d too. Right. One a. We still have three c, and we're about to have three d.

Yeah. That's the new. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

And you don't mean, like, three d as in Yeah. Three-dimensional? Okay.

They're both like three d.

Okay. Thank you. We

can call it all turn to four if that makes things

Yeah. Easier. If that makes sense.

That I see that

I'm sorry. It has nothing

to do with our home. The

two point what did you say? How many homes? 2.39 persons per home. Is that statistic a national statistic?

No. That's for

the city.

That's for the city of Coconut Creek.

Based on the American Community Survey. So they look at What

year was that survey

done? It's

I think it's '20 '20 through '24. Right?

It's a four year window. It's the current number. After the census, they give a number, and they look at your housing mix, and they look at your total housing units, the population, and then they come up with an aggregate number. In your retirement communities, may fall below that number, it comes a little bit lower. But then when you have a single family community with bigger homes, you know, so it's the aggregate number for the entire community.

And then those aren't necessarily voting, people of age 14. That includes children.

We're dealing with residents. So when

we're districting, we're only looking at population

Population residents. Figured out

Main Street based on 2.39

Total population.

Total population per home, that might be a little bit optimistic with how many adults live in a home. Right?

This is why Believe

it or not

So is very important. Right? That's why we have that big old disclaimer About the outlet. We're calling it an outlet, not a population projection.

And by the way, if you look at the makeup of Main Street, you got a lot of townhomes going into Main Street. Townhomes tend to have a little bit higher occupancy than maybe an apartment. So believe it or not, as much as you think that number may not be, it actually may be pretty good or close to. Know, it might go up to 2.46. It might go down to 2.3, but it's gonna be still in that range.

Occupancy. Yeah. Well, the voters.

Not voters. Voters are not even in in the nomenclature.

Yeah. It has more to do with representation

than Right. No.

The the commission Yep. Whether you're two years old Residents can be voters, nonvoters. Mhmm. Okay. One year old, 100 years old. All the other characteristics don't matter as long as they're a president. Despite

what you're hearing in different types of politics right

now. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly.

Despite what you're hearing.

Yeah. Can I I don't know if I can go off script because we sort of combined Agenda Item four and went directly into Agenda Item five?

Five went to do with making the selection and narrowing it down.

We sort of segued right into it.

Discussion on possible vote on districts. So at this point, you've narrowed it down to two options with a third, which I think is now gonna be called alternative four. You can either discuss narrowing it down further at this juncture, or you can discuss a selection at this juncture, or you can wait until the next meeting. It's entirely up to you all as to how you would like to proceed. I was just conversing with clerk Kavanaugh about the possibility of if you're asking the consultant to possibly come back with another alternative map, there is possibility that we may not wrap up at the next meeting as originally planned and not to jump ahead, but we may either want to start looking at additional dates or we can decide that at the next meeting.

Because maybe after you look at that additional map, you can make the decision at the next meeting. That's entirely gonna be up to you all. I just wanted to throw that out there. It's still within the one hundred and twenty days, which is your charge under our charter for the requirements for redistricting.

Does three d equal four? Yes.

Okay. Yes. Sorry. Yes. We ended up deciding that there were too many threes on the table, so we just moved to the next number.

Yes.

Any would think the other way.

We could wait until the next meeting. If they come back with numbers and with a map, that'd fine acceptable. There's no reason why I can't see us going forward Right. Saying we'll recommend this to the commission or something else.

Are there any other procedures after we choose a map? Is there anything else that we're responsible for?

You ultimately just make a recommendation to the city commission, and then the city commission will consider it at their next available meeting. I can't think of anything else unless you can.

So just

from a procedural standpoint, has there been a situation where more than one map went to the commission?

Not that I can think of.

I My answer is no.

Thank you. It's not something we would recommend.

Right.

But has there been a situation or you've never had that happen?

No. I've done all

of this yesterday. The commission excuse me, the board has always made a decision. I did mention, I think, at the first meeting that I can remember one time when it wasn't unanimous. But as a board, it takes three votes to pass a motion. In that particular case, it was four one.

Thank you. And I was only here for the last redistricting in 2018, so I don't know prior to that.

Is there any language in the charter

that we're not aware of that

would No. Okay.

I'm just

you think two steps ahead.

Right.

Because the Commission obviously can see all this backup. Yes. I just want to give them, the Board, as much purview as whatever purview they have.

And I appreciate that. We try to give the Commission options, but certainly to the extent if the board especially can vote unanimously on something, I think that's overwhelming support for a particular alternative that would be helpful for the commission to see and ultimately to vote on.

Terrell, how is it presented to the commission?

I believe that it comes across as a report, and essentially, it's kind of a ratification of the decision. In the past, it's been like a ratification of the decision by the board. Ultimately, the commission has ratified whatever recommendation the boards have

put We don't read a presentation to the point of the commission.

You're welcome to attend, and I would I would highly recommend that you attend in case, you know, occasionally, the commission may have questions similar to, like, what Charter Review. But Don't call. Okay. That's all that's really required.

In the early in the early decades, you can see how old I am. Okay. The chair of the board would attend the meeting, maybe not to have a presentation, but to be in the audience in case there was any questions. Okay? And occasionally, I was the consultant solely in the early years.

I would be attending, or in this case, one of us could be attending if we thought it was appropriate. But if the committee if the Board makes a solid recommendation to the Commission, if you reach consensus, that usually is sufficient, okay, to carry the board excuse me, to carry the commission. And whether or not Alex attends the meeting is entirely up to It's a me.

That's up

to the politics of the board.

I do want to open it up to the public because we do have a member of the public here. If there's any comments.

I'm not the public. I'm the commission. Well, you're also public. Yeah.

We had a public attendee last meeting, so I'd be remiss if I didn't

open it up. Thank you. Well, I appreciate the work you're putting into this. I thank each and every one of you, but I also I think it looks good. I think you did a great job with the the lines, the numbers. On a personal level, I'm I would be more comfortable keeping community. I don't know. Am I allowed to say that, Terrell, out here? I don't wanna influence anybody. But as a commissioner, speaking to my residents, I'd rather keep my communities together.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So then we'll resolve to see the options next meeting.

When that time Do we

think we can close it out June 2? I

think we can.

I can't go in.

And it's okay. I mean, we can endeavor to close it out. And if you're unable to, we could always schedule a meeting at that time unless you want to schedule an additional meeting now just in case, and then we can cancel that meeting. It's entirely up to your pleasure.

I'm confident.

And we're keeping that meeting at 04:00. Correct?

That's what I believe we're so. Yes. That is the plan currently.

04:00.

This was just moved because there's a turnpike meeting that a lot of us

want to go.

On the second? 04:00?

June 2, 04:00. Yes.

Correct. June 2.

Okay. I'm confident. So that

And typically, is a report that transmits the board's decision to the commission. It's possible that report may not be finalized at that meeting, especially because you haven't made your decision yet. However, we could easily we can make it work if you make a decision at the next meeting. For example, with Charter Review Board, I remember we had to go type up a few things. We took a quick break and came back. I mean, we can we can make anything work to fit within your schedules and and meet whatever you desire to transmit to the commission as long as it's within the hundred and twenty eight date.

When would that commission meeting be?

Excellent question. So the deadline for the June 11 commission meeting is actually this Thursday, which is a little a little close. So most likely, it would go to the second meeting in June, which is, I

think, the twenty fifth. Alright. So

most likely, it would go then. Otherwise, their the commission is taking a break, and their next meeting won't be until August 13.

Am I good to move to adjournment officially? Officially? Yes? Yes. If there are no further comments, I'll take a motion and second to adjourn the meeting. Motion Second. Second.