Proposed SRCD Precinct Map and Candidate Feedback

Recently Kevin Elvin; Rimfire HOA President and SRCD Steering Committee member, outlined a proposed breakdown of the three distinct residential voting precincts that the Board of Directors will be required to consider and adopt as part of the by-laws for the SRCD.  Kevin shared his proposal with each of the candidates, and has asked that the proposal and candidate feedback be shared with all district voters.

The map below outlines the precincts as proposed by Mr Elvin:

 

A breakdown of units in each of the proposed precincts can be found HERE

Candidate responses can be found in the comments below.  Please feel free to share your thoughts with the candidates on Mr Elvin’s proposal.

8 thoughts on “Proposed SRCD Precinct Map and Candidate Feedback

  1. Kevin

    I’m Mike Carpenter (South Westridge 91). I served on the steering committee and I am running for the board. I want to ensure that the petition language that we drafted is reflected in the bylaws, and to ensure that every homeowner gets fair access to the service fee funds. Getting the precinct voting districts defined correctly will be important to ensure that fair access.

    I reviewed your proposed boundaries and it appears to be well thought out. The precincts you defined in your draft are logical. E.g., Silver Creek interests will likely be different than the center village homeowners. E.g., North and South Westridge needs to be in one precinct since it is one HOA.

    Since the number of homeowners in each district is uneven, your draft may need some tweaking.

    However, I think the new board must seek opinions from all the HOAs and examine whether there are other geographic or like HOA groupings that are better/fairer.

    As far as redistricting the precincts, I don’t have a strong opinion, but possibly three years would make sense (avoid too often to avoid unnecessary work but short enough that the board membership will change as determined by the homeowners.

    Thank you

    Mike

  2. Hi Kevin,

    Thanks for taking the time to put together this proposed districting for the RAD. Your proposal seems reasonable. As a board member, if elected, I would look to solicit input from all stakeholders and weigh the pros and cons of all options put on the table. My position would be to have something that is balanced in terms of number of eligible voters per district, while also trying to group stakeholders based on their needs and concerns. For example, the needs and concerns of homeowners at Silver Creek may be different from homeowners in the main village. Your proposal appears to address these two objectives of balancing numbers of voters along with grouping by unique needs/concerns. Once the board gets elected and starts working on these issues, I would look to see if there are any other alternative districting possibilities. I would assess each option using the above criteria of trying to group people based on shared needs.

    As for how many years between review, I would suggest 5 years would be appropriate. Doing so more frequently would add unnecessary work to the board. From my perspective, I don’t think a real estate development project that is large enough to unbalance the districts is likely to happen in under 3-4 years (from permitting/design to getting sold out). It is important to review the district lines from time to time, but in my opinion, less than 5 years is unnecessary.

    Thanks for your efforts on this!

    David Billings
    Corduroy Inn | Tuques Bar and Grill | Appalachia Kitchen | AK Market
    Snowshoe, WV

  3. Kevin,

    Thanks for putting the time into this! Even though this isn’t exactly what I proposed in my questionnaire, you bring up some very valid points on why it should be divided like this. If we decided to divide buy population/location, than this might be the best proposal I’ve seen. I still think there needs to be discussion around grouping properties that have similar attributes. I’m guessing that the people in the North Mountain area and Silver Creek have very different opinions on what should be done with the RAD expenditures. I know this division is much harder to break up fairly and is why I’d like to hear from everyone regarding our options. I think these boundaries could be reviewed after 2 years initially and then every 4 years moving forward.

    -Chris

  4. Kevin,

    Thanks for the email. Your thoughtful and analytical review of this district proposal is appreciated and given your history, valuable as well. I do have a couple comments to offer to you. First, I like the lines you have drawn and the key consideration remains how to handle the South Mountain. Relying on the numbers given to you, then you would absolutely have to leave Westridge Road, both North and South, with the South Mountain as this is more about creating fair and equal districts as opposed to being concerned about exact geographic locations. In addition, I do believe that the districts should be reviewed every 4 years to start and my rationale on that is specifically tied to the staggered term limits for the first Board of 2, 3 or 4 years. If we pushed this review out to 5 years, which would be logical in the future, then the potential would exist for there to be no existing Board member who was part of the initial process and that would be a mistake in my mind. Finally, there would need to be a provision that allowed the Board to review the districts if there was a significant change in the residential development, so this could be reviewed immediately even before the 4 years expired. I see this potential existing between the new private investment projects just beginning at Sawmill and potentially further in the south working around the basin. I would say that a 10% change in the total number would trigger the immediate review of the districts by the board.

    Thanks again Kevin for your review and for sharing with this group. I think this is a great starting point for sure.

    Todd

  5. Sir
    First of all thank you for this icebreaker discussion topic.
    This is almost also my vision of the district lines as well .
    My only change is the west ridge loop.
    I feel that the NWR side to Cupp Run should be on the Northern zone ,and the SWR side to Shays Revenge should be on the Southern zone .
    Because that is the way it is physically .
    My opinion is that the by-laws should be written that the board can revisit this internal zone at any time , and not have a time clause included in the document.
    Thanks again for this discussion!!!

    SG
    Sam Gibson

  6. It is my opinion that in order to provide fair and equatable
    representation of all Snowshoe Community home owners within the District, each Board seat should be substantially equal in the number of owners represented. Neighborhoods tend to align themselves with geographical boundaries, and as such I believe each voting precinct should be based upon this neighborhood concept.

    As Mr. Elvin states, the optimum precinct size is currently 682. With
    some slight adjustment of the boundaries shown in his example, the
    board could achieve the goal of three such equally sized voting
    precincts.

    The creation of the initial precinct boundaries is not going to be an
    easy task. I would recommend that the Board create an ad hoc committee, where each HOA President is asked to provide a representative to develop boundaries for three precincts and criteria for future boundary changes. Broad guidelines, such as no HOA may be divided, precincts must be contiguous (no gerrymandering) and a reasonable deadline would be provided by the Board. Adoption of the committee’s recommendation and any subsequent redistricting, would require 6 of 7 Board member approval.

    Tracking of new owner/ voters will have to be done administratively in
    near real time, so as to add new owners in a timely fashion for representation and voting purposes.

    It is my recommendation that the bylaws contain language that would
    require the district boundaries be reviewed 180 days before any
    election and if there is more than a 3% variance from the optimum
    average, a correction is made at least 120 days before the election.

    Dave Dragan

  7. Kevin,
    First, let me thank you for taking the time and effort to put forward your proposal for the three voting precincts for consideration. I certainly appreciate the fact that you provided the logic that you used to come to your conclusion.
    As you probably anticipate, other stake holders will in all likelihood use different logic in determining how they would like for the three precincts to look. That does not mean that your logic is not correct, it just means that their logic is different.
    As pointed out in my candidate questionnaire, there are at least two ways to approach the designing of the three precincts. Since I pointed out two, I am sure that there are others. I believe that the elected Board should review the different ideas for establishing the three precincts and weigh the pros and cons of each. The number of eligible voters in each district must be reasonably equal, how we get there is the question. This question will be answered by the Board after much discussion and thoughtful consideration. The end goal should be that each precinct should be fair to the stake holders in the precinct. Fair – in that they feel that they have a voice in who is elected by their precinct to serve on the Board to represent the entire Snowshoe Community.
    I believe that the bylaws should state that the precincts should be reviewed to determine if redistricting is necessary periodically. The period, to be set by the Board, should be somewhere in the 3 to 5 year range. A slight shift in the demographics in the resort district should not necessarily trigger redistricting. The Board should provide for an interim review of the precincts should a valid reason for the review be presented to the Board.
    Thanks again for creating this discussion. Great start on the topic.
    Rick Vaughan

  8. ’m Mike Carpenter (South Westridge 91). I served on the steering committee and I am running for the board. I want to ensure that the petition language that we drafted is reflected in the bylaws, and to ensure that every homeowner gets fair access to the service fee funds. Getting the precinct voting districts defined correctly will be important to ensure that fair access.

    I reviewed your proposed boundaries and it appears to be well thought out. The precincts you defined in your draft are logical. E.g., Silver Creek interests will likely be different than the center village homeowners. E.g., North and South Westridge needs to be in one precinct since it is one HOA.

    Since the number of homeowners in each district is uneven, your draft may need some tweaking.

    However, I think the new board must seek opinions from all the HOAs and examine whether there are other geographic or like HOA groupings that are better/fairer.

    As far as redistricting the precincts, I don’t have a strong opinion, but possibly three years would make sense (avoid too often to avoid unnecessary work but short enough that the board membership will change as determined by the homeowners.

Comments are closed.