LAKEPORT, Calif. – In an hour-long discussion on Tuesday afternoon, the Board of Supervisors finished the work of redrawing boundaries for their districts.
The process, required following last year's US Census, is meant to ensure that there is an equal number of residents in each district.
Last week, the board had argued about six options that were on the table, five of them created by a board-appointed advisory committee and one that Supervisor Rob Brown created based on input from people in his district.
However, on Tuesday, Brown said he was abandoning his option No. 6 and instead suggested changes to option No. 5, which had had more board support.
The result was option 5a, which can be viewed above or looked at in greater detail at http://gispublic.co.lake.ca.us/redistrict/.
According to a report from Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley – who chairs the redistricting advisory committee – submitted to the board in June, each supervisorial district's optimal population would be 12,933, based on the US Census.
That meant District 1 had to lose 326 people, and District 2 and District 5 had to lose 786 and 479, respectively, while District 3 had to gain 571 and District 4 had to add 1,020, according to Fridley's report.
She told the supervisors this week that the goal was to get each of the districts within nine people of that optimal number of 12,933 people.
Brown asked Board Chair Jim Comstock if he could speak first on Tuesday, and he proceeded to go over his suggestions with county GIS specialist and advisory committee member Lon Sharp, who created the maps of the new districts.
Rather than carving out Big Valley – where many residents had reportedly complained about leaving District 5 – Brown suggested moving the boundary so that District 4, represented by Supervisor Anthony Farrington, would pick up the Soda Bay and Riviera Heights areas.
Farrington, who was absent from last week's meeting when the matter was discussed, said he didn't understand some peoples' opposition to being added to his district.
Kelseyville residents Randy Ridgel and Mary Morse both explained to Farrington that they loved their community and wanted to be in the district where the majority of it was represented.
Ridgel said Kelseyville “has a certain ambiance I like,” and is country, while Lakeport is city.
He asked the board to be sensitive to those concerns while they considered the numbers.
Ridgel added that he wanted to retire from political campaigns, and said he anticipated that someone was going to knock on his door and ask him to help throw out the rascal “taking orders from Lakeport” if his area was wrapped into District 4.
Morse told the board, “It's not that we don't want to be a part of Lakeport, it's that we are so proud of our community.”
She said she has never met so many hard working, dedicated people as she has in Kelseyville. “It breaks my heart to think I might not be in that district.”
Kelseyville resident Paul Lauenroth, who sits on six boards of directors, had concerns about the possible impact on those other governing bodies, noting that his appointment came from the current district configuration.
At the end of the discussion, Fridley suggested that the board could schedule additional public hearings later in the month, but the board seemed satisfied that they had addressed the matter adequately.
“I don't know what more meetings would do,” said Brown.
Fridley said the county surveyor needs time to create the description for the new districts. That process has to be completed with the final ordinances accepted before the first day of November.
If that process isn't completed by that point, the assessor-recorder, district attorney, sheriff or the county superintendent of schools would redraw the lines for them, Fridley said.
“We don't want that,” several of the board members said at once.
The board then unanimously approved option 5a and directed the county surveyor to being the process of creating the new supervisorial district descriptions.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
